COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, December 1, 2003 1:20 p.m. - - - - BILLS 030645, 030670, 030709, 030721, 030730, 030740. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030740 PAGE TOM WITT, ESQ., Wolfson Verecchia Group.. MARK CAPLAN, ESQ., Wolfson Verecchia..... ALAN KESSLER, ESQ., Wolfson Verecchia... 17 6 JOE DESANTIS, McMahon Assoc............. 22 JENNIFER RICHARDS....................... 56 PATTY KOZLOWSKI, PRO PAC................ 61 THERESA COSTELLO, PRCG.................. 80 STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOHN TAYLOR........ 88 CHIP MARSHALL, Temple University Health System.............................. 95 JERRY COGLAN, Carpenters Union......... 108 HENRY NICHOLAS, Hospital Workers Union. 111 CAROLYN MURAWSKI....................... 115 KAREN SCANNELL......................... 117 DENNIS GUEST, Northeastern Hospital.... 121 ROBERT VIDRA........................... 124 MARY ANN TROMBETTA..................... 127 MARK HANKIN, Arsenal Association...... 129 PATRICK HURRAN, Legend Properties...... 134 LAURA LANZA............................ 137 ALBERT FREDERICO, Pennoni Associates... 148 THOMAS WITT............................ 262 BILL 030645 WENDELL YOUNG, IV, UFCW Local 1776..... 152 PAT EIDING, AFL-CIO.................... 167 IRWIN ARONSON, ESQ., UFCW Local 1776... 171 JOHN MCGRATH, Local 1823............... 179 MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQ.................. 183 STEVEN POLLACK, Bar Association........ 189 JASON TODD, Pa. Realtors Association... 192 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning ......... 201 BILL 030730 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning.......... 208 GREG SPEARMAN.......................... 212 ELDER PAMELA K. WILLIAMS............... 218 TRACY GORDON........................... 220 BILL 030670 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning.......... 222 RICHARD MULCAHEY, ESQ.................. 223 SISTER BARBARA ANN WINNELLS............ 225 3 I N D E X (con't) BILL 030709 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority 228 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning......... 229 MR. PECATRORE, CATCH, Inc.............. 230 KATHLEEN MURRAY........................ 231 BILL 030721 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority 232 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning......... 234 JOANNA KING............................ 234 JEREMY NEWBERG, Jefferson CDC.......... 239 JOSEPH GETKA........................... 240 DAMON GETKA............................ 243 MELVIN HAMPTON......................... 257 4 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, the Council Committee on Rules is now in session. Let me make one brief request. This room is not supposed to be used for Council Chambers. It is a temporary room since we've had the flood. Any extraneous conversation just blows us away; We can't hear anything. So if you need to talk, you've got to go out in the hallway. We will allow everybody to be heard. We'd like to conduct this in a very civil way. So, hopefully, everybody will abide by the rules and we'll get through this. We have a very long witness list, so we'd like to try to get moving on it. Thank you very much for your attendance today. The first Bill on the calendar is Bill No. 030740, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Allegheny Avenue, Collins Street, Westmoreland Street and Tulip Street. Representatives of the Planning 5 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Commission, please. Is Mr. Chapman here? We'd like the representatives of the proposed developer, whoever is going to testify. Mr. Kessler is on the list, and I see a number of people with him, so whoever is going to lead the testimony. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kenney. I'm Tom Witt of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen. We're counsel to the Wolfson Verecchia Group, which is the proposed developer of the proposed Wal-Mart store at this location. With me are my partner, Alan Kessler, of Wolf Block. Also our co-counsel, Mark Caplan is with us. Steve Wolfson of Wolfson Verecchia Group, and Joe DeSantis of McMahon Associates, who will address traffic and related issues. There are, among the various appeals for support of this project, two that we wanted to bring to your special attention. They're each in the form of a letter to 6 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Councilman DiCicco in October of this year, the 45th Ward Executive Committee; and earlier than that, in June of this year, from the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise. You will find other community support as the proceedings proceed. I would like to give you to Mr. Caplan, who will present the witnesses in the project.
My name is Mark Caplan, Caplan, Stewart. I'm co-counsel with Mr. Kessler and Mr. Witt for Wolfson Verecchia Group, Inc., the developer of the proposed project. I know you have a lot on your agenda today, and we would like to describe the existing conditions of the property, a brief outline of the proposal, a brief outline of the architectural plans which have been discussed, and then a brief discussion by Joe DeSantis, our traffic engineer from McMahon and Associates, discussing traffic access to the site, pedestrian access, and how delivery 7 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 trucks will get there. I have put on the board in front of you a plan prepared by Bowler Engineering, and that plan shows what is essentially a City block. It is a vacant former industrial facility. In fact, it's two former vacant industrial facilities; the G.B. Goldman Paper Company property and the Wild Dye House property. This property, which contains roughly 400,000 square feet of vacant space, covers an entire City block from Allegheny on the south to Westmoreland on the north, from Tulip on the east to the railroad tracks on the west. And when Mr. DeSantis gets up here, he'll take you through the details. I just wanted you to understand the relative size of the property. As has been testified in these Chambers before, there have been a number of other potential developers -- or maybe I should say redevelopers -- who have attempted to take this vacant property and to reuse it, to redevelop it and reuse it. And our information is that all of those, save Mr. 8 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Wolfson, have been unable to bring about a viable project. Maybe that's because of what is involved in the existing property. As I said, it's over 400,000 square feet. It's got to be demolished. It is contaminated with a series of substances. The interior has asbestos. There are some PCBs that need to be removed. There's more than one underground tank. There was a series of spills on this property, I believe in the '80s and in the '90s. And as part of our proposal to redevelop this property, we have proposed to the Department of Environmental Protection, a comprehensive remediation plan that would be a brown field solution to a property like this, and that plan has been approved by DEP. And we believe that that's been a significant impediment, that and the large cost of removing and getting rid of contaminated property. That's a brief overview of the existing conditions. I'd like to move on to the second part, and that's our proposal. As I said, we will completely demolish the existing 9 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 buildings. As depicted on the drawing in front of you, the tan area is a 139,000 square foot Wal-Mart general merchandise store. This store is not a super center. It is not intended to contain a large food operation that is the subject of other matters that you have before you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Caplan, I'm sorry for interrupting your testimony, but could you be a little bit more specific as to the latter part of your statement, the percentage of space that we agreed to through negotiations over the last several months?
Yes. You had a colloquy when the big box ordinance was before this Committee about two weeks ago. The limitation is 10 percent; therefore, you would have a maximum of food component in the entire building of approximately 13,900 square feet, which is what you normally see in a general merchandise store. And I believe that you have been given a letter from the developer or 10 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 from Mr. Witt regarding the details of the restriction that would be incorporated into the lease between Mr. Wolfson's entity and Wal-Mart to prohibit a super center here, in essence.
We have another bill in front of us today, Bill No. 030645, that would limit the amount of space in the big box, if you will, future stores that would come to Philadelphia. How does that compare to the bill that we're speaking of here regarding the Wal-Mart? If it falls within those guidelines, the Wal-Mart proposal for Allegheny Avenue would not exceed?
No, it would not exceed that. When I was last here and I listened to the testimony, there were some confusing items about what could be built and what couldn't be. Using the logical interpretation of that bill, we would only have 10 percent of the space in this building would be food.
So is it correct to say if the bill that you're testifying on concerning the -- whoever wants 11 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 to answer can answer this -- the bill that's being testified on for the proposed Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue if it were built, even if the other bill, 030645, were to pass, the Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue would be within compliance? It would not exceed that bill?
Tom Witt of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen. The other bill combines food, pharmaceuticals and toiletries and limits the combination of those three categories to 10 percent of any store. We would not meet that requirement. We will meet a requirement of no 15 more than 10 percent for food.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I get some specific language with respect to the restrictions? Is this in the lease restriction or is it a deed restriction for the site?
Well, we've got to work 12 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 that through with Councilman DiCicco. But at a minimum there will be a restriction on the Wal-Mart lease that will prohibit Wal-Mart from having more than percent. 6 We have also said that there will be 7 a recorded declaration of what you're broadly 8 calling a deed restriction. There will be a 9 document that will be recorded that will be in 10 the chain of title that will set forth that restriction.
Upon any termination of lease with Wal-Mart, any similar entity coming in operating a similar type of store, they would be restricted under the caveat of that original agreement?
It's just between Wal-Mart and Wolfson Verecchia. That's what's been requested of us, as far as I know, to this point, to really make sure that this is not a Wal-Mart super center, which seems to be the target of the other bill.
Thank you very much. 13 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it's okay, this is just a follow-up to Councilman Clarke's question. I thought the Councilman's question was regarding something that we generally refer to as this deed restriction, which I don't want to argue with you as a lawyer, but I thought generally when you had a deed restriction, it usually ran with the land, regardless of who the user was. I think that was the Councilman's question.
I understand that, Councilman Nutter. My understanding of the discussions to this point have been that there was an objection -- and we heard it here a couple weeks ago -- by Mr. Young and 1776 specifically aimed at Wal-Mart, and that's what we have concentrated on. And that restriction, which will be in their lease, will also be recorded. 14 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
The lease is going to be recorded, a memorandum of the lease will be recorded and the restriction will be recorded. They'll be recorded in the Department of Records just like any other deed restriction.
I just wanted to have it understood for the record where it was recorded and the significance of such a recording. Thank you.
To the right side of the plan that you're looking at is Allegheny Avenue. To the top, I believe it is Tulip Street, and to the bottom is the railroad. Behind that is Westmoreland Street. As you can see, the entire Goldman and Wild Dye House properties will be removed. We will have 652 parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, three pedestrian accesses that Mr. DeSantis will refer to, all of which will be in compliance with the zoning district that we're asking this property to be changed to. I'm sure you are aware that to the top of the drawing is Tulip Street, where 15 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Northeastern Hospital is located. This plan that you see is about the fourth version of the plan. When we originally started months ago, the truck loading dock, which is in the lower left-hand corner, was completely flipped. This was on the other side. We had truck loading there. We had access from Tulip Street. This configuration was objected to by the hospital in discussions that Mr. Wolfson had with representatives of the hospital. And the bottom line is that we have completely sealed off the Tulip Street side of our property from vehicular access or truck access to absolutely minimize any conflict with the hospital. There is, as you will see -- and maybe I'm stealing Joe's thunder -- but there are only three accesses to this property. On Allegheny, where there will be a new light that Mr. DeSantis will talk about; one on the lower rear where the truck loading and truck access is up against the railroad, and then a small access near Tulip and Westmoreland for traffic that wants to exit and use 16 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Westmoreland Street. I think it's fair to say that --
Would you give me again who the parties to the agreement are?
The parties to the agreement are Wolfson Verecchia Group, Inc., who will be the owner of the property, and the Wal-Mart stores or the Wal-Mart business trust that will be the long-term lessee of the property, Mr. Cohen.
I'm not asking what the intention is. I'm asking whether under the terms of the agreement -- as you know as a lawyer, two parties in agreement can always get together and change the agreement. I'm asking, is that possible here? 17 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Because we will put in whatever necessary language and make a third party a beneficiary of this restriction so that it can be enforced. We are not here trying to put a sham over on Council.
Well, that we don't know. We're weighting the evidence to see whether that's true or not. We're certainly not going to take it in good faith because that's not our job. Our job is to see that laws are passed and that the laws mean what they say.
Mr. Kessler may have other points of view with respect to that, but then we disagree with lots of things.
Councilman Cohen, this may be something we don't disagree with. This 18 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 is Alan Kessler of the Wolf, Block firm. Councilman Cohen, we negotiated this with Councilman DiCicco's office in good faith. I can assure you we will agree to whatever language is being requested. The percent 7 limitation is a good faith restriction and 8 limitation. If it's the will of this Body 9 that it be deed restriction, we will do what 10 we have to do to accomplish that.
We all have great confidence in Councilman DiCicco, but this is a 17-person Body. And a 17-person Body has to, as an organization, be of one mind on this issue, or at least the majority have to be. That's our responsibility.
Well, Councilman Cohen, as I said, the offer I just made wasn't to Councilman DiCicco. It was to the entire Council. We will negotiate -- not negotiate -- we'll agree --
Well, we'd like to have that negotiation take place here so we can see it. I've made mistakes in my lifetime. I'm sure Councilman DiCicco would 19 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 agree that on occasions he's made a mistake. And I think that would go for every member of this 17-member Body.
Councilman Cohen, we'll negotiate wherever this Body -- if it's in this room or if it's in a Councilman's office or a Councilwoman's office, we'll do those negotiations.
We would like to know what everything is that's being negotiated because the Councilman is now asking, as the district Councilman involved, he's asking for the approbation of the entire Body, and therefore each of us, each of the 16 members -- or 16 currently in office -- have a 17 responsibility. And we want to be able to answer to all the people in the City what that responsibility is and how it will be carried out.
Can I make one suggestion, respectfully? I would like to get through this panel's testimony and then we can start asking them questions. If we get 20 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 sidetracked with side questions, we'll never get through the list. So if I could ask for everyone's agreement, that we would allow this panel to finish and hold your questions until they're through.
Thank you, Mr. Kenney. At Councilman DiCicco's urging, Mr. Wolfson and his consultants, the architects from Tulsa, Oklahoma who are Wal-Mart's architects, a company called BSW, met with a number of civic organizations, business associations to discuss all of the aspects of this project. We talked about traffic. We talked about location of entrance. We talked about location of loading docks. We talked about how trucks will get to and from the distribution center. As a result of those meetings -- and Mr. Kessler will address this in a minute -- over many months we have made many changes to the plan. As I said, we flipped the loading dock. As I said, Wal-Mart architects from Tulsa, Oklahoma came to the community, went through the community, got a feel for the 21 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 architecture of the community. And in discussions with neighborhood groups, came up with a theme for all sides of the property, which is a basic brick theme because it was thought to be consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood. That drawing in front of you shows all sides of the property being clad with the brick material. Joe DeSantis is our traffic engineer. Joe is a member of the firm of McMahon and Associates, and as he will tell you in a minute, he grew up across the street from this property and he knows much more about the traffic than I do. And using the boards, Joe is going to tell you about access from a vehicle point of view, pedestrian point of view, and very important, how the trucks are going to get there. Joe, if you could come up.
You're going to have to take one of those microphones out if you're going to do it from there. Please identify yourself for the record. 22 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Good afternoon. My name is Joe DeSantis. I'm a principal at McMahon Associates. We are a traffic and transportation engineering firm based in Fort Washington. We have offices in three states and we've done traffic engineering work for numerous large retailers, as well as Wal-Mart, throughout the country.
Joe, I think you know enough about this property and the accesses and the neighborhood to explain how this is going to work, and I'm not going interrupt you, or I'm going to try not to.
What I'll do is, I'll take you through, again, as Mark said, three categories of access and circulation; vehicular access, pedestrian and then truck deliveries. Orienting the board again, we have Tulip Street on the east side; Allegheny Avenue along the southern side of the property. The parking field is in front of the building on the south side. There's three 23 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 curb cuts to the property; two on Westmoreland Street. One is primarily for truck access and the second is a rear access for vehicular traffic. The primary access, however, will be on Allegheny Avenue. We've designed it with two lanes coming out of the driveway, and a traffic signal will be located at that access point. We've coordinated the design of the traffic signal with the City's traffic engineering division, and that signal will be coordinated along with the rest of the signals that are currently on Allegheny Avenue, which are a part of the close system right now. The access originally located opposite Janney Street, which is one way towards the site, through discussions with the neighbors, there was some concern how that may draw traffic through the neighborhood. With that request, and working with the City's traffic group, we relocated the signal to Woody Street, which is actually one way away from the site. And Woody Street is a non-residential street. So it was felt that that was a better location for this site. It 24 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 also gave us better spacing between the traffic signals. So that's how the vehicular access will work. Pedestrian access, there's three pathways to the front of the store; along the railroad coming from the west, in the middle of the site from Allegheny, opposite Janney, and then walking along Tulip, there will be a connection through on Tulip Street. There's a bus stop on Allegheny Avenue at Janney Street. Westbound buses will stop at Janney Street and pedestrians can exit the bus and walk right up the pathway to the front of the store and then get back on the bus to continue westbound. Eastbound bus stop at Janney Street, the traffic signal at Woody will have pedestrian traffic signals as part of the design. So pedestrians can walk to the Woody Street signal, push the button and cross the street to access the site. Truck driving was a third concern of the residents. What we've done is coordinated with Wal-Mart's distribution center to identify how they would direct their trucks to 25 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 and from the site. Real quickly I'll run through it. We have two boards. One shows how truck traffic would come from the north and south, particularly on I-95. This board is oriented. It shows a large area of the Port Richmond area. 95 is to the bottom of the board. Aramingo Avenue is right here. And this is Allegheny, and here is the site. Truck traffic will be directed to exit I-95 coming from the north to the Aramingo interchange at Adams Avenue and travel south on Aramingo Avenue, turn right onto Westmoreland and come into the rear of the site. To travel back north, they will be required to come out onto Westmoreland, again turn left, travel Aramingo to the interchange and head north. Aramingo being a four-lane highway with left-turn lanes is a better route for the trucks. To and from the south, the trucks are directed to pass by the Allegheny interchange, continue up to the Adams Avenue, Aramingo Avenue interchange, travel back down 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Aramingo Avenue to the site. And then the reverse flow, travel back to Aramingo to the interchange and then travel south on I-95. So that's the truck route.
Are there any other fact witnesses as far as in your panel?
Yes. Mr. Kessler has been very much involved in a lot of the negotiations, and would like to address certain other concerns and events that have taken place.
Thank you, Mark. My name again is Alan Kessler of Wolf, Block, and I want to be brief. I just want to talk a little bit about two things. One, the process -- and obviously the substance is far more important than process -- but the process, and about the applicant here, the developer. I'm not talking about Wal-Mart. I'm talking about Wolfson Verecchia. Steve Wolfson, who is to my right, came to us over a year ago with this project. And the timetable was, not surprisingly, more than ambitious. 27 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 We had an early sit-down and made it clear that there were a number of steps that we had to undertake here, and at the end the day, that we had to make sure that we satisfy each and every segment that's involved in this process, to the extent we could. That started with the district Councilman involved, because through him the project is introduced. I think we met with Councilman DiCicco over a year ago in my office to introduce the project, to talk to him informally about what we would have to do here and what we were intended to do. We didn't ask Councilman DiCicco at that time for anything. We just asked him to please keep an open mind and to help us maneuver and navigate and made sure we were talking to all of the civic representatives in the area that we should be talking to, that we should be doing everything that we could to address the obvious issues of traffic and parking and safety. And we have had, at my count, somewhere between six or seven or eight meetings, some convened by Councilman DiCicco with area political and 28 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 community leaders. Some directly with community leaders. Some with the hospital. We have turned ourselves inside out during this process. And Mr. Wolfson has seen what he had hoped for, and that is a bill to be introduced sometime in March or April, turn into May, turn into July, turn into October, now fortunately, early December. Mr. Wolfson understands the nature of the area that he's come into. One of the things that I take great pride in trying to do with Mr. Wolfson, because this is his first developmental project like this in the City of Philadelphia, is to let him know some of the things that I hope the Council is interested in, some of the things I'm certainly interested in, and that is attempting to meet and address the community in which he is going to proceed in more ways than just his development. What I mean by that is contributions that Wolfson Verecchia needs to make to the community as a good corporate citizen. It has made a proposal, assuming this project goes, that that proposal is not 29 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 etched in stone. It's a very generous proposal to some of the area parishes. But the intent is a clear one, and that is to become a citizen of this area, not only in this business, but also, as I said, as a good corporate citizen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kessler, and thank all of the members of your panel. I want to go back to the question -- and I forget the gentleman who did a great job of doing the traffic patterns -- has there been any discussion on signage? We talked about the truck route. How will the truckers know? I know the Wal-Mart truckers may get a map, if you will, for deliveries from the main distribution center. Aside from that, were there any discussions with the Streets Department about signage that would restrict truck traffic on the streets that are mainly 30 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 concerning folks on Westmoreland and Allegheny Avenue?
At this point, there have not been direct conversations on that matter.
I think we're going to need to do something quickly with that as well. As for the investments that Mr. Kessler just spoke about with the parishes, to be more direct, as of today, the developer has agreed over a five-year period to make a contribution to three of the parishes, St. Adalbert's, Our Lady Help of Christians and the BVM, I believe it was. Right?
And that would be $5,000 a year to each parish over the next five years, which is right now a $75,000 community reinvestment.
And we still have not, as you said, put that in stone because there may be some additional 31 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 investments that we were looking at, within reason.
That's correct. And let me say, Councilman, that even though that is a contribution by the developer, Wolfson Verecchia, I would like the record to just reflect -- again, this is Alan Kessler -- that Wal-Mart has made over $170,000 of similar community contributions over the last few years with respect to three of its facilities.
We haven't even addressed the Wal-Mart contributions; is that correct? Is that what you're saying?
That's right. There was a $60,000 contribution last year made by Wal-Mart to the community around the Columbus Avenue store. I believe that there was a $40,000 contribution made to the community with regard, I believe, to the store on the Boulevard. And Franklin Mills -- maybe it was the Sam's Club at Franklin Mills and the Wal-Mart store at Franklin Mills made a similar $60,000 contribution. This is Wal-Mart's standard operating procedure. It 32 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 just doesn't get very much publicity.
Thank you. I have no further question for this panel at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, can I ask that the site plan be put up again? I had a couple questions with respect to that.
No. The actual site plan itself. If you can, can you just point out the proximity of the residential community, the hospital and any other commercial properties or residential properties?
Looking at the plan, the hospital is across Tulip Street in this area.
Directly across the 33 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 street.
Councilman Clarke, the hospital runs from Allegheny Avenue back to Westmoreland, so the entire east side of Tulip Street is hospital.
Okay. Are there any vehicular entrances on Tulip Street to the hospital?
Is there any entrances to the hospital on Tulip Street?
There are entrances on Tulip from the hospital, but none from the development?
Any residential property? Just give me a run down on all of the perimeter.
Starting on the 34 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Westmoreland side, this is all industrial warehousing. Some mixed residential in this area, but again manufacturing and industrial. This is the hospital through this block. The residential is actually mostly on Allegheny heading south and goes to about Janney Street. On the other side of Janney through to the railroad is warehousing and parking fields.
This is a railroad that kind of dissects the area. And the other side immediately is more industrial and the residential really picks up by Amber Street, which is a couple blocks away.
Right. Most of the residential is towards the southeast portion.
A portion of the south side of Allegheny Avenue. If you can show him from Tulip to -- approximately 40 percent -- I'll go as high as 50 percent of the south side of Allegheny Avenue is 35 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 residential. I think it's actually a little bit less, but 50 percent max.
Mr. Kessler, what brought about the contributions to the community?
What brought about the contributions made to the community?
Councilman Cohen, as Mr. Caplan and I both said, this is something that Wal-Mart and its developers do as a matter of course. It's just something they don't get a whole lot of publicity for.
Well, that could be one side. How did the community accept the proposal originally? Were the contributions given to the community in order to win its approval, or were they given in grateful 36 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 response to the acceptance by the community of the proposal?
Councilman, if you don't mind, maybe I can respond to that.
Well, I would rather you did not respond to that, Councilman. I'd rather have Mr. Kessler respond to it because he's responded in other ways.
I made the request of the developers, as I do with most major projects in my district. I have done that over the years. We just did a large community reinvestment with the Ikea folks, as you recall, about this time last year. Whenever a large developer proposes to build a facility in my district -- I assume it happens in the other districts as well -- part of my negotiations always deals with, if your project gets approval, will there been any consideration for community reinvestment. The parishes that I mentioned that would receive 37 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 the community reinvestment dollars, should this bill pass, was not at their request. In fact, the pastors did not even know about this until Wednesday or Friday of last week, that I announced to them that I had in writing a tentative agreement on the value of the community reinvestment dollars from the developer. We didn't even get into the discussion about Wal-Mart yet. So again, Mr. Kessler is really responding to a request that I made of him as the attorney who represents the developer and Wal-Mart to some degree.
Councilman, I don't wish to engage you in any questioning about your motivation. I know you too well, so I know about your motivation, and it's always a good one. But I am concerned Mr. Kessler who, in another matter before us involving the Philadelphia Housing Authority, sent the letter, a copy of which was circulated to every Member of Council, reminding the Councilmembers of his efforts to collect money on behalf of their reelection campaigns. That's what 38 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 concerns me. Because obviously Mr. Kessler, when he found a Committee that was not as amenable to him as he thought it ought to be, apparently decided to remind us that he helps us collect funds. And since my name is apparently not among his contributors, he reminded me -- and sent copies to every Member of the Council -- reminding me of the fact that he's collected money from my colleagues. Now, that may or may not be a good thing to do from the point of view of campaign finance, but certainly Mr. Kessler has defied the City Council. He has informed his clients that they're under no obligation to come and testify before City Council, yet he's here today in response to a Wal-Mart proposal. And so I am very concerned about how he looks at these contributions, and why in some events he offers them, in other events he doesn't. So that's the reason I'm raising it, Councilman. It has nothing to do with your request. It has to do with the intent of Mr. Kessler in making those available or recommending them to his client. 39 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
I appreciate that, sir. I don't think -- and I know you weren't directing your comments to me -- but I don't believe Mr. Kessler has made any political contributions to me. In fact, when I get back to my office I'm going to check to make sure, and then I'm going to ask why or why not.
Mr. Chairman, if I can. I have no idea what this has to do with this hearing, and I'm not going to get into it, quite frankly. But since there is a record, I'm just going to say I completely object to the characterization by Councilman Cohen to that letter. That letter will speak, or other letters will speak for themselves, as well as comments made by Mr. Cohen to certain third parties. But again, the last thing we want to see is this hearing get diverted by something that is completely irrelevant. I appreciate Councilman DiCicco explaining the nature of the community reinvestment that this developer has agreed to. 40 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
If I may, I'd like to cut this off, but I have a response that I think will be of interest to Councilman Cohen. There are over a thousand signatures of support. We didn't include in our presentation, our witnesses, the people who have spent a great deal of time with my client who are here. They will be able to express their own rationale for why they support this project.
Well, I'm very concerned because I don't know what you know perhaps, or maybe I know more than you know. I don't know. But I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have read into the record a paragraph of a letter Mr. Kessler sent to me as Chairman of the Law and Government Committee, which he circulated to all Members of City Council, with respect to his idea of his political contributions and what the Committee ought to be doing.
Councilman, I certainly can't stop any Member from speaking, 41 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 nor would I try to. I just don't know whether or not that's particularly relevant. This would be my opinion that that particular paragraph probably isn't relative to the issue we're discussing, but if you insist. I've known you long enough to know that I'm not going to stop you even if I tackle you in the hallway. That's just my opinion, that I don't think it's germane, but that's your decision to make.
Well, I would like to ask Mr. Jason Mayland to read in a paragraph from the letter sent to me by Mr. Kessler earlier this year.
If you want to read it, you can read it. Can you read it yourself.
I would like to ask Mr. Mayland of my staff to read that one paragraph.
Councilman Kenney, can I just interrupt and ask, if that's going to be the case, that entire letter be made part of the record. 42 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Again, I'm sorry that this issue is becoming the focal point of this hearing.
Well, I think, though, in fairness to Mr. Kessler, maybe the whole letter ought to be read, and not just excerpts from it.
I have no 12 objection to it, but I am requesting that that particular paragraph which relates to the subject under discussion be read into the record.
Would you consent to having your staff member reading the entire letter.
Yes. I have no 20 objection to it at all. It's much longer.
Please identify yourself for the record. Take a seat right here and use that microphone.
My name is Jason Mayland, M-A-Y-L-A-N-D. I'm Councilman 43 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Cohen's legislative assistant. This letter is on Wolf, Block letterhead, dated April 18th, 2003, via hand delivery to the Honorable Councilman David Cohen, City of Philadelphia, City Hall, Room 7 588, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Copies were circulated to all Members of Council and to Carl Greene, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Regarding City Council's subpoena issued to Carl Greene, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. "Dear Councilman Cohen, I am writing to you as legal counsel to the Philadelphia Housing Authority, PHA, concerning City Council Resolution Nos. 030117 and 030227, the public hearing notice for the hearing scheduled for April 22nd, 2003 and the subpoena seeking to compel Carl Greene, PHA's executive director, to testify at that hearing. "After reading the resolutions, the notice, the subpoena and most recently the media account of these matters in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I am compelled to 44 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 respond, both as counsel to PHA and on a personal level. It is regrettable that these issues have advanced to the point that any Member of City Council believes a subpoena to compel testimony is necessary. PHA already has voluntarily provided to City Council, without waiving its objections or any of its rights, all of the documents you requested concerning PHA's labor contracts. On more than one occasion, we have asked you to identify the information you seek from Mr. Greene so that we would be able to consider whether PHA could produce the information, without jeopardizing PHA's interest in the current labor negotiations. We have received no response to our request. "Moreover, Mr. Greene has scheduled a meeting with you and Councilwoman Blackwell on April 21st to discuss this matter. We remain hopeful that the meeting will adequately address your concerns and alleviate your desires to have Mr. Greene provide any testimony at a public hearing about matters 45 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 that are the subject of PHA's labor negotiations. You should be aware that as PHA's counsel, I have recommended to Mr. Greene that he not testify at the hearing scheduled for April 22nd, 2003. If Mr. Greene were to testify at the hearing, he would be in a position where he might be asked to divulge sensitive and confidential information about PHA's labor negotiations, including potentially privileged legal issues. This hearing threatens to intrude upon PHA's deliberative process and may jeopardize PHA's legal and financial interests. "PHA must be permitted to negotiate with its labor unions according to the rules established and enforced by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. As an authority created under the laws of the Commonwealth, PHA must respect the oversight structure created by the Pennsylvania legislature, which provides local control over PHA through five appointed commissioners, and which does not provide an oversight role to City Council. 46 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 "Moreover, as you know, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is now considering issues regarding the status of PHA as a Commonwealth agency. It would be unfortunate and a mistake for you or any of your colleagues to interpret a decision by Mr. Greene not to testify about PHA's labor negotiations in response to a subpoena as a reflection of a lack of respect for City Council and its Members. Nothing could be further from the truth. "On a personal level, I must say that, like you, I have spent many years in public service working for the betterment of Philadelphia and its institutions. I have served as a Chair of the Board of Building Standards and the Board of Licenses and Inspection Review and as a member of the City Planning Commission, and currently as a member of the Board of Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
I also have many years of service to our party, including as the finance vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and with my recent appointment by 47 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Governor Rendell, as the state finance chair of the party. I have always responded generously to the requests of many of your colleagues for various forms of support, political, financial and otherwise. "I would certainly hope that you and your fellow members of City Council would not call into question my own deep respect for City Council, or my motives for advising Mr. Greene that he should decline to appear and to testify concerning PHA's labor negotiations. As for Mr. Green's motives, I personally represent to you that they are based firmly upon protecting the interests of PHA as an independent entity. "Finally, on a related matter, I wish to address how we might work together to improve the quality of public disclosure about these issues. In a recent Inquirer article, Councilman Ortiz is quoted as having referred to Mr. Greene as a transient, presumably because he is not Philadelphia born. Knowing Councilman Ortiz as I do, I truly believe that he did not intend to inflame the current debate. 48 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 "I have a close professional and personal relationship with Carl Greene. I consider him to be a true public servant, in the best sense of that term. You may recall that Mr. Greene arrived in Philadelphia five years ago at the urging of then Mayor Rendell to run PHA. During the past five years, Mr. Greene has developed strong roots in Philadelphia. Moreover, he has made enormous contributions to the revitalization of Philadelphia's neighborhoods and improvements in the quantity and quality of low income housing. He is not unlike tens of thousands of others who have moved to Philadelphia, including new immigrants and other public servants, who have made enormous contributions to the fabric of our City. "Indeed, the issues we are now addressing have nothing to do with the length of Mr. Green's tenure at PHA. PHA executive directors, like City Council Members, do not serve indefinitely, but the institutions themselves, PHA and City Council, are permanent. Both will continue to function and 49 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 pursue their interests for the betterment of Philadelphia, regardless of current leadership or membership. "Carl Greene and I are committed to working with you to ensure that City Council is provided adequate information, while at the same time preserving PHA's legal and financial interests in the ongoing labor negotiations. To that end, we look forward to our meeting on Monday. "Respectfully, Alan C. "
Mr. Kessler, did you make any efforts to make any contributions to the Mayor during the recent campaign?
Mr. Kenney, I may be out of order, but I'm only here on the behalf of the developer.
Could I just 50 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 have a moment?
Well, I'd like to know if you reminded the Mayor of your contributions?
I just wondered, Mr. Kessler, whether you had reminded the Mayor that you had been a frequent contributor of his in connection with this program.
Not at all? Did you make any contributions to the Mayor's recent election campaign.
I'm not Mr. Kessler's counsel, but I am his co-counsel, and I would suggest that we not answer this and that we 51 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 move on. We have a lot of people here.
I understand. I understand the problem, but you have to understand my situation. I have a Member of this Committee who is not going to back off. We've had a conversation, a private conversation -- (Applause.)
We have to get through the testimony. Everybody who has come here, who has sat here, who stood in the hallway has a right to be heard. I don't want to have to drag this out until 9:00 tonight to have people missing dinner and missing picking up their kids and everything else. We can dance around this all day. But we still need to get through the testimony. You have a right to refuse to answer the question. I made a request. I can't stop it. I don't know what else to say.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to refuse to answer. But one question leads to another question, which leads to another question. I'm not a principal in this 52 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 matter. If I say yes, I'll answer that question, there will be another question. If I answer that question, there will be another question. Then we are diverted from what we're here for.
I totally empathize with you, but I cannot physically shut it down. I agree with you, but I don't know how to physically stop someone from asking questions as a Member of this Committee. I would rather move on myself, but that's not the direction we're going in. So you can use your judgment as attorneys to answer or not answer as you see fit.
Mr. Chairman, I will answer one more question, and then I'll refuse to answer any other questions.
I will not tolerate that witness deciding how many questions he will answer or not. You are here before the Committee. The Committee asks the question and you answer. You are not in a position to decide how many 53 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 questions you're going to answer.
The answer to that question is, yes, I contributed to Mayor Street.
All right. Mr. Chairman, out of respect to you and other members of the Committee and to the people that are here, I will withhold any further questions at this point.
Thank you very much. Councilman Clarke, your finger is on the button.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor the point, and I think that people here in this room need to understand that developers contribute to numerous Members of Council, not just simply the Mayor and other elected officials. And the tone of the questioning suggests somehow that the Mayor is the only one who receives campaign contributions from this developer or any other developer that has come before us in the recent weeks since the election. I want to, for the 54 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 record, indicate that it is the practice of not only developers, but lawyers and other entities contributing to not just the Mayor, but to all members, all elected officials, both state and local and on the federal level. So I just wanted to say that for the record.
Thank you very much, Councilman, for that. We appreciate it. Are there any more questions for this beleaguered panel.
It's not what we expected, but thank you. We're done our factual presentation, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you guys -- you're going to be here, I'm sure, for the rest of the hearing -- could hammer out something concerning the deed restriction, lease restriction, what have you, that would be helpful. I'd like to have that before the end of this hearing today. And I'd like to share that with my colleagues on this 55 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 panel.
Thank you very much. I'd like to bring up witnesses in twos and threes if possible. The next people on my list are Jenn Richards and Patty from Pro Pac. If they're in the room, could you please come forward. Next will be Mr. Coglan.
Just identify yourself. Just as a word of advice, if possible, I don't require you to say anything or not say anything. But as the three of you are panelized -- I assume the three of you are on the same side of this issue?
No, you're not. Okay. Well, those that are on the same side of the issue, if you can refrain from repeating from what the other person just said, but add something new, it will make the hearing more interesting and save us some time. So you're not restricted. You can 56 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 speak as long as you like. Someone who wants to start first, please identify yourself for the record.
I have to pick my kid up, so I want to go first. My name is Jennifer Richards. I live on the 3200 block of Memphis Street. First, I'd like to thank everyone that attended, regardless of their stand on the proposal that has been brought to you today. As you can tell from the turn out, we have many residents that care about our Port Richmond community, and this just shows the pride we have for where we live. I live one block from the proposed building of the Wal-Mart by Wolfson Verecchia Group at the now abandoned Goldman Paper Company. The paper company has been abandoned for the last several years. In the last three years, there has considerable decline on that property and in the immediate area in which I and others live. Not only has Goldman Paper been an eye sore, but the surrounding houses in the neighborhood have had many problems, such 57 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 as rodent and insect infestation. Homeless people living around the property and set numerous fires just to keep warm. And one gentleman actually set himself on fire the other day. I myself have gone out and collected over a thousand signatures from the immediate neighborhood. I stopped at Aramingo Avenue. I went from Frankford Avenue to the east side of Aramingo. I've heard negative comments directed by the opposition, and I would like to make these statements. One of only the few complaints that I have heard is about truck traffic. The opposition states there is already too much truck traffic in Port Richmond. Goldman Paper used to have 10 trucks and two trains a day going in and out of that property, whereas Wal-Mart has already stated at a public meeting in the Port Richmond community that there would be no more than four trucks a day going there during their busiest season. That doesn't include FedEx, UPS, stuff like that, and an average of two truck a day on their normal times. 58 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Another complaint is traffic congestion. The opposition states that Port Richmond is already too congested on Allegheny and Aramingo Avenue, which I say to you, return the avenue to the four-lane arterial highway it was just three months ago, and that problem would alleviate almost immediately. I've heard complaints from Temple and Northeastern Hospital that there should not be a Wal-Mart across the street from the hospital, which is funny for me to hear since Wal-Mart has worked with the hospital and rearranging the plan so the hospital will benefit by designating some of their area for the hospital and staff parking. I think this is more than generous, since the hospital owns two unfinished parking lots. I think the hospital ought not throw parking stones where other parking lots may be built. I know there is one positive to the proposal: 300 additional jobs in my community. What are the negatives to that? None. I think it makes Port Richmond a better place to live and welcome any company to this community that 59 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 can give me that. I would like to say in closing that this nuisance problem with Goldman Paper should be torn out immediately and a responsible owner build on that site. Wolfson Verecchia Group has kept in constant contact with the neighborhood, and they know our concerns. They know what we as a community need, what we as a community want, and we know what we want as a community to expect from them. And I personally will make sure that what is promised by them will be kept to the community that I have lived in for all my life. I ask you to vote yes on the zoning issues that are brought before you today. I'd like to thank you for hearing me as the representative of the 1,000 signatures for a better, richer Port Richmond community. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 60 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 And thank you, Mrs. Richards. Thank you for all the work you've done, as I will thank everyone else, even the opposition.
Can I say one thing, though? I got a letter from my church way before I knew you were giving anybody any money. I got one from Sister Mary Ripp (ph) from Our Lady of Help months ago.
By the way, I'm not giving anyone any money, personally anyway. I've negotiated some community reinvestment dollars. Where do you live in proximity to the proposed site.
It's Tulip Street, the hospital, Memphis Street. I'm a block and a half.
So you're about a block, block and a half east of the Tulip Street side of the proposed Wal-Mart. So you're a neighbor, a close neighbor.
Thank you very 61 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Patty Kozlowski, K-O-Z-L-O-W-S-K-I. I'm the director of the Port Richmond on Patrol and Business Association. I want to explain to you how the Port Richmond on Patrol and Business Association -- it's shortened to PRO PAC -- and the Port Richmond Community Group, we're two civic associations in Port Richmond, how we came to the conclusion that the Port Richmond community does not want this Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. In late February of 2003 a community meeting was called at the Nativity BVM parish, approximately five blocks east of the Tulip and Allegheny site, to update the Port Richmond community on a proposed Wal-Mart coming to the Goldman Paper site. At this meeting, over 300 people attended and were presented a very short presentation from Steven Wolfson of the Wolfson Verecchia Group that would be developing the site. John 62 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Myerson, a Union 1776 representative also spoke about the negative effect a Wal-Mart would have on the community. Also, John McGrath of Union Local 1823, the building trades, spoke in support of the Wal-Mart, saying it would give his union members the work to build the store. State Representative John Taylor attended this meeting, as did City Councilman Frank DiCicco. After the guest speakers, we opened the floor to residents' questions and concerns, and the two major topics were, one, traffic congestion and, two, the site being so close to our community hospital, Northeastern Hospital. At this time we asked the audience to give us a feel of how they felt about Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. Half the room wanted it and half the room did not. We have 300 people in this church hall. We asked for a show of hands, who wants Wal-Mart, who doesn't. Literally, half the room raised for yes, half the room raised for no. 24 On a personal note, Port Richmond is a neighborhood where if you're born and raised 63 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 there, like myself, if you don't know everyone's name, you at least know their faces. And I looked out to those 300 people in Nativity Hall, and I did not know their faces. Checking the sign-in sheet, we found out why. There were union members from both sides that attended the meeting. They did not live in Port Richmond, but they have the audacity to raise their hands and try to pad a community decision for their own good. Guys were signing their names and writing their addresses from South Philly, Marlton, New Jersey and Villanova, PA. One guy actually tried to sign in as a resident of Port Richmond by writing that he lived on Allegheny Street. Not only is Allegheny Avenue not a street, but an avenue. But buddy, you don't spell Allegheny with three I's. So needless to say, this meeting was not an honest make-up of Port Richmond residents, and we could not get an honest read of what the community really wanted. Together, PRO PAC and PRCG got together and we published an article in the community newspaper, the Port Richmond Star, 64 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 outlining both the pros and cons of having a Wal-Mart built at Tulip and Allegheny Avenues. I'd like to submit the article to the board. This article was published on March 26th, 2003. At the end of the article, we asked residents of Port Richmond to fill out a survey and tell us if they wanted Wal-Mart to build at Tulip and Allegheny Avenue. This survey was published on the front page of the Port Richmond Star, and we gave the community three weeks to get it back to us. This edition of the newspaper reached 12,000 door steps and over 50 bulk drop locations throughout the Port Richmond area. We also accepted photocopies of the survey from residents. The reason we chose this medium to find out what Port Richmond wanted is because we felt we could not validate a door-to-door petition. We could not verify if someone was signing more than once or if they even lived in the area.
Once you read the article and the survey, you'll see that we asked for a name, address and phone number of the resident, and then we took a random sampling of surveys to 65 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 verify. At the end of this three-week period, a group of PRO PAC and PRCG members counted and recounted the surveys. In the end, the number was 171 Port Richmond residents wanted Wal-Mart and 548 Port Richmond residents did not want Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny Avenue. We published the results in the community newspaper and forwarded the information to all interested parties. To the two civic groups of Port Richmond, our community had spoken, and they had said no to Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. This survey procedure was full of dirty tricks. But from both sides. We asked the survey to be mailed in to where we meet at, which is the Samuel Recreation Center. There was a locked ballot box there, a locked survey box that the rec leaders didn't have a key to or anything. On the day the survey was due, April 9th, someone showed up and said they were my lawyer and wanted to pick up the surveys. I don't have a lawyer. I'm years old. I 25 still live with my mom and dad. I don't have a 66 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 lawyer. Before I conclude my testimony, I want to give you a brief look at our community of Port Richmond. We are not anti-Wal-Mart or anti-development. We just don't feel that a seven-acre commercial development with a big box retail store is the best idea for that Allegheny Avenue location. An avenue that has three of our churches and our schools, a playground, a rec center, our beloved Campbell Square, where the community holds Halloween parties, Christmas tree lightings and summer evening concerts. An avenue that has over 50 medical offices where the patients still walk to their appointments. An avenue where when one of the five funeral homes has a viewing, we don't use a hearse. Instead, the pall bearers simply lead the procession across Allegheny Avenue into one of our churches. You don't see that anymore, but it's still in Port Richmond. This is a place where every June the graduating nurses from the Northeastern Hospital School of Nursing don their black and red cap and gowns and participate in the traditional strut east 67 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 on Allegheny into the Nativity BVM to graduate and become RNs. This is the place where the biggest event in early May isn't election day, but it's the day when our parishes have their May processions, and hundreds of school children dressed in white dresses and suits walk along Allegheny Avenue to crown the Blessed Mother. m. And finally, this is the place where after the strut on Broad Street on New Year's Day, our own Polish American string band comes home and serenades Port Richmond on Allegheny Avenue. They start right at Tulip and Allegheny and serenade for the sick patients at Northeast Hospital, and then they serenade the crowds of thousands in front of every church to wish them a happy and healthy new year. And you want to put a Wal-Mart in the middle of this. Even a guy that spells Allegheny with three I's knows that this doesn't fit. Thank you. ) 68 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Patty for your testimony and all of the work that you've put into this issue. The random sampling that you refer to, the random sampling as a result of the polling, how many households did you sample?
I'm going to say about 250 to 270 people we called out of the 700. That was because we had some votes that we thought were fraudulent or void and we found some that we had to take out.
Did you also ask when you did the random sampling of those individuals whether they supported or not; was that part of your testimony.
What we did is, the random sampling, we would get a name and it would say, Patty Kozlowski, 3619 Thompson Street, with the phone number. We would call 69 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 and ask for that person, identify ourselves, ask what they wrote on the survey, and that's how we verified it.
Of the group that you surveyed, did you have any folks that did not live -- were there any false --
I have all the surveys here. Maybe about 30 of the votes were fraudulent or they did not live in the Port Richmond area.
So 15 percent approximately of the 200 that you called were not accurate.
The numbers I gave you, 171 for and 548 against, everything was valid with them. I also have votes that we called that they either lived in Fishtown or 70 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Bridesburg or Jersey.
That's what I was trying to get at. How many of that 700 or 800 fell into that category?
All right. I needed to know that. Thank you. You are familiar with the Goldman Printing, and Ms. Richards testified before you about the truck traffic; is that an accurate statement.
Was it accurate what she referred to as the amount of truck traffic that Goldman Printing Company would produce on a daily basis.
I can't answer that. I don't know. I don't live in the close proximity that Ms. Richards does. 71 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
But you're familiar with when the printing company was up and running.
I know. But they only closed three years ago after a desperate attempt on my behalf and others to try to keep them there. We worked with the Commerce Department, and we also worked with PRIDE, the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise Zone, to try to keep them there. But despite our best efforts and a guarantee of tax credits and tax abatements from the City, it was just not feasible for a number of reasons, but primarily because the building is in such dire need of repairs that the cost renovating or retrofitting that building were astronomical, which left the owners of that company -- they had to get out. There was just no way they could stay. So now we have a vacant building there. I was at that meeting, by the way, 72 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 BVM, I think. I even asked a question -- or you asked it -- I was standing next to you -- how many people actually live here. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, we probably had about 50 to 75 out of that 500, 600 that actually lived in the Port Richmond community.
That is correct. And that is why we felt we were forced to do the survey because we felt any big community meeting that we did like that, we would have unions from both sides trying to pad the vote.
A little bit further west over the last few years there have been some other big boxes, if you will. I think it's a Walgreen's up near Frankford Avenue.
I think there may have been some opposition to those for a whole host of reasons at that time. It's not 73 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 your neighborhood, but it's not far away. Have you noticed any negative impact from those developments?
Well, it's Allegheny Avenue they're using, right? Any additional traffic that would interfere with some of the events that take place.
No. I'm not familiar with any additional traffic from the Walgreen's.
And that is about how many blocks from the proposed Wal-Mart site roughly.
No more than 10 blocks. So in that general vicinity, from I-95 to Kensington Avenue, there are other big boxes, if you will. 74 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
I wouldn't describe Walgreen's as a big box because it's a pharmacy. I think a big box is something like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart just said they're going to put 652 parking spaces in there. Walgreen's has maybe, what, to parking spaces. 8
I'm not 9 familiar with the number of spots. I've been 10 there a few times doing some political things, 11 not necessarily to shop. But I think at the 12 time -- and it wasn't from the Port Richmond 13 community -- where other neighbors in that 14 area were concerned about traffic and noise 15 and maintenance. It may not be a big box. 16 It's a small, big box, if there is any such 17 thing as a small, big box. And I heard 18 someone say, it's Kensington, but it's really 19 not that far from the Northeast Hospital and 20 this proposed site. When that survey was taken, was there any information in there that was not available at the time of the survey or the time of the meeting that we both spoke about, that you spoke about at BVM, areas where the 75 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 ingress and egress has been changed, the facade of the building, the truck zones or the routes that the trucks will not be taking, was that included, any of that information included in the survey? And I'm not being critical, but I think it's important that a lot of things from that meeting, which I agree was not really an appropriate meeting because most of the people who were there did not live, not only in the community, they didn't even live in the City, was not an accurate description or a way in which we can at least talk through some of those issues that were on everyone's mind.
What the article did was, it listed the pros and the cons of what was brought up at that meeting. It was the feedback we got from the community residents at that meeting we addressed. And we played devil's advocate with one another. We wrote the cons and then the pros and then asked them with that information --
Traffic, I assume, was one. What else would be a con. 76 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Here's the cons. There will be a huge increase in traffic on the already busy Allegheny Avenue. With three schools, churches and our hospital, this is an accident waiting to happen. There will be another influx of people traveling into the area. There will be more retail theft and fear of robberies and muggings that now plague the Aramingo Avenue strip. For the City Council Members that are not familiar with Port Richmond, Aramingo Avenue from Allegheny Avenue up to Wheatsheaf Lane is nothing but commercial strips, and we've had a series of robberies and muggings that plague that because we have shopping malls, a Blockbuster Video, a Bally's Gym, an IHOP. We have an Acme, a Pathmark, a Shop Rite. It's nothing but commercial, so of course the crime is higher there. 77 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Wal-Mart will have a negative effect on the small mom and pop stores that make our community unique. Will you still shop at several stores on your corner if you can just get it at Wal-Mart? A Wal-Mart next to a hospital isn't a good thing. With the traffic jams, will shopping traffic slow the ambulance? Tulip and Westmoreland Streets cannot hold this volume of traffic. The street widths are not big enough for a retail store to receive tractor trailer shipments and constant customer car traffic. Does the Wal-Mart need to be at a site so close to residential properties and such a congested area? What about a site on Castor Avenue or Wheatsheaf Lane or further north on Aramingo Avenue? No matter where the Wal-Mart chooses to build, the building trade unions of Philadelphia will get the work, and even then it will only be six months of work. According to Union 1776, which represents the food and commercial workers in the City, Wal-Mart 78 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 workers make an average of $3.00 per hour. That was something union. Now, the pros, the good things about Wal-Mart. The Goldman Paper Company parcel of land will no longer be a vacant eye sore for this community. As it stands now, it's subject to graffiti, squatters, prostitutes, drug dealers and arsonists. Wal-Mart likes to hire senior citizens because of their strong work ethic and customer service values. Wal-Mart has established and proven itself as a company that gives back to the community. The proposed Wal-Mart will not be a super center, meaning it will not sell fresh food items, such as produce, deli, dairy, seafood. Having a national retailer build in community does not make people move away. In fact, it keeps the current population and brings in new residents and forms a stronger tax base. Having the Wal-Mart next to the 79 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 hospital will actually add convenience for both patients and family members who need last minute supplies and personal items. The building trades union of Philadelphia who supports the building of this Wal-Mart, because its carpenters, electricians, et cetera, will receive the contracts to construct this facility. So that was just a rundown. That wasn't all the pros and cons, but those was the major points.
So I think we gave them a fair share of yes and no and asked them to decide and tell us what they wanted.
Could you just wait one second? I want to get this one witness in and then I'll come back to you for questions.
Thank you. Could you identify yourself for the record.
Hi. My name is 80 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Theresa Costello. I'm with the Port Richmond Community Group. We are a group of volunteers who have monthly meetings for the last three years for residents to address quality of life issues and requests for City service. I'm here to represent many neighborhood groups who could not be here today. I have letters of opposition from the Port Richmond Business Association, Nativity BVM Church Seniors, Port Richmond Senior Center, Mother of Divine Grace Seniors; Joseph Pizulski (ph), Fraternal Association; Father Kelly, of Our Lady Help of Christians Church; Barbara McCabe (ph) of Friends of Campbell's Square; and Jerry Ratchford (ph), who is a school crossing guard at Aramingo and Clearfield Street. There are just a few points that I would like to make. We have opposition from each neighborhood group in the area. None of these groups have ever been approached by Councilman DiCicco or by the developer or by Wolf, Block. We've never been involved in any sort of negotiations. We had one meeting and that was it. 81 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Mr. Chairman. Did I hear you say that I never contacted any of those groups.
Were you at the subsequent meeting that Pat had at the recreation center.
I was there. 82 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Do you know that the first meeting I had with the developer and the attorneys who represent this project was back in November of 2002, and that we've had many discussions and there have been petitions, there have been articles in the newspaper? I've been mentioned in most of them. And you're going to suggest that I've not attended and not contacted or been involved with these folks?
You are. Well, let me say this to you about the Port Richmond Business Association. I've met with them more times than I care to remember over the last eight years, and every proposal that they came up to that I supported hasn't gone anywhere because they have never acted on what they wanted me to do, including $100,000 grant that I had waiting for them to do a lighting project on Richmond Street. Thank you.
Am I allowed to continue, sir? 83 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
These groups feel they deserve a voice, and before you make a major change for our area, we're asking to give them an opportunity to speak to the whole Council. I have a great concern about increased traffic on the 3100 block of Tulip Street. One block from the site in question is where I live. And my concern is that an ambulance would be stuck in Wal-Mart traffic. My mother is 74 year old, and if by some chance she has a heart attack, and the ambulance needs to take her to the emergency room, I'm concerned with whether or not they would be able to make it because minutes make a difference. There's a lot of elderly in the area, and I think that they have that concern. There are some neighbors who are for the Wal-Mart. Some of them demanded that the hospital post three quiet zone signs. Apparently there was some trouble with six skate boarders who were making noise on a concrete ramp that runs between Tulip Street 84 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 where the nursing building is, and Memphis Street. And it was demanded that they put up this quiet zone sign, so I'm wondering how Wal-Mart would maintain the quiet in the area. I'd really like to have one of those quiet zone signs for my street because I'm right down the block from where this Wal-Mart would be.
You should request it of your district Councilperson.
That would be you, sir. Can I have a big sign. Our neighborhood has many mom and pop stores or family-run businesses who depend on their various stores to make a living. It's part of the charm of our neighborhood. The local butcher knows your name, and the nearest grocery store will order something special just for you. We still have candy stores where kids go with change. We have an ice cream store where you can go get a cone. We have small cafes where neighbors meet for coffee and to discuss issues. Jean's Craft Store on Allegheny Avenue, a couple of blocks from this site, makes bow ribbons for every 85 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 holiday and every house hangs them. A huge, cheap shopping center forced upon a community that does not want it will destroy all of that. We deserve a voice and a vote. Thank you.
At last long, we're hearing from the community. I thought maybe Port Richmond had died, not hearing anything. This is a kind of situation which pits two good public interests against each other. One is the community and one is labor. Back in my early days politically, when jobs were needed as desperately as they are today, we had something at the federal level called Work Progress Administration, where the federal government took the responsibility of supporting programs that provided jobs. We all know jobs are needed, and they're needed desperately. But the question is, do you get jobs at the cost of a 86 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 community? The jobs are jobs that occur basically during the construction period. We like to see construction. But should construction come in and destroy a neighborhood? That's the question that is raised here. And wherever jobs are needed, it seems to me they ought to take place in a way which builds neighborhoods, and doesn't hurt them. I hate to see two good forces oppose to each other. Sure we need jobs. The Bush Administration has been killing them off. That's why Bush is going to be a one-term president in my judgment. (Applause.)
But that doesn't justify destroying a neighborhood. I'd like to ask the question of the two witnesses that just testified on behalf of Port Richmond. Do you think that the contributions to the parish offset the damage to the neighborhood.
Some say absolutely. Some say not at all. Now, I think pay to play is bad whether it's 87 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 approaching government or approaching private people. The reason in my judgment contributions were offered by Wal-Mart and by Mr. Kessler, if he was the one that did it on behalf of Wal-Mart, whoever did it on behalf of Wal-Mart, was in an effort to buy the confidence of the community, when they knew the community had good reason to be opposed to it. I'm against trying to buy off the community, as I'm opposed to trying to buy off government officials. Therefore, based on the testimony thus far I've got to say I think the community is forever. The jobs, we've got to find another way we've got to get them. The two groups ought not be fighting each other. They ought to be able to work together to provide jobs and the long, healthy life for a community. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. State Representative John Taylor, and Mr. Marshall, if you'd like to come. 88 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 We'll have the Carpenters Union next. Good afternoon. Whoever would like to go first, please identify yourself for the record. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney. I'm Representative John Taylor. I'm a representative of Port Richmond since 1985. Good afternoon to the rest of the Councilmen. Many of you have been in front of me, Chairman of the Urban Affairs Committee, over the last few years, so I appreciate what you're going through. Philadelphia Council is a little different, but I will try not to be redundant. I'll try to get through this as fast as I can. Gentlemen, what I say to people when they visit Harrisburg, we show them the buttons that we use to cast votes. There's a red button for no and a green button for yes. There's no maybe button. So this as not been an easy situation or an easy decision. But after careful consideration, I'd like to state that I'm opposed to this ordinance and to the 89 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 proposed use of the Goldman site, which as I understand, will be the future site of a Wal-Mart. First let me say I understand fully the obvious benefits to this ordinance and the proposed use of the property. There is no 8 doubt that merely clearing this property, which is an eye sore, an arson risk and a severely contaminated site would be a positive step for the community. I have stated in the past that it is my firm belief that abandoned properties only lead to more abandoned properties. I also understand that this ordinance and the development as proposed will bring short-term construction jobs in the neighborhood and additional retail jobs in the future. I do not dismiss the elimination of this building, nor the creation of jobs lightly. I do submit to you, however, that we should not decide this issue on the basis of those short-term benefits and ignore the long-term stability of Port Richmond. We can choose instant gratification over long-term goals of this neighborhood, but we will do so 90 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 with the overall detriment of Port Richmond. It its often difficult to look past short-term benefits for the long-term good. In this case we must. The location of this property is a critical spot in Port Richmond. It is undoubtedly the largest parcel of land that will become available that fronts Allegheny Avenue and is available for development. What happens in that spot could determine the future of Port Richmond. It is also located in a neighborhood that is experiencing an increase in crime and is negatively impacted by traffic in the area of Tulip and Allegheny and Aramingo and Allegheny. To play host to a Wal-Mart that will serve a large section of the City will have a negative impact on that ongoing problem of crime and traffic congestion. Due to the complaints that we receive at every single community meeting and at calls to my office, the problems of police response time are the most critical problems facing the residents of the Port Richmond community. We are constantly reminded that 91 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 this particular community is not a priority when it comes to a police response. Either the Philadelphia Police Department is under-manned in our area or the deployment of officers is done in such a way that police just don't come for quality of life crime. Just do not come. Or if they do come, they arrive two to five hours after the call. Either way, we are not prepared for thousands of additional cars and pedestrians that will result due to Wal-Mart. And I did hear testimony about the enforcement of trucks. If you live in Port Richmond and you think about getting police to enforce the trucking laws, that is hilarious. In later testimony, you'll hear preliminary reports from a traffic engineering study that clearly shows the neighborhood will have a difficult time dealing with the additional traffic. Allegheny Avenue has been recently redesigned, further restricting the safe flow of traffic.
There are a large number of senior citizens and school children crossing Allegheny at all times of the day, going to doctors 92 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 appointments, and there are three schools and churches along a one-mile strip of Allegheny Avenue. Port Richmond is already a host to what was years ago the fastest growing retail strip in the eastern part of United States. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Even now we have abandoned strip malls in our neighborhood. We have a completely abandoned strip mall at Aramingo and Tioga. Just a few weeks ago, a large drug store closed at Aramingo and Wheatsheaf Lane. A Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny, by design, will help accelerate closings and abandonment on a retail strip on Aramingo Avenue. This proposal has no large road access as other big box developments do, and what's worse is it's right next door to a hospital. I can only point out to you, Members of Council, that I go by Wal-Marts all the time, and you're looking at 611 and Street Road, Route 73, Roosevelt Boulevard. 12 lanes of traffic. Delaware Avenue, 95. That's where Wal-Marts are, not in a neighborhood 93 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 with such a small intersection as Tulip and Allegheny. Finally, I have grave concerns about this process. To zone this property by ordinance, at least to this point, eliminates the input of the Planning Commission, which weighs in on zoning issues in the City. I've advised the Planning Commission that a negative opinion on the rezoning ordinance occurred in June, which is the basis for this ordinance. In closing, while there is much controversy about Wal-Marts nationwide, there is an argument that would suggest that at least Wal-Marts on open spaces, as a part of urban sprawl, does not change the character of an existing neighborhood, nor impact existing jobs. Long-term, I am very concerned about the impact of Wal-Mart on the stability of Port Richmond. While there are short-term gains here -- and nobody is questioning that -- overall and in the long run, this is not positive for Port Richmond. What makes this proposal additionally illogical is the fact that we can 94 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 achieve the short-term goals of blight and elimination and the creation of jobs by allowing a different use. Then we can capitalize on the immediate opportunities and at the same time advance the quality of life in Port Richmond. Gentlemen, I would just close by saying -- and I said this at different zoning proposals over the years, and I say it to the police all the time now -- I would not want to live next to a Wal-Mart. I don't think any of you would want to live next to a Wal-Mart. )
If it was on a wide development, as we see these developments across the Commonwealth and in New Jersey, it's in very open space in general. And I would suggest to you that this is a very negative situation. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony, Representative. Mr. Marshall, please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, 95 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Chairman Kenney, Members of Council. My name is Chip Marshall, Chairman and CEO of the Temple University Health System. I'm also the chairman of Temple East, Incorporated, Northeastern Hospital. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to comment on behalf of Northeastern Hospital on an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of land bounded by Allegheny Avenue, Collins Street, Westmoreland Street and Tulip Street, which is commonly known as the Goldman site. Specifically, the ordinance changes the zoning classification of the Goldman site from C1 Commercial to ASC Area Shopping Center, which would pave the way for development of a Wal-Mart or other large scale retail store. At the outset, I must emphatically state that the Northeastern Hospital strongly opposes the rezoning of the Goldman site to Area Shopping Center use. First, the zoning change appears to be on a legislative fast track without any meaningful information supporting the 96 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 advancement of any long-term plan for Port Richmond or the City of Philadelphia. Indeed, Northeastern Hospital, one of Port Richmond's oldest and largest employers, became aware of this fast track approach inadvertently when it recently learned that the zoning classification of nearly half of its campus was changed, along with the Goldman site, from G2 General Industrial, to C1 Commercial Use. This zoning change was made in the form of an amendment to a bill during Council Session. Consequently, Northeastern Hospital, which is adjacent to the Goldman site, was provided no opportunity to comment on this change that affected its own property and several acres along its Tulip Street border. Just three weeks ago Northeastern learned of the current proposed ordinance to change the zoning classification of the Goldman site to Area Shopping Center. When Northeastern requested that today's hearing on the zoning change be postponed, however, our request was denied. As a result, Northeastern is again deprived of the opportunity to fully evaluate 97 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 the proposed change and to work with the community and the City to conduct meaningful planning for its Port Richmond neighborhood. Secondly, the zoning change will currently inhibit Northeastern Hospital's ability to serve the healthcare needs of Port Richmond and the lower Northeast Philadelphia neighborhood it serves. While Northeastern was not afforded time to conduct a complete traffic study, it did engage Pennoni and Associates, which has begun the traffic evaluation process. Mr. Frederico of Pennoni is here today and will testify directly as to his preliminary findings. In advance of Penoni's traffic engineering report, let me note for the record that Northeastern Hospital currently serves more than 10,000 inpatients, 75,000 outpatients, 31,000 emergency department patients, and delivers nearly 1,000 infants annually. With the recent closure of nearby Parkview Hospital, we expect these patient numbers to increase substantially. Unfortunately, many of these patients are in 98 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 critical Need of hospital services, and a traffic delay caused by an adjacent area shopping center could interrupt ambulance service and jeopardize a patient's ability to receive timely and necessary care. Clearly, any zoning change that will intensify traffic near Tulip Street and Allegheny Avenue will undermine the ability of patients to access the hospital, and such a change should only take place upon complete and prudent review. This is simply too important an issue to be rushed. Third, if the Goldman site is rezoned as proposed, Northeastern will be confined to an area less than one City block, served by narrow City streets and bounded by an obstructive shopping center and a bustling industrial park.
Because the rezoning to Area Shopping Center use would create an environment that would make Northeastern's current location neither safe for patients nor conducive to an outstanding community hospital, we will be compelled to consider alternative strategies as we plan for the 99 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 future of Northeastern Hospital. Council needs to carefully consider the real and practical impact that an area shopping center would have on Northeastern's mission to continue serving the Port Richmond community. As the major provider of medical services in Port Richmond, we must be responsive to the community's health care needs. While the community's need for health care services will increase, Northeastern would be severely limited in its ability to provide the necessary services, given the state of its building, its limited capacity and the changing landscape of the surrounding businesses. If I can diverge for one second, Mr. Chairman. We are currently in the process and will complete a multi-million dollar renovation and expansion of our emergency department precisely to meet the needs as I described earlier. That job will be finished this summer. And there's a great irony here, as we will then have the region's state-of-the-art community health emergency 100 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 room facility, and our ambulances will be obstructed by the traffic of getting the patients that need our services there. Northeastern Hospital is one of Port Richmond's oldest and largest employers. In this role, Northeastern's focus is not on temporary jobs, nor low-paying jobs. Rather, Northeastern builds permanent jobs, good jobs, jobs with a living wage, a job that offers family benefits, and jobs that are based in the community served. If the Goldman site were to become available, Northeastern would look toward purchasing the site, demolishing the vacant structure and building a landscaped parking lot with attractive lighting and fencing. This improvement would benefit the community by removing an offensive eye sore, and at the same time remedy the lack of sufficient parking in the vicinity of Northeastern Hospital. As Northeastern conducts long-term planning with the community we might also consider the site for new hospital services. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely proud 101 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 that the Temple University Health System is one of the City's top employers, with nearly 8,000 employees, with nearly 900 of those employees based at Northeastern Hospital, and with 426 of our employees living in the immediate neighborhood that Northeastern serves. With this in mind, I question how the proposed rezoning fits with the City's long-term plans for Port Richmond and how it would promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community. With this said, please know that the Temple University Health System -- and you have my personal pledge -- remains committed to working with the City and the community to eliminate this neighborhood eye sore at the Goldman site and to restore the property to a thriving community asset. In closing, I strongly urge Members of the Rules Committee to reject Bill No. 22 030470, an ordinance to amend City zoning maps by changing the zoning classification of the Goldman site to Area Shopping Center. This rezoning would cripple Northeastern Hospital's 102 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 ability to provide critical services to the broad community that depends on it for health care, and it would effectively force the Temple University Health System to consider alternative strategy as it plans for the future of Northeastern Hospital. While the area shopping center change would benefit a select few, it would undermine the residential nature and the small town fabric of the Port Richmond Community that Northeastern Hospital has loyally served since 1912. The rezoning has no relation to promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of this community. Thank you, again, Mr.
Chairman, and Members of Council for hearing me. I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you. )
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for your 103 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 testimony. You and I have been talking about this for a long time, and we both agree that anything other than a vacant property would be somewhat advantageous to the community, although we disagree on the use at the present time. Mr. Marshall, I just want to make a comment on your testimony where you suggest that this legislation is on the fast track. I think we're about 10 days shy of months 12 that the first meeting took place about this 13 proposed site. I don't suggest that that's the fast track. The letter I received from Mr. Perry from Northeast Hospital dated November 24th was received in my office either on the 25th or the 26th, which was a day or two before Thanksgiving, asking me to continue this hearing. I would have probably entertained that had I gotten it a little bit sooner, but it was just a little bit too difficult to try and get word out to all the folks who were involved, both pro and con on this issue, especially given the Thanksgiving holiday. So 104 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 you have to understand that it isn't that I just ignored it at all.
I appreciate that, Councilman. Certainly on behalf of Mr. Perry and myself, we apologize for the delay.
I'm not looking for apologies. I just wanted to set the record straight that this isn't something that was sitting in my desk for any length of time. The other issue I have is the issue on the ordinance that we did in June that would re-map a significant number of properties in the vicinity of Northeast Hospital from G2 Industrial. The reason that bill was introduced really had nothing to do with this at all, because if it did, it would have been taken care of and we wouldn't even be here today. I left this out specifically as an issue because I wanted community involvement and I wanted the hospital's input. By the way, I do respect the hospital and what it does for that community. I actually sat on the board for a number of years, and have been very involved in a number 105 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 of issues, one maybe a year or two ago that Representative Taylor and I attended where the community was somewhat very concerned about what they, in their opinion, believed was a lack of cooperation from the hospital as it relates to the parking lot, the emergency entrance areas of ingress and egress and a whole host of other things, and I involved myself in that and I think we got through it quite well. I think everyone today is a lot more satisfied with the way conditions are, including security.
But I want to explain to you for the record, the reason that bill was done in June was at the request of the community. The community asked me to do something about the proliferation of auto body shops that were taking over vacant, abandoned industrial buildings, and by matter of right, were able to open up body shops. And they didn't wanted body shops on their residential blocks, and I understand that. That was the 106 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 purpose of that bill, in addition to a bar on Allegheny Avenue that had been a nuisance bar. That legislation I did in June took care of those problems at the community's request. It was not directed to either support this project or be against it or in any way restrict any potential growth of Northeast Hospital. Goldman Paper has been abandoned for a number of years now. I think three years. I could be wrong. Two years at the least. There's been no communication, at least in my recollection, from Northeast Hospital or Temple about this site. No one came to me and said, we would like to preserve this. We would like for you to do something that will help us preserve this for future development or to create a parking lot. No one ever attempted to contact me, to the best of my knowledge, or the community for that matter. I've been at many of Ms. Costello's community meetings. I probably went to five or six of them last year. I don't ever recall anyone saying, please don't do anything to change the 107 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Goldman site to be anything other than future development for Northeast Hospital. So I don't think this is fast tracking anything. It is a process. If I did it three months from now and the community was opposed, I think they would say the same thing then. I think the line is drawn. There's no 9 question about it. I'm going to make a decision. I get paid a lot of money, they tell me, for doing these things, as the rest of us do. And it's unfortunate that there was really no communication. Maybe this would have been resolved in a different fashion. I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't have been. But I wanted the record to reflect that the bill that was done in June was not directed at this. It was at the community's request. Because I did several walk-throughs in that community and I saw firsthand the number of auto body shops that are opening up in those neighborhoods. And that was the best thing I could do. I wanted to do it before we recessed for the summer break because more body shops would have opened up during the 108 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 recess. So I wanted to stop that. Again, I thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Representative Taylor.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Jerry Coglan, please. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Jerry Coglan. I represent the Carpenters Union in the City of Philadelphia. I'm the council representative. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Councilman, and other distinguished Councilmen and women. I just have a few brief remarks. The Carpenters Union is located at 18th and Spring Garden Streets. It represents over 10,000 carpenters. I'm here today in support of Bill No. 030740, which would allow the forward progression of the development in the Port Richmond section of the City. Presently on Allegheny Avenue at the site of the proposed new development is an abandoned building. With the graffiti on the walls and the building in its decrepit state, 109 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 it has been an eye sore to anyone passing by. Some have even questioned the structural integrity of the building. It's obvious to any onlooker that there has not been any maintenance performed on the building in many years, nor is there any scheduled maintenance in the future. Neighbors have reported seeing illegal drug activity in and around the abandoned building. Intravenous drug use, cocaine crack smoking. The concerns there are that the abandoned building is vulnerable to fire, and the potential for a disaster is ever present. Carpenters Local 1856 has over a thousand members, hundreds of which reside in the Port Richmond area. The construction area in this industry has been very slow, due to the economic times that we have been experiencing. It has caused a sharp drop in our employment opportunities. At the present time, we have hundreds and hundreds of carpenters out of work. We have members who have been out of work for such an extended 110 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 period of time that they're on the verge of losing their homes because their unemployment has run out or is about to run out. Their families and themselves may not be eligible for health benefits due to the duration of the time they've been out of work. Bill 030740 would allow the developer to demolish the existing structure and develop the property, thereby creating jobs, not only during the construction phase, but jobs when the project is completed as well. I had attended a meeting in mid-May of this year that was held by the two community groups adjacent to the project. All of their concerns have been met by the developers. Lighting in and around the project would be plentiful. More than adequate parking would be available. And the trash issues would be constantly patrolled. Another thing, the developer has agreed to use all union contractors so that there will not be any wage and benefit questions that will arise. 111 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would urge you and your Committee to pass this Bill 4 No. 030740, because when a developer formulates a plan and is willing to invest in a community that will create jobs, we should not try to stifle that development. Quite frankly, we need those jobs, and we need them now. Thank you for your time and consideration. (Applause.)
Thank you for your testimony. There doesn't appear to be any questions. Thank you. Henry Nicholas, please. Also, if I could ask Carolyn Murawski, if she is still here, and Barbara Schofield, employees of Northeastern Hospital, please come forward. Mr. Nicholas, how are you? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Nicholas. I'm president of the Hospital Workers Union here 112 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 in Philadelphia, representing 17,000 hospital workers here in Philadelphia, and a majority of those employees who work at the Northeastern Hospital. I'm here to make a plea on behalf of the oldest institution in the neighborhood and the largest employer in the neighborhood. Over the last several years, Temple University has moved to make Northeastern Hospital a cornerstone of the community. As a result of their activities, the workers who worked at Neumann and part of the workers at Episcopal are now at that site. Clearly we believe that this agenda that's on the table now does not bode well for the future of the development of the largest employer in the neighborhood. It makes sense for us that if there is going to be growth, that there ought to be positive growth. And I come with a bias -- let the record be clear -- Wal-Mart's agenda for all workers in the country is not undisputed. Their model is to be a one-stop shop. They have achieved that. And I check 113 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 them out all the time to make sure that they have not started an operating room in the Wal-Mart here. You can get everything, but an operation. And I'm fearful that they'll get there soon. And the jobs that they produce are not jobs where you can make a living wage. Everyone is for more jobs. But we need jobs that can take care of your family so you can be a reasonable, outstanding citizen in the community. And so my appearance here is to say a better idea is the one that Chip Marshall put forward to you, because we believe that Northeastern Hospital will continue to be a cornerstone of that community, and we need the time to demonstrate that we are there to stay and we are there with a full commitment to the neighborhood. All of the jobs in Northeastern are unionized jobs, and they'll stay unionized jobs. None of the jobs in Wal-Mart -- except once the building is over -- everything returns to non-union employees with minimum wage and with no healthcare benefits. They 114 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 can't even be a good citizen to the hospital right next door because they don't provide healthcare until you've been on the job for one year. And then only for the worker and none for the family. So I'm here to make a plea to Council that that neighborhood needs a stable vision about the future. And the future is not temporary part-time jobs, but good paying jobs where people can take care of their families. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Would you please identify yourself for the record?
Could I ask one question? Is Ms. Schofield here? (No response.)
Okay. Thank you. Please proceed. 115 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
I wear a couple hats. One of the hats is that I am a registered nurse at Northeastern Hospital and I also live in the community. I live actually in St. Anne's Parish, but being raised there, Port Richmond, Fishtown, Saint Anne's Parish, we look at it as one community. I'm raising a daughter right now. And I'm not for them building a Wal-Mart. One of the things is -- I just want to tell you a story. I had a patient last year who was dying, and the last thing she asked was to get her family. And I called her family up, and her family did come on to the floor, but what happened was, they couldn't find parking. It wasn't at Wal-Mart, just local parking. And the family was very upset. One of the things that they were upset about was no parking. I deal with patients every day. Patients are in a two-bedroom room. Doctors come in and give them diagnoses that are pretty bad, HIV to Hepatitis C, and the other patient in the other bed hears it because 116 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 there's no privacy. As soon as I discharge a patient, as fast as I discharge them, another patient is in. The patient states that they laid in the emergency room for a day, two days, just for the fact that we don't have enough room. I did work at Episcopal when that closed. I'm familiar with Neumann when that closed. And the patient load that we're getting now is just --
Yes. It's really heavy. So if you have a Wal-Mart -- which I just went shopping and I got a really good deal on a VCR for my daughter, so I do like Wal-Mart -- but right now if you build a Wal-Mart, that's going to take away from the hospital ever expanding. And as a nurse and as someone who lives in the neighborhood, I just don't want to see a Wal-Mart go up.
Okay. Thank you for staying around. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much. Is Donna Ford here? 117 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 (No response.)
Bob Vidra. Karen Scannell. Laura Lanza. Is Dr. Guest still here? Come forward. Ma'am, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Karen Scannell. I'm a resident of Port Richmond. I've lived in Port Richmond all my life, and I'm opposed to the Wal-Mart for a few reasons. I had lived in Richmond, like I said, all my life. And before all those strip malls went up, we didn't have the crime that is there now. My concern is with the Wal-Mart coming into the neighborhood, it's going to bring in more crime, more traffic, more people, more trash. Wal-Mart did, at the one community meeting that we had, state that they were going to take care of the trash. They're going to take care of the trash on their site. But just like Kmart and the rest of the stores 118 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 on that strip mall, when they leave their site and get to the bus stop and decide they want to put their new sneakers on or put their new clothing on or whatever else they buy, the trash gets left there. Who is going to clean that? As well as the traffic concerns, which I feel wasn't brought up too much. Being a tractor-trailer driver myself and listening to their route of travel, it's almost impossible to make a right-hand turn off of Aramingo Avenue onto Westmoreland. Westmoreland is a two-lane road going east and west, I believe. Aramingo at the corner of the turn is a two-lane highway, but you have to make a right-hand turn from the right-hand lane. There's not tractor-trailer that can swing that corner without traffic being backed up Memphis Street to the opposing side. My mother, until three years ago, lived at Memphis and Westmoreland, but we moved her because she could not leave her house because could not get across the street to the stores. In the last community meeting, 119 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 that was the main concern. What I remember about that meeting was that it was going to come up for discussion again and we would have another meeting, which in turn, I found out four days ago about this hearing, and that's why I'm here today. I don't feel the community is getting as much information as they can. It seems like it's always last minute, and then we can't seem to get things organized. Me personally, I'm not too involved with the community groups. Laura Lanza is someone who could not be here today and is very involved, and that's where I get my information. As I said, I personally have gotten the information late every time. I'm not saying that other people haven't gotten it, but the community groups that I'm involved with don't seem to be getting too much of an advanced notice. That is all I have.
I work at 30th Street 120 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Station.
Is that what's going to be moving to Southwest Philly?
So you can understand how difficult our job is. Because I've sat through hearings where people in Southwest Philly have come in and said, we don't want the traffic in our area. What we wind with -- I appreciate your testimony -- but we wind up with is having to make this opposite choice over whether we put it in Southwest Philly and make some people angry, or the post office moves it to Maryland somewhere. We're always juggling these things.
It's not so much as moving it. My point is, if anyone who drives a tractor-trailer stands at Aramingo and Westmoreland, you will know you cannot make that turn. As a driver, I would go against the traffic -- like someone said, the police ain't going to stop me. I will go up to 121 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Allegheny Avenue, cross Westmoreland and hang a right on Tulip. There's nothing in my way except for maybe a parked car.
My only point was, you understand how difficult it is because you're trying to balance economic development and jobs with people's concerns in the neighborhood. We have the same problem in Southwest because people are concerned about all the post office traffic.
My name is Dr. Dennis Guest, G-U-E-S-T, and I'm the President of the medical staff at Northeastern Hospital, as well as the Chairman of the Emergency Department at Northeastern Hospital. I've been Chairman of the Emergency Department for over 22 years, and certainly I've seen the changes over the course of those 22 years, both at the hospital and in the community, as well as in health care. I would 122 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 like, if I could read, to read two letters from the past presidents of Northeastern Hospital. The first is from a Dr. Lawrence Solish, M.D., chief of urology. He writes: "To whom it may concern, I'm opposed to the proposed location of a Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue. I am concerned that it will inhibit the ability of Northeastern Hospital to provide long-range goals to serve the healthcare needs of the community. I believe it will also have a negative impact on the traffic patterns for the hospital and office patients." The second letter is from Dr. Lee Row (ph), M.D., past president of Northeastern Hospital, and member of Northeastern Hospital for over years as chairman of surgery at 20 Northeastern Hospital. 21 He writes that he vehemently opposes 22 the construction of a Wal-Mart store across 23 from Northeastern Hospital on Allegheny 24 Avenue. "It would significantly impact traffic patterns in an area already heavily 123 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 congested with passenger car and truck traffic. As it is now, my handicapped and elderly patients cannot find temporary parking outside my office to exit their cars. "I also believe that some of the small businesses in the area will be impacted as well. Many of these people have been my patients for years, and I would like not to see their livelihood taken from them. We already have stores within walking distance that are similar to Wal-Mart. Very truly yours, Lee Row, M.D." Finally, as the Chairman of the Emergency Department, I've seen the volume grow from -- where Mr. Marshall said 31,000 -- we're up to 34,000 actually. It just doesn't support getting patients, critical patients, sick patients, either by rescue, by police or by private auto to our emergency department when you build on a one-lane highway a Wal-Mart type of store right next door. So the medical staff vehemently opposes this proposal.
Thank you very 124 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 much. Sir, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Robert Vidra. I'm a resident on the 3000 block of Janney Street. I guess my main concern is -- I also drive a truck. Our streets are not designed in our neighborhood to support the trucks that are going up and down these streets. We already have a company across the street from me, Kramco, who is starting to move their trucks -- there's actually an unwritten rule they have with us that they would only use Trenton Avenue. They're starting to use our streets. Our sidewalks are caving in. Our streets are caving in. During the day where I work, our cars are sideswiped. We had video inspection of our sewer lines this past summer. The people that were doing it said they couldn't even get their cameras through the sewer lines because our pipes are mostly all terra-cotta. He said they've done the whole neighborhood of Port 125 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Richmond. They're very old. The streets were not made to support the size of the trucks that are coming up and down already. Also, we have trucks that run all night with these. That's illegal. I'm sure it's going to be the same thing with Wal-Mart. They've changed Allegheny Avenue to one lane each way, so there is traffic backed up already. It can take you sometimes minutes 11 to go one block on Tulip Street towards the 12 hospital. If there's a problem on 95, 13 Aramingo Avenue, Tulip Street, all the 14 northbound streets are impacted already 15 because everybody comes through the 16 neighborhoods. Nobody obeys the signs to 17 stop. 18 We have three schools on Allegheny 19 Avenue. The City spent money to put up 20 flashing signs and nobody obeys them. We call the police. Nothing is done. We call them about the trucks running all night. Nothing is done. The crime, it's going to bring crime. I'm not opposed to Wal-Mart. I'm 126 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 opposed to where they want to put it. A half a mile up the street on Aramingo Avenue, there's new access ramps from 95 that were just put in. There's tons of land up there. They could go up there. It just doesn't fit where they want to put it.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Is Mr. Frederico still here? Mary Ann Trombetta. The last four we have listed is Mark Hankin -- is Mark Hanlon here -- Patrick Hurran, Theresa Farrell. I would ask, since we've been through a lot of testimony here, and many people who are sitting here have heard the testimony, if you can hit some new points, in addition to your general opposition or favor of it, it would be a help to kind of get us through this witness list. Would you please identify yourself for the record?
My name is Mary Ann Trombetta, T-R-O-M-B-E-T-T-A. I'm a life-long 127 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 resident of Tulip Street for close to 50 years. My block feeds directly into Allegheny Avenue and the Goldman Paper site. My neighborhood of Port Richmond is a walking neighborhood. I don't drive. Just like many of my senior citizen neighbors, they don't drive neither. We're walkers. We walk Port Richmond. We walk Allegheny Avenue. Even though it's very dangerous to cross, it is the avenue that has our hospital, our churches, our schools, our playground, our Campbell Square Park, and is a vital part of our neighborhood. A main artery that leads traffic -- and believe me, plenty of it -- to I-95 and Delaware Avenue. We have over 500 school children that cross that avenue three times a day. God bless those crossing guards. We have 50 doctor's offices on that strip of Allegheny Avenue, that the majority of their patients walk to their appointments. Port Richmond is still a community that has elderly people walking to their doctor appointments. On Sunday when the three churches end mass, it 128 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 looks like parade on the avenue. The avenue is already overloaded with traffic. It spills onto our side streets when drivers hunt for a short cut. I don't have to listen to the news to see if I-95 has a back-up or there's an accident. It's on my street. I live in the 3000 block of Tulip Street, two blocks down. What do you think is going to happen if a Wal-Mart opens at Tulip and Allegheny? Port Richmond, a neighborhood of tiny, one-way streets is going to be one traffic jam. What about the school children? What about the seniors? What about Port Richmond? I am asking Philadelphia City Council not to sell out our Port Richmond, just so the buying public can get their socks and underwear a few cents cheaper. We're worth more than a few cents. Yes, the abandoned Goldman site is a disgrace to the area, but to put a big box Wal-Mart or any other store there would be a disaster for the people of Port Richmond. We are not anti-Wal-Mart. We 129 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 welcome Wal-Mart to look at other sites in our area. Just do not build on such a location that would hurt Port Richmond more than it would help it. Wal-Mart is famous for selling discounted, cheap item. Do not discount the community of Port Richmond and cheapen our quality of life. (Applause.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Sir, please identify yourself.
Yes. My name is Mark Hankin, and I represent Arsenal Associates, the owners and developers of the former Frankford Arsenal, now known as the Arsenal Business Center. I thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee on the matter of the proposed rezoning. Let me first say that Arsenal Associates is very much in favor of all development that will positively impact construction jobs, permanent jobs and tax rateables for the City. We would never stand 130 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 in the way of any proposed project that would have a positive impact on the City. Arsenal Associates, the owner of the Arsenal Business Center, has been committed to the creation of jobs and its ongoing redevelopment of the former Frankford Arsenal for over years, 8 since 1983. We have spent well over $25 9 million in redevelopment of the Arsenal 10 Business Center during this time period. 11 Unfortunately, this project has not proven 12 successful. As a result, we have worked for a 13 period of nine years in cooperation with this 14 Committee and all of the citizens groups in 15 the Frankford-Bridesburg area to rezone the 16 northern portion of the Arsenal Business 17 Center, approximately 45 acres, for 18 approximately 500,000 square foot retail 19 facility in the form of what is called a big 20 box center. The cornerstone of this retail development was to have been the construction of a big box anchor which would provide the base for the construction of the balance of the retail center. We have been led to 131 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 understand by a commercial retail leasing firm, that if a store was constructed at this facility, as the proposed location for the Wal-Mart, other retailers that are considering the Arsenal Business Center might abandon their interest in the Arsenal Business Center property until they could assess the impact of the proposed development. This would mean that if we were to construct approximately 130,000 square feet of space at this location, the proposed 500,000 square foot retail center at the Arsenal Business Center might not be able to go forward. The impact on the City from this proposed property is roughly one job for every eight jobs that would be created at the Arsenal Business Center. The Arsenal retail center would generate approximately four times as many construction jobs, four times as many retail jobs and four times as much tax revenue as this proposed development, for the Wal-Mart. In addition, without the successful construction of the Arsenal retail center, the 132 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 remaining 750,000 square feet of office and industrial space at the Arsenal Business Center could be placed in jeopardy. As we have committed to reinvest 100 percent of the profits from the Arsenal retail center into the remaining southern portion of the Arsenal Business Center, the failure of the Arsenal Business Center to go forward could result in the closing of the southern portion, which has had a negative cash flow for many years. This could be the loss of over 1,200 existing jobs, in addition to the loss of the many construction jobs and permanent jobs associated with the continued redevelopment of the southern portion of the Arsenal Business Center. The spill-over effect from the successful development of the Arsenal retail center in the northern portion of the arsenal could have created a few thousand more additional permanent jobs in the northern portion, as well in the southern portion, in addition to the many construction jobs associated with the continued redevelopment of 133 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 both sides of the Arsenal Business Center. Therefore, I would request that this Committee suspend the proposed actions on this rezoning until such time as it can be determined if the proposed Wal-Mart at this site would definitely preclude the construction of a retail center at the Arsenal Business Center, of approximately four times the size.
I cannot imagine that the construction trades and the City would want to take hasty action, which would generate only one-quarter to one-eighth the number of construction and permanent jobs that would be created if both of these sites were able to move forward. Given the time to determine the impact, it may quite possibly allow us to determine both projects would in fact be able to go forward simultaneously for the benefit of the City and both neighborhoods. I thank you very much for your time and consideration, and hope that you will postpone your action until such time as early next year, as we will have the ability to 134 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 assess the impact of this proposed development.
Thank you for your testimony. Sir, would you please identify yourself?
Yes, Councilman. My name is Patrick Hurran. I'm with Legend Properties. We represent the Arsenal Associates, the shopping center at the Frankford Arsenal. Mr. Hankin alleged to a process of approximately nine years going through various civic and community meetings with the leadership and the membership. It was a long time. During this time, the marketing efforts were met with a dubious response from the major retail community. But since the Committee approved the zoning process last May, we have been very, very successful in reaching some of these big box tenants. However, it is a very, very competitive market out there. And we are presently on the top of a momentum. We are very close to signing a 135 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 letter of intent with a major national retailer, probably within two to three months, certainly in the very early part of 2004. Based upon the gap in the market and the availability of the property, quite frankly, we think that in the event another major big box development occurs at the Tulip and Allegheny site, even though we believe it's not a competitive location, we feel that the market will have to step back and take a look and weigh it. As the advisors and the agents to the Frankford Arsenal, we would concur and request maybe postponing this a little bit of time to see what effect this will have on the market and on the Arsenal Business Center project.
I understand your position. I'm curious because, theoretically, if you guys built a big box at the Arsenal, and Temple does not move forward with their plans develop, for whatever reason, then the Goldman Paper site would remain. It just seems that you guys want to build a big box there, instead of building it there. I 136 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 understand why people are one side or the other. Don't you think that would have similar issues in Bridesburg and surrounding neighborhoods with a Wal-Mart there? It's either bad for traffic -- it's not that far away, Bridesburg, and it's very close to the highway. Wouldn't we have a similar group of people in here from Bridesburg coming in here to complain about a big box there?
Well, in fact, that's why it took us nine years, because at the hearing we had before this Committee, there was unanimous support for this proposed 500,000 square foot retail center from all of the citizens and business groups. In fact, there were no objections. That's one reason why we would like to see a postponement so that we could see if they can both go forward. Because in one case there's unanimous support from the citizens group, and in this case there's obviously a substantial objection from not only citizens groups, but the business community. 137 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Thank you very much for your testimony. Theresa Farrell. Helen Daniels. Are they in the room? (No response.)
And the last witness I have on this list is Laura Lanza. And then we would like to move on to the next bill, if possible. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Laura Lanza. I'm a resident of Port Richmond at 3090 Aramingo Avenue. How many minutes do I have? Two minutes?
You can have as much time. This is last witness on the list we have.
I'm just really glad to be able to be here. I know this is an important meeting for everybody here. I'm speaking here as a resident of Port Richmond, and as a new resident, not as somebody who grew up or was born there, but 138 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 somebody who moved there three years ago, and has seen a lot of changes, both positive and negative, in the area. I'm expressing concern about the proposed amendment to zoning for reasons that may have already been stated here before. I was not expecting necessarily to be able to come here, so I have something written down on paper for you. The issue before us regarding this amendment concerns this vacant parcel, and I think people have seen the map. But one thing that needs to be noted is that this parcel is on Allegheny Avenue in the middle of Port Richmond. And if you know Port Richmond, you know it's divided into four census tracts. It is divided by Aramingo Avenue and Allegheny Avenue. Aramingo Avenue is infamous for its strip mall development. We have past Westmoreland two lanes of -- discount primarily -- big box retail stores. And they have replaced, since 1970, the formal industrial sites that were there. 139 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 This neighborhood is an old working-class neighborhood where people have always lived very close to industrial lots and all that, and since the '70s has more and more had to deal with the impact of large scale retail. I'm sure people have covered the impact of the trucks and the traffic and the foot traffic and the trash, the litter and the crime that has been occurring due to the huge amount of regional shopping area that's on Aramingo Avenue. One thing I don't think has been addressed in this amendment that I think hopefully has been expressed is that two years ago, people in the Port Richmond community group started looking at each other and saying, there's stuff going on here. There's a lot of potential good stuff going on here. We've got this river front. We're a river ward. And we've got three new community groups -- not even -- but reactivated community groups. And we all started working together and we had the Future the Port 140 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Richmond meetings, at which time 30 representatives or more, everybody from the Sons of Italy to the four or five parishes that are there, to business, started coming together, and we started to define a vision for our community. This vision did not include any more strip malls, especially not expanding past the Aramingo line. What we'd actually like to see happen there is an upscaling of that retail environment. And what we'd really like to see is to see Allegheny Avenue, which is the corridor that goes all the way to the river -- our public access to the river is Pulaski Park. It's the only space that we actually have a stake to this river front because we are an industrial neighborhood. We're a working neighborhood, and we're proud of it. What we've been doing on Allegheny is we've been seeing a huge investment of immigrants and second and third-generation Polish communities making businesses there, many doctors. I'm a member of the Friends of Campbell's Square. We've put in money, and 141 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 with the support of our Councilperson and other folks in the neighborhood to make that a revitalized area. The thing is, is that it's not just about a Wal-Mart or a big box store. It's that site. That site is the largest vacant parcel on Allegheny Avenue that goes from the river all the way to the transportation network at Kensington Avenue. And with it, what you see is, you see a battle for decline or reinvestment in that neighborhood. Our concern right now is, our main street used to be Richmond Street. It was destroyed by I-95 in 1960. We know that there is more I-95 work that's going to further delay any of the renovations that we were hoping for for Port Richmond.
The community mostly doesn't even know about this because it was all done without public participation. It just got sprung on us. So now our hopes hinge on the revitalization of this Aramingo corridor, which is a strip mall haven, and also half that and half residents. And we would just really like to see the one vacant 142 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 parcel that is left there, Goldman Paper site, be preserved for a few minutes or a year or so for us to have this chance for our neighborhood plan. We've asked for support from our Council folks. We've asked both Councilmembers to come to meetings. We've realized if they don't give us the vision, we need to produce the vision. We've been making changes in the neighborhood. We've looked at things that are concerns there, and we're committed to making this neighborhood a great neighborhood. I moved to the neighborhood because I am a doctoral candidate at Penn in city and regional planning, and my focus is on working-class neighborhoods, revitalizing them. And this is an area that has a tremendous potential to remain a viable area for Philadelphia as a tax base, affordable families. But it's at risk. And I don't believe -- and I think I speak for a lot of people -- not everybody -- but this Wal-Mart here at this site is not going to help the 143 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 neighborhood with all the work that we've been doing. The process was terminated. We were told that what the community wanted would be attended to. That has not happened. I don't find it terribly surprising that this is a Monday after two holidays when the announcement came out. I'm concerned about that. I'm just hoping that -- because I know we can all work together -- that we can find a way to make this Port Richmond, this future, better than the siting of a big box retail store. I'm in planning. They say that the traffic is going to go on Westmoreland. There's no way. My mother-in-law can barely get out the front door. She had to move out of her house. She couldn't even walk because of the traffic. That was before there was any activity where this Wal-Mart is. Just have anybody go down there. It doesn't take a scientist. It doesn't take a doctoral candidate. It doesn't take anybody except a human being with eyes to see what actually happens there. It's not going to work. It's 144 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 not the best for our neighborhood. I just want to speak out that we want to work with everybody on creating a better future for this area. People have been investing on this corridor, and they don't deserve to have it trashed. That's all I have to say. Thank you. )
Point of information. May I have the last witness come back again to the table? During your testimony, I believe I heard you say that your district Councilmembers are cooperative, and I think you talked in terms of two district Councilmembers.
I understand Port Richmond to be Joan Krajewski's area and Frank DiCicco's area.
Well, I just want you to know, in addition to that, you have 145 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 seven Councilmembers-at-large that you vote on. I would like to make clear that while we all respect the district Councilmembers and know that they have as a primary concern the good welfare of that immediate community, don't forget the Council-at-large Members who also vote on this issues and are concerned about the entire City. So you have more than two district Councilmembers. I hope they won't take offense, but we think we're part of this City Council. And we're not going to permit the City Council to become 10 district Councilmembers, when by the Charter we're a 17-person Body. We respect the 10 district Councilmembers. They obviously have a more direct interest because only the districts vote them, but the rest of us are voted in by all the members of the City, including you. So don't limit yourself to just the two district Councilmembers. We try to work with and support the 146 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 district Councilmembers, but at times on issues as important this, you can see sometimes there are differences of opinion, and we try to resolve them in as friendly as a way as possible. So use all your Councilmembers; your seven at-large and your one or two district Councilmembers. Feel free to go to any of them. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Councilman, is that the beginning speech for the reelection of David Cohen, 2007?
Yes. I figure at age 59 -- I said 59. I am much too young to retire.
You're absolutely right. My campaign is for the whole City, because seven of us are elected by all of you. So don't throw away your votes by voting for us and then ignoring us. We will work with you. We will work with the district 147 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Councilmembers. And we'll get, I think, better solutions when all of us work together, as the last speaker said.
For the record, Representative John Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I specifically made reference to a traffic study and a witness that is here who we relied on, frankly, to give his view of what the traffic would be there. I'm not sure about the precise legal way to phrase this, but right now he has been instructed not to give his testimony based on his company having done prior work for Wal-Mart. A traffic study is a traffic study. However it comes down, we're all going to have to live with that. I just wanted to let you know that we expected him to testify, and he is now not testifying.
Thank you. We were informed by Council that that's the situation. 148 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 There seems to be a change.
Can you give me a general idea how long your testimony is? Because if you're here to talk about a traffic study, it would seem to me to be a lengthy discussion I just have to know from a scheduling standpoint.
My testimony is under three minutes. There is no completed traffic study at this point.
My name is Albert Frederico, and I'm with Pennoni Associates. I would like to start out by saying within the last hour I have been notified that there is a conflict and I will recusing myself from further work on this project. We were retained by Northeastern Hospital to complete a traffic study to evaluate the impact of the Wal-Mart on the adjacent roadways. This study again was in progress, and any findings I was presenting today were preliminary. 149 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 The proposed development based on Institute of Traffic Engineer standards is expected to generate 7,000 new vehicular trips a day. This is new traffic and not pass-by traffic that would generally be on the road already. Per count data available by the DVRPC, Allegheny Avenue currently carries just over 14,000 vehicles per day. Doing a preliminary evaluation based on the arterial analysis methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual, we would expect that the addition of this traffic to Allegheny Avenue would result in decreased travel speeds and a lower level of service. Again, these conclusions are preliminary. But we do feel that they at least warrant further evaluation, as the hospital was intending.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frederico, I apologize. I was 150 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 out of the room when you began your testimony. When were you retained to do this traffic study?
We were retained within the last several weeks. I was made aware within the last hour that there is a conflict and I will be recusing myself from further work on this.
You haven't done any analysis, I assume then, if the hospital were to develop that site to expand their facilities, as was suggested as a possible -- possible -- alternative, what the impact of traffic, if a hospital facility were placed on that site, would be?
Correct. We did no 18 comparison of potential hospital development.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. That will conclude the witness list for this bill. We will now move to Bill No. 030645, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and 151 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 planning by amending Chapter 14-1600 entitled, "Miscellaneous," by added a new Section 4 14-1628, entitled "Zoning and Construction Permits for Retail Stores," all under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Young, Mr. Eiding, please. Just let me make an announcement prior to the testimony on this bill. Please can I have your attention for a second? We have five more bills. This one should be relatively not too long hopefully. The next three or four should not be that bad at all. They're really technical changes for the Redevelopment Authority. But we're not going vote in the public meeting on this bill until we've concluded the testimony on all the other bills. So maybe another hour, just so you know from a timing standpoint. Back to this bill, my understanding from the sponsor's staff is there is no 22 substantive changes in this bill from the last hearing that we've had. While you're free to testify in any manner, the record is very, very lengthy about this issue. If we can add 152 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 any new information or anything else you'd like to add from a new standpoint would be helpful to us, as opposed to going over old testimony, because the record is clear.
First of all, thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak again. I will make it short. I do ask that the comments from the last hearing be incorporated in today's record. I will not repeat the same issues, but I was present as other witnesses testified that day, and some of my comments here I think will redress some of the issues brought up.
Yes. My name is Wendell Young, IV. I'm a representative with the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776. Also, I wanted to point out, as I'm sure everyone in Council is well aware, quite a few people were out in the hallway. A lot of our members are women with children and had to leave. They couldn't wait until now. I wish that hadn't been the case, but I 153 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 understand you have constraints here. There are two basic kinds of employers in Philadelphia, some like Raf Lissack and Jeff Brown and those like big box stores. Raf and Jeff provide good jobs with a living wage and benefits. The benefits include healthcare insurance that he pays for, a pension plan to make sure that individuals can retire with dignity, advancement opportunities and other wellness benefits such as child care, an education benefit and a physical fitness benefit. If there's a better combination offered in the City, I haven't heard about it. This kind of job is the kind that allows people to move up the economic ladder. They pay taxes to the City. They use their child care benefit to pay other workers in the City. They go to school, many in the City schools, and expand their possibility. Raf, for example, started out years ago with just one store. Today he owns four in the City and continues to expand his employment base while investing in the community with new 154 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 supermarkets. These are the kind of employers that we want. Employers who help their workers move up the ladder, whether within their own store or by moving on to other stores and other jobs. Local 1776 represents the workers of the Wine and Spirit Shoppes, Rite Aid, Super Fresh and Shop Rite, owned by Jeff Brown, Raf Lissack and others, as well as Acme, to name just a few. Each one of these stores, whether a chain or individually owned, gives every worker a chance to grow, to learn and to provide for a family. Just as important as the direct benefits of a living wage job are the indirect ones. The company ownership is much more tightly tied to the community. These unionized stores pay better. Studies have shown that the pay on average is 33 percent more than non-union super centers. More importantly, each of these stores spends about 13 percent of their income on labor costs. That means that their money stays in the community and is circulated 155 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 multiple times. An average big box super center, such as Wal-Mart, only pays about 4 percent of its income back to the community in 5 labor costs. The majority of their money goes straight out of the City and into huge bank accounts in their corporate headquarters. Smaller businesses are much more receptive to the pressures placed on them by the community, by community leaders, and respond to the needs of the marketplace. Owners like Raf take the type to know the needs of their communities. They stock shelves with the products that are purchased by people living in their neighborhoods. That's the kind of jobs, those are the kind of employers we want in the City of Philadelphia. We want the kind of jobs that are created by small, family-owned businesses and we want the kind of jobs that are provided by employers who genuinely care for the people that work for them. We are far from anti-growth. There is nobody in this room that would like to see Philadelphia set national marks for economic 156 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 growth than I would. I just think that it's important to create the right kind of jobs and the right kind of growth. Seeing every construction worker on the job somewhere in the City would be amazing. I love to think of all those workers providing new places for the unemployed and underemployed to work, to live and to raise families. In the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday November 21st, 2003 there were two articles that related directly to this problem. " Both are included in the hand-outs that my staff gave you.
What a difference between the two. In "Wanted," the Inquirer's writer talks about a report by the Pennsylvania State House Committee on Health and Human Services and the Department of Community and Economic Development is about to release. This report's findings are clear. There is a link between a lack of grocery stores in the 157 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 inner-City Philadelphia and the rising instances of nutrition-related diseases. If we don't make an investment in our communities, more children will grow up malnutritious in the richest, most prosperous nation in the world, the nation that grows and exports the most food in the world without making supermarket growth a part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. A catch exists. Supermarkets 12 will not locate in areas without a stable 13 population base, and potential residents are 14 reluctant to move to a neighborhood without a 15 supermarket, the Inquirer reported. How does 16 this tie in to big box legislation? It's 17 simple. 's, Target, 19 K-Mart or Wal-Mart are built, the existing 20 chains and family-owned businesses are not 21 likely to reinvest Philadelphia. There will 22 be fewer and fewer grocery stores in the neighborhoods. Business will be pulled out of the areas of the City where there is room for super centers. The neighborhood businesses in 158 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 communities will slowly die off. The second article, "More, Bigger and Smaller," -- Wal-Mart's coming addresses the point particularly -- it reports, Scott, who is Wal-Mart's CEO, is counting on pulling in enough customers to make up for lost business in nearby Wal-Marts. Wal-Mart used to count on drawing customers from a base of miles across. They now view a three to 11 four mile wide customer base. I imagine, if 12 you will, a city full of super centers, big 13 box super centers, every 30 or so blocks, 14 there would be another big box store choking 15 off the life out of Shop Rite, Acme, Rite Aid and other local stores that do so much for our communities. This isn't smart growth. It's predatory marketing. Think of it. Every time you need a tube of tooth paste or a roll of paper towels, anything that you use in your own home, you're only choice would be to go to Wal-Mart. That's not competition. In a recent televised report on KYW-3, a survey conducted in nearby southern 159 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 New Jersey showed that the prices at super centers were not always the cheapest. In some cases, a unionized grocery store such as Shop Rite beat prices at two of the biggest super centers, including Wal-Mart. There's a perception that bigger is cheaper, so neighborhood stores die. Ten years ago I testified here in City Council about the town of Hearne, Texas. They had this very experience. A Wal-Mart opened, forced all the other retailers in the area to close. When they didn't make their sales goals, the Wal-Mart shut its doors too. The town is now a ghost town because many people are unemployed, and there is nowhere to purchase needed goods. Today we don't need to go that far away to see the effects of super centers. In the Lehigh Valley, Lanco, Super Fresh, Shop Rite, IGA, Acme and other supermarkets have closed their doors forever because of Wal-Mart's moving in. You can drive through the downtown areas of York, Pennsylvania, Gettysburg, Lancaster and communities across 160 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Pennsylvania who have seen their retail centers decimated by low wage, big box jobs. Here in Philadelphia, Bradlee's and Caldor's, as well as others, sited big box super centers as one of the largest factors in their closing. Many municipalities have seen this and passed their own version of this legislation. It limits the size of big box stores and makes sure that they can't sell more than 10 percent grocery items. Wal-Mart claims that these big box laws are unfair and targets them.
Well, if it's a choice between economic growth in the City of Philadelphia and the economic growth of Wal-Mart, we at you UFCW Local 1776 happily choose Philadelphia. Super center operators claim that they won't build a store where it's not wanted. In fact, there's an article in the Los Angeles Times from Monday, November 24th, 2003 where the CEO of Wal-Mart says just that. Of course, he retreats by saying that he doesn't know what it means to be unwanted somewhere. According to his quote, "How do you define where it's not wanted. I don't 161 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 think we're going to let them define whether or not we come," Wal-Mart CEO, H. , said in the Los Angeles Times. Isn't it a bit outrageous when a community group rises up against business box stores? Those stores simply say that the community can't represent itself, that the community isn't smart enough to make its own decisions, choices. That's not a credible stance. A recent study found that Wal-Mart is even going so far as to find where it's wanted. In Contra Costa County, California, similar legislation was recently passed. Wal-Mart decided that they didn't like the bill, and are now paying people more, significantly more than what they pay their retail workers to circulate petitions to repeal this big box ban. Across the nation, similar regulations have been passed, from smaller cities and towns all the way to major urban centers like San Diego. Residents have taken a stand against super centers. None of these ordinances has any particular operators of target. The residents 162 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 of these towns and cities are just trying to give people who pay a living wage a chance to grow without being crushed by giant multi-national corporations. " Would anyone make the same statement about Wal-Mart today, considering that General Motors paid good wages and benefits and helped improve the standard of living for our nation, where Wal-Mart's pay is below poverty level and helps reduce community standards? At the last hearing, I was asked if this bill would make Philadelphia one of the first cities in the nation to pass big box legislation. While the answer is no, as you can see from information included in your hand-out, I am surprised that Council would give any weight to that question. This is a 163 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 great City, and can and should be a leader among cities. Concerns were also expressed about whether or not a Nordstrom's would be able to open under this proposed ordinance. The answer is clearly yes. The bill specifically discusses only non-taxable foods and places no 9 limit on prepared foods and carry-out foods. A couple comments I would like to make, in addition to the prepared text you have there, some people who had testified after me at the last hearing said that this isn't really appropriate here. If the union has an issue with Wal-Mart they ought to just organize them. And I commented at the last hearing about our experience here in the City with Carrefour in the late '80s. We did organize Carrefour. And we had a good, decent labor contract there. And they left once the City's tax abatements ended. But in the time they were here and in the five years they did business here, even with the union contract, they shut down seven neighborhood community supermarkets during that time. The answer is 164 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 not to organize. We will not do our best in our area as we Carrefour. In the meantime, these kind of stores are bad for a community. Carpenters Union appear were earlier today. There was a study just released. C. Based group called Smart Growth. I want to read a couple of lines from it. "A new study by Good Jobs First finds that contrary to common belief, smart growth policies are good for construction jobs.
The report provides evidence that smart growth can create more employment opportunities than sprawl for workers who build residential and commercial structures and transportation infrastructures. Our findings challenge the conventional idea that construction employment suffers when communities seek to curb sprawl and manage growth, said Phillip Matura (ph), GJF's corporate research director and primary author of the study. " It goes on to say that organized labor is playing an expanding role in the movement against sprawl, and that they see a growing involvement from unions, including the building trades, in an effort to promote smart growth. And their findings suggest the very trend is likely to continue. Another issue that was brought up by an attorney that came in and spoke, I believe, on behalf of some developers, that this bill 13 may very well be unconstitutional. That couldn't be further from the truth. Just not too long ago in Lower Gwynedd there was a court that challenged a similar legislation putting limits on retailers. And a state court has upheld that here in Pennsylvania, there are no unconstitutional issues here at all. And the last thing I'd like to say is, if I recall right, some people testified that this kind of thing is bad for business, that it's not good for business here in Philadelphia. I recall back in the early '80s 166 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 it was Philadelphia who led the nation, the first municipality ever to pass a plant closing law. Some Councilmembers were here then and recall it well, I'm sure. They were told then that would be bad for business. Well, the rest of the nation went on and followed. Many communities throughout the country had taken that blueprint, passed similar laws limiting what employers can or can't do when they're closing down and giving workers fair warning. In fact, once the Federal Warn Act was approved, it was basically modeled after what happened here in Philadelphia. It was even stronger than what happened here in Philadelphia. I'm proud that our City led in that challenge back then, and I'd like to see them lead this challenge here today. On behalf of the 22,000 members of Local 1776, I urge this Committee to pass this legislation, suspend the Rules, and let the full Council vote to accept it before the end of this session. I thank you. I know it's 167 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 been a busy day, but I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Eiding, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilmembers, My name is Pat Eiding. I'm the President of the Philadelphia Council of the AFL-CIO. As I stated here the last time I testified, we represent about 125,000 members at the present time. It's important that I note included in that membership is the building trade unions, the public sector unions and private unions. I won't go over my complete testimony from before because I think Wendell Young certainly covered an awful lot, that we would be redundant in many of the things, but it's important that I speak out on a couple issues. One is the statements made at the last hearing, that this kind of restriction on 168 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 big box or super stores would restrict or turn away developers. I think that's really a stretch when we realize that there's an awful lot of building that goes on besides one or two big box stores in a City of this size. The amount of Acme's and Super Fresh and those kinds of stores that have been here for many years, traditional stores, and the amount of work that they do -- and I know coming from the trades, and especially the mechanical field, there's renovation going on all the time in those kinds of stores. What that means to us here in Philadelphia is that they're all union jobs. What that means is they're all living wage jobs. They're jobs that have benefits. They're people who live in the City and pay taxes. When you go with a company -- and I know Wal-Mart keeps popping up. We don't want to use them as the only example because there are other people who may want to come in and build super stores. But Wal-Mart is a good example because when they talk about paying people -- one of the comments I read recently 169 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 from the CEO is, we pay them what we have to. 00 an hour, they won't. If they don't have to give benefits, they won't. It doesn't matter whether they deserve it because they work hard. What's important about that is that's the reason Wal-Mart can sell items so much cheaper than everybody else. That's why they have such a great history of predatory pricing. There's no way in the world that a local Acme or retail store or just a corner store can compete with them, because, listen, if you read anything at all about these big market areas, they demand the lowest prices from the suppliers. If you really want to take a look at Wal-Mart and those kinds of big stores, 90 percent of the things you turn over would be made in China, and I think the kids there get about cents an hour. I don't think 23 Philadelphia is about that. I think this City 24 for all working people is about living wages. 25 It's about benefits and it's about having the 170 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 right to make a decent wage. The other thing that I think is important is -- and I want to get back to the construction area because I don't want to go away from letting anybody thinking that I don't care about more jobs for the construction workers. That's certainly been my history for my whole life. What I believe -- and I firmly believe or I wouldn't be here today -- if the Wal-Mart would build a super store, it would probably take away more construction jobs that would be building other food stores and regular traditional stores and renovating those stores than you would get out of one construction site. But on top of that, what happens when they do build it, whoever that big super store builder is, the people who work there do not earn living wages. And I hate to bring it up, it was mentioned earlier, they certainly won't have benefits and they won't have the kinds of jobs people should have living in the City of Philadelphia. I think that's important. 171 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 I think that we would get more jobs by not having companies go out of business because they can't compete with Wal-Mart and the other big stores. I think we'd have more construction jobs because more people would develop.
I think we've heard many times over, there's nobody who can compete with these stores, so why would they build, why would they stay in business. So that's why I come here today, and I come here in favor of this ordinance, and would hope that the Council would consider and pass this bill and keep the kinds of livelihoods and the kinds of businesses in Philadelphia that have traditionally kept this City the great City that it is. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Irwin Aronson. That's I-R-W-I-N. Aronson is A-R-O-N-S-O-N. I am here in my capacity as counsel to UFCW Local 172 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 1776. I'm a member of the Philadelphia-based law firm of Willig, Williams & Davidson. My purpose in taking the microphone is not to speak in terms of the merits of this legislative proposal. My clients, by way of Mr. Young and Mr. Eiding, have more than amply discussed the public policy aspects of this at the last hearing and again today. What I do want to have this Committee be aware of is that we are here and present and available for responding to questions of a technical nature that may have arisen at the last hearing or may be on the minds of the Members of this Committee today with respect to the legislation. To that end, I want to address three points very briefly that I understand came up at the last hearing. The first is a suggestion that this legislation has a Constitutional infirmity because of a notion that it is somehow exclusionary with respect to zoning. It simply is not exclusionary and this would not represent exclusionary zoning at all. Mr. Young alluded to that with 173 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 respect to a recent decision of Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court in Montgomery County wherein similar legislation that has been on the books for some time was initially found to be flawed by the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County. But ultimately on appeal, the Judge, speaking for the Commonwealth Court, endued a plurality decision, but a majority decision indicated very clearly the analysis to be applied to allegedly exclusionary zoning rules. In that analysis she determined that this type of rule does not prohibit any particular business enterprise, but merely deals with size. Analytically what she articulated, for example, that if Home Depot could not comfortably operate in a 50 or 60,000 square foot store, that did not mean that lumbar yards and hardware stores were excluded. It only meant that someone else, for example, the DiCicco Hardware Store or lumberyard theoretically, hypothetically could operate at a smaller store and make a profit. So it's not exclusionary. That's one issue 174 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 that I want to address. The second is that under the City's Home Rule Charter, Section 5-1005 indicates that persons who are aggrieved by the issuance of various City licenses or permits are afforded a hearing before the Board of Licenses and Inspection and Review. And the suggestion is that the hearing process contemplated by this legislation would supercede that, and that again is an erroneous diversionary tactic. Obviously, we have an election of remedies here. There is no sense or no intent that we can discern or glean in reading legislation to substitute one for the other, but there would be an opportunity to elect like remedies. Finally, there is an allegation that there is a limitation on the penalties that can be imposed, and this legislation potentially exceeds that limitation. There is no penalty section in this legislation, per se. What there is is a liquidated damages section that indicates when and in the event 175 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 someone who has been granted a permit undertakes activities which are violative of the permit, because the damages can't be adequately and rapidly measured, the legislation creates what those damages ought to be. And they have been described and have been discussed before this Committee previously. So the $300 penalty rule would apply only so far as penalties, and this is not penal in nature. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Committee Members.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. McGrath, please.
As a student in high school, I was very good in arithmetic and terrible in algebra and trigonometry. So forgive me, because I think there are elements here involved like that. Do I gather -- and if I'm wrong, 176 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 please correct me -- that they're aspects of Wal-Mart that are being discussed between these two bills that we've heard so far? One is that there is a sizable area of thinking that Wal-Mart, as an employer, does not recognize the rights of labor, as labor generally thinks it ought to do it, irrespective of what size store they're in. That's one point of view. The second point of view is that the super center, which apparently Wal-Mart specializes in, represents a very special threat by Wal -Mart, separate and apart from the threat raised by their lack of enthusiasm for labor organization. Am I right or am I wrong? Did I miss something in those two issues?
I assume the question is for me, or any of us? I'll answer it. I believe you're right in your assessment on the first point. Wal-Mart's record of violating people's rights in a number of ways, whether it's their activity involved in organizing or their civil rights, 177 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 not only with workers, but with suppliers, vendors, contractors, communities is well documented, well established. They're the most sued company in the country and I believe in the world. There are a number of class action suits currently under way and pending. Numerous labor law violations, whether directed at individual workers, for example, for daring to marry someone of a different race, or directed whole groups of workers for trying to organize. Like in Texas where the UFCW organized a group of Wal-Mart workers and they shut down the whole meat sections of the stores throughout the whole region and eventually across the nation. So their record is terrible in that regard. The second point you brought up, the size. There are two different bills here today. The one I'm testifying about is specifically the second one, the one that's under consideration right now. I was here a few weeks ago, Councilman, and I'm not sure if you caught 178 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 that testimony or had a chance to review it, but the super centers are particularly lethal in terms of their predatory practices in the community, the impact on the community. This bill seeks to put limits on the size of the store and the mix of merchandise to prevent Wal-Mart from building super centers in the City of Philadelphia.
If I can add to that, please. The point about Wal-Mart and as far as their wages and pay, those kinds of things, let me just say publicly, we will organize Wal-Mart. There's no problem. We'll organize them, and we'll organize the stores that are traditional-sized Wal-Marts. If a store comes into this area that doesn't exceed the numbers that we are talking about, we'll get those organized. I have great faith in that. But the problem we're facing with this bill is the super store, the super store that would put people out of business that already has good employers and are paying decent wages won't build here. That's the concern we have with this. It doesn't apply 179 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 itself to whether Wal-Mart is union or non-union. It applies itself to these super stores that won't drive away the employers that are good employers.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. McGrath, please. Please identify yourself for the record. Would Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. Pollack prepare themselves, please.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, fellow citizens. My name is John T. McGrath, Jr. I'm from Local Union 1823. We're the floor layers and drapery workers out of the Carpenters Union. And as such, I belong to a union that represents thousands of families in the City of Philadelphia. And on behalf of those families in the City of Philadelphia, we are against the artificial restriction of economic growth, job growth and tax revenue. 180 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 The bill we have at hand is a bill 3 that will restrict the develop of a Wal-Mart at Tulip at Allegheny Avenue. If this bill is passed, it will place restrictions on the development of that Wal-Mart. And so to be realistic and pragmatic, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We have a developer that has a site that will build there. It's concrete. It's tangible. We will have construction jobs on that project if things go the way we want them to go with the Wal-Mart being built. If you support this bill that you have in front of you, you will put restrictions on it, and therefore, the families that belong to our union will be hurt. It will hurt development. It will hurt economic growth. It will hurt job growth and tax revenue. The City needs the tax revenue. Our families need the jobs and the economic growth. So we would ask you on our behalf. We do not support this bill and we do not want artificial restrictions on growth, jobs, or tax revenue. 181 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
Thank you very much for your testimony. Yes, Councilman Cohen.
Do I gather from the witness that he hopes to turn the first discussion on the first bill at Tulip and Allegheny, that you hope that at some point that may become a super center? Are you concerned that this second bill that we're talking would prevent Tulip and Allegheny location from becoming a super center, and therefore you don't want this bill 14 passed?
Our concern is with artificial restrictions on growth. And so we don't want anything to restrict the possibility of this Wal-Mart being built.
Or of the Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny from becoming a super center; isn't that right?
You want it built. As far as you're concerned, if it turns into super center, that's fine? Do I 182 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 put words in your mouth or am I right?
Well, I don't know what you mean by it. It was presented to us as something that's not a super center, with the agreement on the part of some people that they will take steps to prevent it from ever becoming super center. I assume you're against them taking those steps. You want the freedom to turn Tulip and Allegheny into a super center?
In clarification, Mr. Councilman, if this is passed, it could inhibit developers from coming into the City, which would put restrictions on their development, and therefore, it could endanger construction jobs. We don't want to do that. We're not in favor of restrictions.
No, sir. No, not any restrictions. That's pretty broad and pretty vast. What we're talking about now, we don't 183 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 want these restrictions.
That's the answer I was seeking. I just wanted to know what your point of view was.
Thank you very much. Mr. Sklaroff. Mr. Pollack. Is Jason Todd here? Gentlemen, identify yourselves for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of this Committee. My name is Michael Sklaroff, law firm of Ballard, 184 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll. We'll try not to go over the same territory we went over at the last hearing. If you recall, Doug Grayson (ph) vice president for development of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust testified at the last hearing, and he said that in his view, this was a signal to the development community not to come to Philadelphia, and I want to elaborate more on that. What I want to talk about is this bill, the bill before you. You're here because there are some important issues and the arguments on both sides. And these issues involve what we would call macro economics. The spirit behind this bill, I assume, has to do with trying to create, in effect, an island in the Sea of Nafta. Well, I don't know that cities can do that. Philadelphia has to be open to redevelopment, to rebirth, to renewal, to jobs, to opportunities. This bill is not the way to do it. This bill has flaws in it. It has not been rewritten. It doesn't seem to have had 185 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 the input from the Philadelphia Planning Commission that it needs. But let me tell you a little story, a Philadelphia story. I was born in the Park Side section of the City. And my first memory, retail memory, was being given a quarter by my grandmom to go to the corner grocery, Fishneski's (ph), to get a tin of tuna fish, which you could buy for a quarter. That was on Lightey Avenue. Then we moved out to, I think it was called West Park. And my mom used to shop at the Penn Fruit, now a blessed memory on City Avenue. Then there came a time that we briefly left the City of Philadelphia. And we shopped at the Cheltenham Shopping Center, which had, if I recall correctly, an Acme. And then in my adult years, I came back to Philadelphia. I lived in the Spring Garden section since the early '70s. Now I shop at a whole foods market, which is really a community center in our neighborhood and a blessing. Now, what do all of those grocery stores, the mom and pop store on Lightey Avenue, the Penn Fruit on 186 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 City Avenue, the Acme at Cheltenham Shopping Center and the whole foods at 20th, roughly, and Hammond, what do they all have in common? Each and every one of these in this bill would be prohibited. Each and every one of them. Because this bill says you can't sell groceries in the City of Philadelphia if you're under 90,000 square feet. That's the unintended consequence. This bill has not been amended. The first order of business of this Council under the charter should be, do no 14 harm. This bill sends all kinds of messages that this is not a serious bill, and if City Council passes it, it's not seriously looking at the text of the bill. That's number one. The unintended consequences of this bill is you can't really sell food until you get up to 90,000 square feet of a store or a facility. And then, you can't sell more than 10 percent. Not just the food, but also of cosmetics, soaps, nonprescription drugs and/or toiletries. So let's get to what happens at 187 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 90,000 square feet. At that point you're not allowed to have in a store in a facility -- and shopping facility is not defined. I would take that as a shopping center. So if you have, for example, a 50,000-square-foot Acme in a shopping center, you can't put that in a shopping center of, let's say, 400,000 square feet because it's more than percent, 10 putting aside the whole question of these big mega stores, of which there doesn't seem to be any evidence yet.
Assuming that this would be passed -- and I hope it won't be -- then you have the reporting requirements, the reporting requirements of these facilities to the department of L & I, which as it is, is strapped for enough money to pay its employees a decent wage and to have enough employees to service the licensing and inspections function under the City Charter. Did you budget a half million or a million dollars to hire all the people it would take to monitor this? I don't think so. I don't think anyone in this Council is going to put that in the budget 188 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 that's going to be adopted in the next fiscal year. So it's a non starter there. It's over regulation. It requires reporting without standards. And then you get to the question of 180,000 square feet, and I won't even address that because Mr. Pollack, who's going to be speaking on behalf of the Bar Association and the Board of Governors will address this. But the point of this is, is that the signal this gives out is one of confusion. The bill is ill considered. It doesn't do what it accomplishes. It inadvertently creates havoc in the City of Philadelphia. I think this needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. It needs to be reviewed by Council staff. And I will tell you, the authority for making this Constitutional is not one case in Lower Gwynedd, where in Lower Gwynedd the Commonwealth Court decided you could limit retail stores to 6,000 square feet. That does not inform decisions of this City Council. The City of Philadelphia, a good and great 189 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 City empowering this region, shouldn't be aligning itself with parochial communities that limit certain uses to 6,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention.
Chairman Kenney, Members of the Council, my name is Steven Pollack. I'm here today as a representative of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association. On November 25th at a meeting of the Board of Governors, there was a resolution 15 passed by the Board of Governors to be opposed to the bill as it is currently written. Hopefully, a copy of that resolution has been submitted to you or will be handed out to you. Mr. Sklaroff has covered many of the grounds that we would like to bring to this panel's attention. What we feel is, again, that the unintended consequences of this bill 23 has devastating effects on the mom and pop stores, the little existing groceries, in that it seems to have a hole in it, that if you're 190 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 under 90,000 square feet and you sell any of these items, that you too will not be able to get any building permits or zoning permits. So we think that that is something that we are deeply concerned about. The Bar Association itself is not taking any position, nor do we have any notion that there would be two Wal-Mart bills or any kinds of bills of that nature. What we were concerned about in taking this is what was happening to existing businesses in the City of Philadelphia and to our zoning code as we look at it. Also, with regard -- with due respect -- to the earlier opinion with regard to the penalty sections, there seems to be a taxation or a penalty that's imposed depending on the size, but it also opens it up to that anybody can be a plaintiff and that damages can be awarded to the plaintiff, but no 22 damages could be awarded to a defendant if they were able to hold back a challenge as to whether they were 10 percent or 11 percent of gross sales. So we feel that there are lots 191 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 of things that are going on in this bill that maybe Council has -- we'll leave to Council the determination as to whether or not big boxes is something this town wants or doesn't want. If you're going to be doing this, we as the Board of Governors feel that you don't want to take away the ability of our smaller businesses to be able to get their permits and to be able to expand and also to have dictated to them the kind of merchandise that they can sell.
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Mr. Todd, please. Is there a Rochelle Dutes, D-U-T-E-S, in the room? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, Members of 192 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 the Council, my name is Jason Todd. I'm government affairs manager here on behalf of the Pennsylvania Retailers Association. I'm here today to ask you to oppose the ordinance 6 that's before you. The Pennsylvania Retailers Association was formed in 1932 to foster, protect and promote the welfare of those engaged in retail merchandising in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Members include small and large independent stores, and national chain stores representing a variety of retail businesses, including clothing, gifts, auto supplies, furniture and other specialty stores. PRA's primary focus is to represent the retail industry before the General Assembly, Governor's Office and various state agencies. Our member companies believe that a strong, free enterprise system is the key to a strong economy, and a strong economy benefits all segments of every community. As you consider public policy changes relating to the growth of large 193 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 discount retail stores, we ask that you recognize the tremendous benefits that one-stop shopping and competitively priced products bring to consumers. Mass retailing means that people do not have to travel as far to get what they need and they can afford more for less. We ask the Committee to also consider other ways which retailers benefit communities. For example, large format discount retailers offer substantial economic benefit to local communities. Last year one member gave each local store manager in Philadelphia the authority to distribute $4,200 to a variety of local charities, including youth at risk programs, affordable housing efforts, environmental initiatives and disaster recovery. Another major retailer donates more than $1 million per week to communities where the company does business. And yet another donated $170,000 to the City of Philadelphia. Large format retailers also offer a variety of employment opportunities for your 194 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 citizens. Currently, our large retail provide over a thousand jobs to the City of Philadelphia. Many students get their first job working part-time in high school and during college at our stores. For those that need a flexible work schedule, our large format stores provide an opportunity to work during the times that fit their demanding schedules. Finally, mass retailers offer excellent careers in retailing as store managers. Our stores provide good jobs and meet a variety of workers' skill levels and time schedules. We believe the vast majority of people in Philadelphia want more choice and convenience in their shopping experience, and that the City could benefit from the value, selection, job opportunities and commitment mass retailers provide. PRA strongly believes that an outright ban is unfair, arbitrary and a direct assault on the consumers of Philadelphia. Such a law is a prime example of the 195 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 government meddling in the free market system on which this country was founded. By severely restricting large format retailers, Philadelphia will clearly place itself at a competitive disadvantage to those neighboring cities without such laws. This may likely result in fewer jobs, reduced tax revenue and a weakened economy. In addition, requiring certain size stores to submit an economic impact statement is discriminatory and gives competitors an unfair advantage. It is for these reasons that anti-retail, anti-growth and anti -consumer legislation makes poor public policy and should be avoided. Thank you for your time. We urge the Committee to vote no 18 on this ordinance.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Cohen.
Aren't there a number of competing interests here? Isn't government in a position where it has to try to deal with all of them fairly? So my 196 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 question would be directly on the basis of that, is the intended consequence achievable? Will the bill, if enacted by us, will it be successful in preventing Wal-Mart from building a super center? It may also have unintended consequences, but will the intended consequence be achieved?
Well, if Wal-Mart intends to build a super center or any other retailer intends to build a store over 180,000 square feet selling nontaxable items, that will keep them out, yes. That's what the bill states.
All right. I think we're in that position from time to time. There are competing interests and we have to try to resolve all of them. It seems to me this bill may very well be something that everybody is a little bit unhappy with, but yet begins to deal with the problem. Obviously, there's a lot of feeling that the big giants can stamp out little groups. And 197 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Philadelphia is a town of neighborhoods and lots of little retail stores. And the experience has been that a giant can come in and suppress the stores, which is what's happening in most of our neighborhoods with very few retail establishments. Now, as we try to rebuild neighborhoods to enable small businesses to at least survive, if not flourish, we're looking for ways to achieve that. Does not this bill move in that direction? Would it make it much more likely that small businesses will be able to sustain themselves?
It's a slippery slope once you start regulating what a store can sell and what they cannot sell within their four walls. You're not regulating a Starbucks store that is putting the mom and pop shop down the street that sells coffee, you're not regulating that, but yet you put mom and pop down the road out of business with a Starbucks store, but you're not legislating against them. 198 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 It's a question of fairness and consumer choice. Leave it to the consumers of Philadelphia to decide where they want to shop, is where we're coming from.
But from the time you're born, aren't you on a slippery slope? At some point you're going to die. You don't know when. So from that point of view, you can't avoid every slippery slope, because in the meantime, while you survive, you've got to live. One of the questions we've got to ask ourselves in the Council is, are we so committed to the concept of bigness that we don't care about small business anymore? Was that just words that we use temporarily, and are we really interested in the big guys because big guys can give us much bigger campaign contributions? Therefore, pay to play operates at both the government level and operates at the community level. Community groups get so little in the way of services that, of course, if a developer comes in and says, we'll outfit a 199 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 library, or we'll give it more books or we'll put in some extra equipment in a playground, the tendency of community groups is, we're not going to get anything any other way, so they give in, just like politicians give in who feel they need this extra money to get elected. I think pay to play operates not just at the government level, it operates at every level. I think it's clear here that Wal-Mart is using a law firm that establishes itself by the letter I read into the record as probably the number one law firm in getting campaign contributions. And as a method of convincing people, as well as government officials, that what Wal-Mart wants is good for the country and maybe for the world. I have serious question as to whether that makes good sense for Philadelphia. So I'm sure we're on a slippery slope, but then all of us always feel we're on slippery slopes all the time. So what's new today? You know, we've got to try to decide, isn't the small businessman good for 200 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 neighborhood? Isn't it good to have a local shoe repairman? Isn't it good to have a local grocery store, that kind of thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In this free market enterprise, local business can find other ways to compete against the big boys. And it's about fairness and the free market economy --
Well, why do they have to find other ways? Why isn't this a good way of saying, we're not going to let you take it advantage of your economic strength? Doesn't big business have so many methods of gaining its way? Why do they need this extra business of having a super box?
Thank you, Councilman. Is there a representative from the Planning Commission here? Mr. Chapman, can you please come up? We are currently dealing with Bill 25 No. 030645. Does the Planning Commission have 201 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 any thoughts or opinion on this particular legislation?
Mr. Kenney, good afternoon. Deputy City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This bill has not been considered by the Planning Commission at this time.
The Planning Commission does have a meeting next Wednesday, I believe it is.
Is it likely that this will be on the agenda? I mean, do you think, based on past experience, that this may be on the agenda? Do you guys deal with every bill that has something to do with zoning or planning?
Yes, that's correct. Anything that amends Title 14 is required to be considered by the Planning Commission under 202 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 the Home Rule Charter.
Irwin Aronson is from the Bar Association, and would like the opportunity to respond here today.
Yes. I understand he's prepared to go right on. Just give us the other point of view.
Come forward. The one thing that I'm getting increasingly concerned about is we have now two sets of lawyers with two different opinions, which is not uncommon; however, the one lawyer that we normally are required to abide --
The lawyers that we're usually required to at least listen to 203 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 or take into consideration are the Solicitor's Office, and we haven't heard anything from them. Certainly, this lawyer's opinion is important to hear, as was the Bar Association people, but again, in the end the City's Solicitor's Office is kind of our Ultimate guide. So with that being said, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name again is Irwin Aronson. I've been previously introduced before this Committee. A couple of comments. An allegation was made by one of the witnesses that the legislation as drafted prohibits any grocery store of less than 90,000 square feet to exist. This is simply false. It is a misreading or a mischaracterization of what is in the legislation, to the best of my knowledge. And if for some reason there would need in the otherwise salutary effect of this legislation to have some modest modification of that language to make it clear to Mr. Sklaroff, I'm sure we could work that through. 204 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
I'm not suggesting any section because I don't where he reads that from. But if it is indeed something that creates an ambiguity where I didn't see one -- .
If that was necessary. Really, this bill is ripe for passage. Let me suggest some other responses, if I may, Councilman Cohen, and Committee Members, Mr. Chairman. There are, contrary to the assertion made to you, over 170 cities and towns throughout the United States that have adopted legislation akin to what is before you today in Bill No. 030645. To suggest that Philadelphia is an island against Nafta or is being proposed to be such is hyperbolic certainly, but doesn't get us to the point. I use that as a touch stone . In reading the resolution, which 205 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 I've just seen for the first time only about several moments ago, the resolution adopted by my union, the Bar Association, I find myself in that rare situation where I'm opposed to something that a union is doing. And I say that because primarily as I read the resolution and its various introductory comments, it is addressing not legal issues, but public policy issues, which are decisions for the City Council to make, not for we lawyers to make. It implies that the legislation is vague, but I have read it and I see no such vagaries. It speaks in detail about adverse impacts on business and trade. And indeed, any regulatory activity undertaken by any deliberative or legislative body has some adverse impact on some sector. That's just the fundamental nature of regulatory activity. That's a consequence of how we deal with competing interests in a society, as Councilman Cohen has alluded to earlier today, both in conversations on this legislation and the legislation that was previously introduced. 206 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 There are no hidden taxes or hidden penalties in this legislation as I've read it, as I've reviewed it. It doesn't exclude anything. It limits and restricts inappropriate fashions consistent with the public policy that this City Council develops for the entire City. In closing, let me suggest to you that any suggestion that a decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is not binding on the City of Philadelphia is a suggestion that in and of itself is an effort to lead this City Council down a path of rejecting the rule of law, something which this City Council has itself rejected on many, many occasions over many centuries. Thank you very much.
Like all good lawyers, Mr. Sklaroff can find weaknesses in bills and he could look where they exist and he can also find them where they don't exist, but that goes with being a lawyer and that's why it was important to have both sides presented today. 207 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. Indeed, were I not able to find flaws in everyone else's work, I wouldn't be able to make a living. Thank you.
Thank you very much. In addition to the Planning Commission and the Solicitor's Office being silent on this issue, we have not heard either from the Commerce Department or from the Mayor's Office. So we're not getting a lot of input from the government formally as to where they stand on this bill, and that's not a common practice.
We haven't gotten any position on either bill, have we, today?
Seeing none, we'll now move to Bill No. 030730, which is an 208 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Section 14-1628 entitled, "District Special Controls," prohibiting certain uses in relation to the sale of malt and brew beverages, all under certain terms and conditions. Can we have Mr. Chapman, please? There's four people to testify from the community. I just want to let the community know that I've polled the Members of the Committee. All of the Members of the Committee are in favor of this bill, and we are going to vote to put it out of Committee today. So any comments you make, be made with the understanding that we're all voting yes on it, so you can save yourself some time and energy, but we love to hear from you anyway. Thank you. Mr. Chapman.
Good afternoon, once again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. 209 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 This bill, Bill No. 030730, was introduced by Councilmembers Blackwell, Council President Verna, Councilmembers DiCicco, Miller, Nutter and Tasco on November 13th of this year. If enacted, this bill 7 would amend Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code by adding a new Section 14-1628, entitled, "District Special Controls." This bill would prohibit certain uses related to the sale of malt and brew beverages in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th Councilmanic districts. This bill, again, has not been considered by the Planning Commission. It's scheduled to be on our meeting agenda for next week.
Thank you. For those who were at the previous hearing, as you may know, we introduced a bill to have a pilot program in the 3rd District, but we're very, very pleased to have Councilman DiCicco approach us first and then other Councilmembers about being included in this whole issue of zoning for stop-and-goes. So 210 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 as was read, certainly my colleagues, Councilman DiCicco, Councilwoman Verna, Councilman Nutter, Councilwoman Tasco and Councilwoman Miller are all included in this legislation. Given the fact that I've had many people ask me, especially press, about our position on this, as all of us know and everyone who has the experience of living near a stop-and-go, realizes that we are interested in the more than 90 percent of great businesses that exist in our City, but certainly we want the ability to try to regulate as much as we can those who allow their establishments to be hang outs, who sell cigarette paper and loose cigarettes and have drugs and other illegal activities going on inside and out. That is our agenda only, to help to maintain and increase the quality of life for all who live and work in our City. We support great businesses and we don't support or respect those who do not work with the community. And this bill will permit every business to, in the future, to go apply 211 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 for a variance with zoning, which will allow the community the opportunity to participate in the process and have dialog with new stop-and-goes in their areas. That's what it's all about for us. Certainly to those who have come to testify, we will be having hearings later on in the month where we invite our state officials to talk about stop-and-goes overall and the bigger problem of regulation, how many there are, as much as they did liquor laws years ago when there were a lot of bars in one neighborhood. We'll have that discussion. We'll begin that discussion with hearings later on in the month. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank everyone for their patience. We know it's been a rough day.
Thank you very much. Is there any representative from the community who would like to go on the record for a moment? Please identify yourself. 212 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730
My name is Greg Spearman. I'm currently participating in a boycott up on 55th and Larchwood. I think we've been out 391 days straight today. I'm very much concerned about the quality of life issues in our community. Not only do we address stop-and-goes, we address concerns. Actually, I'm president of the 18th District Community Town Watch which, of course, these type of issues are paramount. And for us to be out there 391 days consistently from the time that they opened to the time they close, at least shows the commitment, and not only with me, but with my other members that we have to maintain a quality of life in our community. I think it's misunderstood by those Councilmembers of yours who haven't signed on to it because I think it will send a sign or show a sign of solidarity across Philadelphia. And being proactive instead of reactive to these types of establishments -- because it's documented throughout the law enforcement agencies and Councilmembers across 213 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 Philadelphia -- that these here types of business are nuisances. I'd like to applaud Councilman DiCicco for signing right on without any hesitation, because that shows the signs of leadership that's definitely needed in our community. We understand the teeth that are in this bill, instead of like some others like to say, lack of teeth in the bill, and it at least shows that the Members, the Councilmembers that signed on, are truly concerned and doing what they can to assist us. Because the signage that these type of establishments put up in their stores is offensive. They are just outright breaking the law by not having seating in their establishments. I can show you dozens -- and I'm not talking about one or two -- dozens in West Philadelphia alone. I can take you in North Philadelphia. That's why I'm truly concerned why Councilman Clarke didn't sign on before he did. I do believe that he is going to participate, and I hope it's true. Because 214 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 North Philadelphia is littered with these type of establishments. The types of products shows that they're target marketed to minority and economically depressed communities, and they are persistent on putting these type of products that we -- and I'm talking about responsible citizens -- do not buy. Blunt wraps, we don't buy blunt wraps. I'm not talking about Topp paper. Blunt wraps. The sole purpose of blunt wraps is to wrap marijuana. The tobacco industry found out that they can just sell the paper without the tobacco to the young kids for the wrapping of marijuana exclusively. Straight shooters, which are crack pipes. They call them roses. These types of establishments sell them. They don't hide them. They sell them. They have them sitting up in boxes. This is offensive. This is offending to us who go out and work every day. We jump on these buses. We are law-abiding citizens. And then to look up and see that we don't have no recourse. We already went through it where you 215 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 say the City, the City says the state, and we get caught in between to be sitting up here and know that there is an establishment that we are standing out in front of for 391 days that don't have seating, still don't have seating, never intended to have seating. They have seating in the back now to try to make one think that they had seating, but that's back in their work area. Never intended for the public use. No restroom. Just outright go into business to break the law. Going to compromise our safety. Shootings. Shootings are not uncommon outside of these establishments. And as we all know, we found out with the JBM that these here characters can't shoot. So we're talking about stray bullets flying across the street, down the street and hitting us. And the establishment that I'm talking about now, in their refrigeration, they have Hugs, the 22 cent drinks that the kids drink, sitting right 23 next to a row of 40-ounce malt liquor right 24 next to it.
That's why we're here. 25 We went over it, but once you stand 216 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 outside an establishment and go through these frustrating tactics that they try to put you through, this is just minor. m. m. 6 This bill will not address the 7 issues that we're here for. We're here fighting for other communities that will go through the same type of disrespect that this business has shown us in our community. That's what we're here for. I said in the past, the last time that I was here, there is a new tactic that they have going on now, they have included with the stop-and-goes, bars. So they have bars. They actually cut the bars in half, so it's half the volume. So you can sit at the bar. You got the stop-and-go in the front or in the back. On the 1500 block of South 16th Street they have one. They got Plexiglass up to the bar so the ones sitting in the bar, they're sliding drinks through. The 5200 Block of Girard Avenue, they have one, yet kids are still allowed to go in there. What I'd like to say to the other 217 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 Councilmembers who didn't sign on, such as O'Neill, Krajewski or whoever else it is, with the implosion of these high rises and with the scattering of these here tenants of PHA and what not, they're moving into your community and so are these stop-and-goes. So it still will affect you just the same. If you think you're excluded, you're not. And if we, an organized community, have to stand outside of an establishment for 390-something days, just think about the communities that don't have the ability to mobilize or organize such as we. It's overwhelming. Not only that, it's insulting. I truly feel insulted and disrespected by the financiers, the business owners and those who think it it's just acceptable for these type of businesses and practices to happen in our community. I truly feel insulted. And there's no reason not to sign to this bill and show the solidarity that is needed for the liquor industry to know that it's not acceptable just to come in and destroy the quality of life of our communities 218 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 here in Philadelphia. It's not acceptable. At one time it was acceptable to take and put -- it was not acceptable and felt disrespected to slide your food or money through a hole in the store. Now it's become acceptable. Now they're trying to force it to be acceptable to slide a drink through a hole. Well, we took an organized (sic) around a bar on 54th and Spruce. They had the store configuration to set up for a stop-and-go in the front and a bar in the back. And we stopped that. We still got our eye on them because we found out one of common denominators in these types of establishments is that they will say anything to get what they want. Once they get inside, they do what they want. I'd like to thank you.
Good afternoon to the Committee. My name is Elder Pamela K. Williams. I'm here representing the Kim Denise Williams Foundation, which is a non-profit organization from West 219 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 Philadelphia. After hearing the statement of Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, I would like to commend the Committee for its anticipated approval of this bill, and we would hope that the upcoming hearings would allow the community an opportunity to voice their opinions on the restructuring of how we deal with the violators of this bill, and how we deal with the laws that have been on the books for years in reference to the locale of these stop-and-goes and the quantity of the stop-and-goes within our community. Let me say as a representative of a portion of the West Philadelphia community, that we do commend you voting on this and we look forward to the upcoming hearings that we'll be able to voice our opinions and assist you in making adjustments to the bills so that the community will have a greater voice in structuring these facilities in our community. But we do thank you and appreciate your anticipated approval.
Thank you for 220 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 your attendance and your patience in waiting. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hi. I'm Tracy Gordon. I'm a community organizer in Southwest Philadelphia. One of the things that I also wanted to emphasize is I'm happy that you're going to put a freeze on the bills, but the stores that they have existing now are just gateway houses for drugs. If you look at the configuration, you'll see that in the windows, they'll have the blunt paper right next to the sunflower seeds and the fish, and like he said, the Hugs. And I think that's a violation because if minors aren't allowed to go into bars -- and I guess that was because of the alcohol -- then we're thinking that maybe they shouldn't be allowed to even go into these stop-and-goes because you have the potato chips in the window right next to the drug paraphernalia. Everybody knows that blunts are drug paraphernalia. Another thing that they're violating 221 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 is our quality of life with the unsightly, disrespectful nudity signs that's placed in these windows. You'll have scantily clad women with the 40 bottles in the windows with neon signs. I think that we should look into the reconfiguration of these stores. Lastly, I wanted to say is these stores, everybody knows they're hangouts for drug dealers. If I can see it when I'm walking by, how in the world if I own the store, don't I see it. For the most part, they don't even live in our community. They live in other communities that don't even allow it. So I just wanted you all to also consider us passing a law to restructure how they present stores in our neighborhood.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. As I said before, the Committee will be voting this bill out with a favorable recommendation and a Rules suspension to allow for final passage the week after this Thursday. Councilmember Clarke. 222 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there will be an amendment to the bill.
Okay. So, Councilman Clarke, you'll be amending your district into the bill?
The next bill 11 for consideration is 030670, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 2nd Street, Turner Street, Hancock Street and Oxford Street. Mr. Chapman, please, first, Planning Commission. Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon once again, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, I'm Thomas Chapman. This bill was introduced on October 16th of this year by Councilmember Mariano. It would rezone the block bounded by 2nd 223 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 Street, Turner Street, Hancock Street and Oxford Street from the existing G2 General Industrial, to RC1 Residential. This rezoning has been requested to allow the development of this site with a residential 30-unit new construction residential for elderly and disabled persons. This rezoning proposal is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 9th, 2003. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, please come forward. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council. My name is Richard T. Mulcahey Jr., of the Schubert, Bellwoar firm. I represent the buyer of this property, Sicilian Housing Corporation, which is a non-profit housing organization 224 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 established by the Sisters of Saint Joseph in Chestnut Hill. With me is Sister Barbara Ann Winnells (ph), who is the treasurer of the Sisters of Saint Joseph, and we do have a short proposal to show you, a short presentation. The sisters are going to request approval to construct a 49-unit, Section 20 Housing for the elderly. They have two similar projects; one in Flourtown, Montgomery County, close to the campus at Chestnut Hill; and they have another project similar in McSherrystown, Adams County, Pennsylvania. HUD has given superior ratings to both projects. And what the sisters would like to do is take the former site of Mrs. Restler's Food Products, which is now a vacant lot with a burned down building, demolish the existing structures and put up a new structure. And I do have plans just to show you, if you care. Mr. Chairman, the three plans show a site plan, what the building would look like, and the third is a floor plan. HUD has approved a grant to the Sisters of Saint 225 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 Joseph in the amount of $5.899 million to construct this at the site. And as I said, there will be 49 one-bedroom apartments, and there will be rental assistance that will be granted of approximately $900,000 dollars over the next five years. That is the basic presentation for the project. And I do have Sister Barbara Ann Winnells here who could talk about the discussions that she had with the neighborhood groups in support of this project.
Sister, would you please identify yourself for the record?
My name is Sister Barbara Ann Winnells, Sister of Saint Joseph. We had been looking for a possible site, and after conversation with Scott Christian, the executive director of Kensington South, he encouraged us that this was a dream that they had. And what they were going to was to look to use this site and to go after tax credits. However, we felt we could work together since we already had the funding from HUD. 226 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 We met with Scott on two occasions, August 12th and 18th, and went over the proposal. He then introduced us to the zoning group of Kensington South, and we met with the representatives from their zoning group. We then went out to the neighborhood. They received it very favorably and they really feel this will be a gift to their neighborhood. On September 3rd we met with the neighbors and everyone was very positive and everyone voted for it that evening. At that point we just came with the idea. We had no 15 drawings. And we encouraged them, that if we went to our architect and got drawings, that they would have a better sense of what was going to happen. So we did that and then we met again on October 7th. And at that meeting we had many neighbors from the neighborhood, the extended neighborhood as well as the immediate neighborhood, and there was 100 percent in favor of moving ahead with this proposal.
Thank you very 227 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 much for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you for coming. I'm sure the bill will get approval. The plan will receive approval of the Committee and final passage within a week from this Thursday by the full Council. Thank you for your work in the community. Anyone else to testify on this bill?
Seeing none, we will now go to Bill No. 030709, an ordinance 16 approving the fourth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by the southerly side of Washington Avenue on the north, the westerly side of Broad Street on the east, the northerly side of Moore Street on the south and the easterly side of 20th Street on the west, including the fourth amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the second amendment to 228 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties for residentials and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. Mr. Wetzel.
Good afternoon. My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030709, the fourth amended redevelopment proposal and fourth amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Point Breeze redevelopment area and the Point Breeze Urban Renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three vacant lots for institutional development. The properties to be acquired are located at 1208, 1210 and 1212 South 15th Street. 229 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 Acquisition funding will be provided utilizing bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. These properties will be acquired on behalf of Citizens Acting Together Can Help, Inc., or CATCH, a non-profit social service provider. CATCH focuses its efforts in four primary areas; mental health, developmental, disability services, continuum of care for the homeless and management services. CATCH will use this site to construct a new facility to replace an outdated nearby facility. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030709, and would also ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 4th, 2003.
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding from the City Planning Commission and I'm Deputy Director of Community Planning testifying in favor of Bill 230 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 030709. It's an amended redevelopment proposal for Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area authorizing acquisition of three properties for a group home to be occupied by CATCH organization. The Planning Commission approved this at its October meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Pescatore, please identify yourself for the record. MR. PESCATORE (ph): Yes. I'm Pescatore. I'm CEO of CATCH, Incorporated. This proposal is to replace an existing residential facility literally across the street from the acquired lots.
Thank you. Thank you for your organization's fine work in our neighborhoods, especially in South Philly for many years now.
Good evening, Members of the Committee. My name is Kathleen Murray. 231 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 I'm here to represent Council President Anna Verna. She has asked me to convey her strong support for this bill to you. CATCH did try and purchase the properties, but because of various questions of powers of attorney, have not been able to do so.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in and thanks for your patience in waiting. Anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, we will move to Bill 17 No. 030721, which is an ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Washington Avenue on the north, South 4th Street on the east, Dickinson Street on the south and South 6th Street on the west, including the second amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the first amendment to the 232 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for residential 5 and related uses; the provision of certain 6 relocation services, as required by law and 7 declaring that condemnation is not imminent 8 with respect to the project. 9 Please identify yourself for the 10 record. 11
My name is Herbert 12 Wetzel, executive director of the 13 Redevelopment Authority of the City of 14 Philadelphia. 15
Good evening, Mr. 17 Chairperson and Members of the Committee. I'm 18 here to speak in support of Bill No. 030721, 19 the second amended redevelopment proposal and 20 second amended Urban Renewal Plan for the 21 Jefferson Square Redevelopment Area and the 22 Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area. 23 This bill would authorize the 24 Redevelopment Authority to acquire 25 25 properties, 22 occupied structures, one vacant 233 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 structure and two vacant lots on behalf of the Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation. This project will complete the City's commitment to acquire property for the Jefferson Square Neighborhood Revitalization Plan, which will result in the development of 93 units, 63 new construction market rate units and 30 affordable units, of which six are rehabilitation and are new 12 construction. 13 The project is located in the area 14 bounded by South 4th Street, South 5th Street, 15 Federal Street and Reed Street. 22 properties 16 are occupied and will require relocation 17 assistance. As of this date, 16 of the 18 existing homeowners, according to the 19 developer, have already selected Jefferson 20 Square homes as their replacement house. 21 The acquisition cost is estimated at 22 $1.75 million. 50 percent of this cost will 23 be financed with CDBG funds and 50 percent 24 will be financed with state funds. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 234 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 032721, and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 4th, 2003.
Nothing to add. The Planning Commission approved this at its October meeting, so we're testifying in favor.
Great. Thank you. I understand there may be a couple community witnesses. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Good evening, everyone. My name is Joanna King. I was living in the 1300 block of South Leithgow Street for about 43 or 44 years. I liked it there. When this company came through, Jefferson Square, it was hard for me to understand, but finally I did. I 235 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 did what I thought was best for me to do. I voluntarily agreed for my house to be condemned. They promised me a new home and they also promised me that I could live in my old home until the new one is complete, then we'll move out of my old home into the new home. And Jefferson Square, everything they told us yet, so far they did it. And they were very cooperating to us. They help us out wonderfully. And I want to give thanks to Jeremy Newberg, Grant and my Councilman, Frankie DiCicco. I was in my street for, like, 40-some years. All my kids grew up on the street and, like, the elementary school, they graduated, they got married and everything on that street. It was hard for me to give it up. But when I thought about the thing that was best for me, I did. I'm glad I did. I want to thank each and every one who made this a success. We had a meeting, I think it was the day before election, and some of the Jefferson Square members were there, and they talked to 236 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 us and what they said they would do, they did it. We really appreciate that. We really appreciate that.
We love you. And if there's anything we can do to help because you help us out wonderfully, Mr. Newberg, Grant and my Councilman, Frankie DiCicco.
I watched this process go forward as almost an observer from the very beginnings with Councilman DiCicco and Jeremy and the neighbors, and it was a very difficult process because people were losing their homes. As you said, 45 years you used to live there. But it really is nice to see with persistence from my Councilman too -- he's also my Councilman -- persistence and patience and working with people. You have a smile on your face and you're telling us you love us, which is very frightening to us because that doesn't happen to us often. Usually people are saying other things about us. I'm glad that everything worked out for you. 237 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 I want to recognize Councilman DiCicco and thank him for all his work.
So it's four years since the first condemnation. And the mood in this room, with the exception of I think one or two people, is entirely different now than it was then. I want to thank you and the rest of the neighbors that I know are here today, not only the time you put in today, but for the four or five years -- actually almost seven years from the date of its inception when you looked at me and said, who is this man that wants to take my home, to accepting what we offered and moving that community in the right direction. We haven't let you down on any promises since then and I assure you going forward, we will live up to all the promises we've made and continue that relationship. 238 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 Thank you for being here and thank you for your kind words. You're allowed to call me Frankie. She's the only lady who calls me Frankie.
Yes. I want to congratulate the neighbors and Councilman DiCicco in achieving a solution here that makes everybody happy. If I recollect correctly, I was being my usual obnoxious self at the hearing --
-- fighting on behalf of something I hadn't heard about until the hearing date and for the rights of the tenants. And Councilman DiCicco, while he hated me for doing it, was very cooperative in agreeing to meet with everybody. It's been a long, hard process, and I'm delighted it's worked out to everybody's advantage. So to the neighborhood it shows, don't give up on the City even when we seem to be unreasonable. 239 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 To ourselves, congratulations for a job well done, Councilman DiCicco. (Applause.)
My name is Jeremy Newberg. I'm the director of the Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation. I want to thank the City, because the only way a project of this magnitude can occur is with all the resources of the City coming and coordinating to make it happen. It's the Redevelopment Authority for land acquisition. It's OHCD for innovative funding. But deeper, it's L & I for cooperation in dealing with demolition. It's the City Solicitor in dealing with properties with back taxes. All those elements were just so critical. Personally, I want to thank Herb Wetzel and Michael Kuntz (ph) and his staff, because without them we couldn't be here. So thank you.
Thank you very much. 240 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Joseph J. Getka. I am the owner of record of 1230, 1232, 1234 South 5th Street, as well 504 Titan Street, which is a connecting and adjacent property. This is the first notice that I received in the mail, as well as one that's at the post office now, which I haven't had a chance to pick up yet because I wasn't home when it was delivered, that there was a meeting on condemning my properties. On the first condemnation proceeding, we never knew about it until a friend called me and told me, your name is in the paper. They condemned your properties. So I just want to make note that that is how this happened. Since I owned 1234, and 1234 was not condemned, and I own 504, which the yard is connected, and that was not condemned, only 30 and 32 was condemned, and 32 was already half built as a duplex -- I believe it was 241 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 going to be a triplex -- and I gave that to my son, who is Drexel University student. And he was going to finish fixing upstairs, rent it out to friends, and it was going to pay for his tuition. As a result of the City taking this property, he has not been able move anybody in it upstairs, and we've had to pay his tuition out of our pocket all these years. He is still living there. Now, because you took 30 and 32, which I bought legitimately from the City of Philadelphia sometime before this taking, I -- and had not taken 34 -- I was forced to hire an attorney and go to court to try to save the two properties, since they were in the middle of the L shape that I already owned. So when you look at this parcel and look down the years -- and I always thought this neighborhood was going to do well, which is why I bought those properties. I'm a retired police officer. I'm currently a school police officer. I've done all the my work on all my properties after work at the expense of my family. These 242 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 places had been on fire when I was able to get them, and I had to repair all that damage and I did it all myself. So because, again, the two properties were taken and not the L, I went to court to try to fight the taking of those two properties because I wanted to develop those two properties. I told them I was going to build a house that was like the one at 2nd and Catherine, on the corner property, which was a vacant lot with off-street parking, and then finish rebuilding the center one, and I would have owned that. Somewhere down in the future, after I'm dead, my family could have knocked down all four of the houses and built a nice mansion if they wanted to because it would have been a lot size. I've been talking to Mr. Newberg and the gentleman from the Redevelopment Authority. I'm supposed to meet with him Wednesday. But we want to make sure that we get compensated. Because 1234, we didn't know until last week that that was being taken until it appeared in the paper and I got the 243 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 letter in the mail. We assumed all along that, okay, my son will get another property to move into and he could stay where he is now until it's built.
Just to break in, my name is Damon Getka, and I live at 1232 South 5th Street. I've been living there for about three-and-a-half years. I was living there before it was taken. I don't have a story like Mrs. King over there. I have not had a good experience with this, simply because it kind of broke my dreams down because I was finally going to be a property owner. I had a place I was living in. I moved in there and I was fixing up the second and third floors. We were in the middle of trying to get a kitchen when somebody called us and said, your property has been taken. And I've continued to live there. It was listed as blighted, and I can't really argue with that too much for the second and third floor. We were initially offered about $6,000 for the house. I think we paid about 244 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 $13,000 to the City to buy it. And it's just really not fair. We're kind of getting strong-armed out of our apartments and our property. That's where I've been living all this time. I don't know what's going to happen as soon as the construction is ready to be done. Are they just going to kick me out on the street? At one point, supposedly they offered us -- they said they would give us -- since we had a vacant lot and a house, they were going to give us one of the other houses that they were building in the area. Meanwhile, we were fighting the taking, thinking that we could actually keep it because it made no sense to take those two properties without taking 1234, which is the issue of today. And then when we went back and said, all right, well, let's talk about where my house can be. They said, well, I'm sorry, that window of opportunity is closed and we'll no longer offer you a house. So where am I going to live now?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When were these properties purchased?
I didn't get a chance to stop at my attorney's and get the notes of testimony. I took the case to court and we lost in Common Pleas Court. Then I appealed it.
When you purchased in the late '80s, what was it then?
Yes. Is it a vacant lot today because the City knocked the 246 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 house down.
So you purchased it as a vacant lot; is that correct?
A single family dwelling, three stories, four bedrooms, occupied.
It's been occupied for the past ten years. 247 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709
A single family dwelling, occupied as well for about the same amount of time as 1234. We got them around the same time.
You mentioned 1230 and 1232, your desire to turn them into a duplex or a triplex?
Yes. I was going to reduce it back to a duplex with a first-floor apartment, where he is. And the second floor would have been three bedrooms, or two bedrooms on the third floor and a den in the rear of the second floor.
Are you aware that each of these four properties are currently zoned single family? You would have to go, if you maintain ownership and if you were able to continue to own these properties, that you would have to go to the Zoning Board 248 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 of Adjustments for a variance?
I was going to get the variance to go from three to two, which I understand is more desirable than going from two to three.
I can tell you that it's been my practice since I've been in Council for eight years to oppose any multi-family dwellings within the middle of any block.
It's not being used now. You said he was the only one living in there.
When we bought 1234 it was occupied. It was a triplex, but after we bought it was pretty much by that time vacant, so I moved in.
1234 is a single family dwelling. That's what's occupied. We're talking about 1232 where he's living, and he has been living there all this time.
On the first floor? 249 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709
He's living on the first floor and he has all his stuff upstairs. He does computer repair and also has a work-out room upstairs. He was using the whole place basically.
You would not be legally allowed to convert that into a multi-family dwelling until you go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments for the variance.
It has been abandoned. The use has been abandoned for three consecutive years. The legislation I did in 1996 changed the classification for that property, and mostly all the properties in that general vicinity, so you would not be entitled to a multi-family dwelling as a matter of right. I'm not suggesting that you wouldn't get the approval from the Board.
I can live with 32 being a single family dwelling. And I was going to build a single family dwelling, like I said, like the one at 2nd and Catherine on 250 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 the corner property with off-street parking.
Why have you waited since the late '80s until now to decide to develop this site?
I've been developing. When 1230 was a three-story building, it was set on fire by the junkies. I have been boarding that place up, and you can bring in all the neighbors and tenants of mine to discuss it. I have been cleaning and boarding when that corner store that used to be there was a butcher shop or something.
When was it torched? MR JOSEPH GETKA: It was torched twice. It was torched before I got it. So what I did was, I put $800 down to force a sheriff's sale on the property because there was too much taxes owed on it. I was in the process of getting that when they came and started to knock it down. I then called a lot of people and I said, hey, I want to fix this place up. It is not structurally unsound. They said, oh, 251 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 yeah, it's structurally unsound. I said, well, stop at the first floor and I'll go from there, because they had already started taking it out from the third. So I could not stop the demolition because these guys got their money and they were going to knock that place down at any cost. So I had to let that go.
But L & I determined that it was structurally unsound?
Somebody did. Then I end up with a dirty, rotten vacant lot. I have letters that I wrote to Ed Rendell at the time about this vacant lot. And I was cleaning the lot. And again, you can ask the neighbors. I can bring them in. I was cleaning that lot for years. Then I said to myself, you know what, why am I cleaning this lot? Why don't I just put a sheriff's sale on it? I went down and got the sheriff's sale on that. People bid against me, but I won the bid. That is how I acquired 30.
Five years or so ago, the last time the building was set on fire, you proceeded to board up the property 252 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 and maintain it?
I care about all of that. I thought I was doing the City a favor. I care about litter. I care about all of that, so that's why I was doing it.
Is it true that you have had some conversations with Mr. Newberg of the Jefferson Square CDC? And is it not true that you have been trying to negotiate a more reasonable, in your opinion, settlement on monetary compensation?
Since we basically lost the case in Superior Court -- I appealed it to Superior Court. It cost me thousands of dollars to get this stuff printed up and all that. And they turned it down.
You were given an offer, and you don't believe that the offer is sufficient?
No. No. No. I 253 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 haven't been given an offer yet. This all happened in the last week.
No. I haven't received nothing in writing, nothing at all as to what it is. We are willing to sit down and talk, if that's the case.
Again, I don't want to lose because of what I have invested here. I have myself and my sweat. Like I said, instead of going home every day, I was going down there and working every night, giving up time with my family. That's what I've been doing with these properties, and I continue to do it because I have another property I'm working on.
You said 504 is occupied? 254 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709
You're not working in that property. What property are you working in every night that you say you've given up this time with your family?
We didn't hire a construction company. We did the work ourselves. We lifted all the sheet rock. We did all the fixtures.
That's what I'm saying. When I leave my regular job, I would do that work. I do all that work.
So we're still negotiating on the acquisition price. Okay.
Also, one of the points that we had was simply that, like I said -- I'm sorry that we keep bringing 1230 and 1232, but the simple fact is we were never notified. They claim that we could not be found, even though we have our name on the titles. 255 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709
What is the mailing address for taxes and water bills and whatever for those properties?
Also, it's on the latest letter for this hearing, which I never received for the first hearing. I would have been down here for that, as you well know. Again, we never thought 34 was at issue because they didn't take it, even when the judge at the trial said, well, why are you taking Mr. Getka's 30 and 32, when you're not taking 34. They didn't come out with a good answer. I should have won the case on that basis alone.
Well, the answer is, when we did the first condemnation many years ago, four years ago, the redevelopment at that time under the directorship of Mr. Noah Eisenstat believed there was not enough money to do the entire 256 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 condemnation. I wish it would have been done then because we wouldn't have to be here today.
Exactly. And so, does Council understand the money I had to spend on the attorney to fight for the first two? Do you understand that, that I could not just lay down? What were they going to do with it, knock down 32 and put one rinky-dink house on two lots by 60 feet? 12
It's not a 13 rinky-dink hose because my house is 16 by 30 14 feet, actually, which is smaller. I don't 15 consider that to be rinky-dink. 16
In Thursday's paper, 335 Wharton Street, I believe, just sold for $220,000. I bought these properties because I knew its proximity to Center City, and it would be lucrative for me. I'm 62 years old now. I'm getting prepared to retire, and I fully expected to retire on the income from those properties, and that's why I'm telling you, I don't want to lose here. That's my position. 257 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709
We'll continue the conversation. Thank you for your testimony.
Gentlemen and Council, I'm Melvin Hampton, and I'm here to testify regarding my property at 1215 South 4th Street. First there's a procedural matter. I came home from New York about, oh, six o'clock and I got this memo or this letter. That was Friday. And then I opened it, had no 17 one to consult with. So Monday, today, I read I had to appear -- well, I could appear -- at this meeting at one o'clock. So I think that's a procedural matter that I'd just like to put on the record. I had no time to formulate my thoughts, formulate the issues that I have about 1215 South 4th Street. Nevertheless, I have had -- I have not had a chance to separate all my issues. 258 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 However, there are several issues -- or maybe just two -- that are most important to me. The fair market value of the property, I seem to have an understanding that that can be settled. I don't know, but that's the understanding I got from Jeremy Newberg. And the procedure, if they go south, that means if you vote to have the property taken, I can still challenge the fair market value. I gave the offer paper to my attorney that Jeremy Newberg and I were going over. I've had at least, oh, about three weeks of negotiations. My attorney, Mr. Krakower, could not be here today. He is reviewing the papers, and I'll get an answer as to his view as far as what are the contents and what have you. I was to get back with Mr. Newberg -- this was about three weeks ago -- this week, I presume. I had a mishap last week and I could not do it last week. So this week I was supposed to get back with Newberg in terms of the appraisal of my property. Now, I have an idea was this is all about. But I'm 259 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 totally caught off guard or unprepared to discuss my property in terms of your desire to take it or to prove the billing. Now, I wonder what will happen to my property agreement with Jefferson Square regarding the land of my father and mother. I here testimony at night -- well, several testimonies -- but my parents owned that property for 65 years. And I don't think that it will come down to my getting some monies for the property. I see it as a family estate, and I still want to stay there as a family estate. I still want to have the property as a family estate. That's all I have.
Have you been in continuing discussion with Mr. Newberg and/or Mr. Wetzel? Mr. Newberg you've been talking to?
We were moving, yes. This is prior to the condemnation. As I said, 260 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030709 my brother died in the week between this. And two weeks before that, I said, okay, we're getting closer. He gave me the papers. The only thing I asked him, will I get my own appraisal. I not only got one, but I got two. And I gave them my one paper that indicated the appraised value, and now I'm getting another. I assume he didn't put it in writing, which I think, you know, we should have done, or maybe I thought he would have done, but this was supposed to be this week. All of a sudden, I get this notice Friday evening, and Monday I'm here. And I had to take off from my place of employment in New York.
I understand. So you are going to continue your conversation 261 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030730 with Newberg?
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I want to go back to Bill No. 030730. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke to describe a proposed amendment to Bill 030730.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we're essentially amending this particular bill to incorporate the 5th Councilmanic District. Section 1, 14-1628 will be numbered as Number 7, prohibited uses in the 5th Councilmanic District, the sale by a restaurant of malt or brew beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited in the 5th Councilmanic District, notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary.
Thank you very much. 262 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Are there any questions on the proposed amendment? (No response.)
Mr. Witt, would you please come up to the witness table? This is relating to Bill No. 030740, regarding a description of a deed restriction, a proposed deed restriction, for the aforementioned parcel of land. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Kenney. I'm Tom Witt of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Sollis-Cohen. We're counsel to the Wolfson Verecchia Group. We have worked out with the district Councilman a more precise and somewhat amended statement of the proposed restriction that was discussed more generally in the earlier testimony today. This restatement accomplishes three things. Number one, it specifically names someone who has the benefit and can enforce the restriction. 263 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Number two, whereas we had proposed something which would have the duration of 4 years, this has an unlimited duration. 5 Number three was, we had proposed a 6 restriction which would apply to Wal-Mart and 7 its affiliates. This applies to everyone. 8 The text which has been handed to you, and 9 which we'd like to be on the record, is as 10 follows: "This deed restriction is for the benefit of an incorporated civic organization. We suggest PRIDE, but if PRIDE declines, then another shall be selected by the district Councilperson." Then we have the text of the restriction. "So long as the property is used as a general merchandise store, discount store, department store or similar use, no 20 more than 10 percent of the floor area of the building will be used for the sale of food - this will permit the property to be a food supermarket, but not a so-called "Super Center". And for the record, the words "super center" are in quotation marks and have 264 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 initial capitals. Returning to the text, "Food for this purpose is food for human consumption off premises. Food for this purpose does not include candy, gum, nutritional bars, nutritional supplements, vitamins and pharmaceuticals. The organization which has the benefit will have the power to enforce the covenant."
Obviously, Wal-Mart can deal with that organization and convince them at some later time to change the restriction. I thought you were talking about putting in a restriction that had some meaning to it, not one that fools people.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on any of these bills? 265 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 (No response.)
We will now move from our public hearing into a public meeting. - - - - 266 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Monday, December 1, 2003 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 030645, 030670, 030709, 030721, 030730, 030740. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE 267 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on 030740.
This is the ordinance which would rezone areas of Port Richmond bounded by Allegheny Avenue, Collins Street, Westmoreland Street and Tulip Street for proposed development by Wal-Mart at that location. Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I move that Bill 030740 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council Session.
Moved and seconded. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen. 268 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I strongly speak against this motion. I would rather move to hold this bill until all the questions about it are raised. I think it's important for the community not to be thwarted by City Council, but to be supported by Council. Just because we've just been elected for four years doesn't give us the right to ignore the community's feeling. And I think the community spoke loud and clear today. It has many, many reservations about this. Everybody who knows anything about Wal-Mart knows that it's not a company that any neighborhood is happy to have. Whether or not it's worth having at all could be questionable. But I don't think we ought to do it under the guise of we've got to do it quickly because the term is ending. There's a new term beginning on January 5th, five weeks from today. Let's give it the necessary thought. We don't need employers that don't provide insurance, health benefits and just provide minimum wages. And I don't think that 269 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Philadelphia City Council ought to say yes to sort such an organization in face of the concerted opposition by the Port Richmond community. So I urge my colleagues to substitute a motion to hold the bill, and I would move, sir, that this bill be held for further study.
There is no 11 second to that motion. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes that there's a motion on the floor to approve the bill and suspend the Rules. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)
Let the record note that Councilman Cohen has voted no on Bill No. 030740, but it will be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for Rules 270 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. Bill No. 030645, which is an ordinance amending Title of the 6 Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and 7 planning by amending Chapter 14-1600 entitled, 8 "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 9 14-1628 entitled, "Zoning and Construction 10 Permits for Retail Stores." For want of a 11 better term, this is a super center 12 restriction of 10 percent of food items in 13 anything above 90,000 square feet. 14 In the Chair's opinion, we don't have a lot of information from the City Solicitor, the Commerce Department, the Mayor or the Commerce Director. Forced to vote on this Bill tonight without that information, I would have to vote no. I don't really want to vote no on it, but would want a little more information from those particular people. Because we don't really have many instances where the Administration and four major sections, including the Planning Commission of the Administration, are silent on a bill. The 271 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING sponsor is not here to ask for that consideration for additional information. So if it's the Committee's pleasure, we can hold it or not. It's up to the Members of the Committee. If there's no motion to approve it, I will deem it request to held. (No response.)
Since there's no 10 motion to approve it, we hold the bill to the call of the Chair. Bill No. 030730, which is an ordinance amending Title of the 14 Philadelphia Code entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Section 14-1628 entitled, "District Special Controls," prohibiting certain uses in relation to sale of malt and brew beverages. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion to approve the amendment read into the record in the public hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it's actually been told in the additional language. It should 272 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING also be added to the amendment on each individual number in the Section 1, "In each district there should be language that incorporates at the restaurant." It should say, "or take-out restaurant." And after the word brewed, it should say, "brewed or alcoholic beverages."
So the sentence would be, "Sale by a restaurant or take-out restaurant of malt or brewed --
"Alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises." So every number 1 through 6 -- which would actually be now 1 through 7, you're adding the 5th in with the same language. That would be the amendment?
Just one last question. I'm assuming just for consistency you're going to put the 5th in right after the 273 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING 4th, which means we need to re-number and and make them and 7? 4
Actually, in the 5 public hearing I actually incorporated it as 6 number 7, not knowing that they corresponded with the Council districts. So I would like to, Mr. Chairman, amend that language to insert the 5th Councilmanic District as number 5.
And the 8th would be number 6, and the 9th would be number 7.
Okay. So there's actually two amendments; one clarifying the ban of the sale, and the other one is to conclude your district. Is there a second? (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. 274 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING The amendment will be approved accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke on a motion on Bill 030730 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 030730 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030730 as amended will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 030670 with a 275 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Rules suspension.
I move that the bill be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of Rules to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030670 will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 030709.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 030709 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation 276 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading next Session. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030709 will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 030721.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 030721 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended.
Second? (Duly seconded.) 277 12/1/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030721 will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. Before we leave this evening, I would like personally thank on behalf the Committee, Lisa, our stenographer. You're a soldier. (Applause.)
And it's not just tonight. It's every day you work for us. You really do a great job. Thank you very much. That will conclude the business of the Committee. Thank you for your attendance. (Council adjourned at 6:02 p.m.) 278 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 1, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR