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