COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 5, 2010 2:45 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILLS 090587, 100213, 100219, 100221, 100226, 100248, 100250 and 100252 - - - 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, everyone. If I could have your attention. Mr. Fenerty. Thank you. Thank you. The Streets and Services Committee is in session. Two members of the Committee are here. To my far left is Councilwoman Sanchez and to my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee. I will ask the Clerk to read the title, Mr. McMonagle, to read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 100219, an ordinance establishing a one-way regulation on East Duval Street, from Lowber Street to Mansfield Avenue, westbound. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let the record also note that Bill No. 090587 is being held at the request of the sponsor, which happens to be me. Thank you. 3 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity for me to appear before you today. My name is David Glugosz, District Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I am here to offer testimony on Bill No. 100219. The Streets Department has no 12 objection to this bill. The two blocks in question of East Duval Street were changed to one-way operation already on December 10, 2009 on a trial basis pending the passage of the City Council ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'd be happy to take any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone 4 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. else who wishes to testify for or against? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100248, an ordinance establishing a no parking anytime regulation on McMenamy Street, between Cottage Street and Jackson Street, both sides.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is David Dlugosz, District Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I am here to offer testimony on Bill No. 100248. The Department of Streets has no objection to the passage of this bill 22 based on the following: McMenamy Street is a 20-foot-wide two-way street with multiple driveways between Cottage and Jackson Streets. Passage of vehicles and 5 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. maneuvering in and out of the driveways would be easier if parking were prohibited on both sides of the street. As such, "No Parking Any Time" signs will be installed within three weeks of the passage of this bill once this is adopted. This concludes my testimony on Bill No. 100248. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100221, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill No. 051234) approved February 16, 2006, entitled "An ordinance 25 authorizing and directing the revision of 6 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 266 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Jefferson Street and Heston Street, each from 52nd Street to Paxon Street; by striking from the City Plan and vacating Paxon Street from Jefferson Street to Columbia Avenue; and by reserving and placing on the City Plan rights-of-way for gas main purposes, water main purposes, and drainage purposes within the beds of the streets being stricken by this ordinance, if necessary, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the terms and conditions stated therein. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department 7 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100221. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Carol DeLeon of the Goldenberg Group, 350 Century Parkway, Building 630, Suite 300, Blue Bell, PA 19422. The purpose of this ordinance 11 is to further amend a previous ordinance, Bill No. 051234, as amended, which authorized the striking and vacating of Jefferson Street and Heston Street, each from 52nd Street to Paxon Street, and Paxon Street from Jefferson Street to Columbia Avenue. This amendment will extend the time period for compliance with the terms and conditions of the ordinance for an additional two years. The purpose of the initial authorization was to facilitate the development of a 309,000 square foot retail shopping center which has been built. This ordinance is supported by 8 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100221, which Councilman Jones introduced into City Council on April 8, 2010. This bill is a time extension to Bill No. 051234, which is an ordinance 17 that authorized the striking from the City Plan and vacating of Jefferson Street and Heston Street, each from 52nd Street to Paxon Street; by striking from the City Plan and vacating Paxon Street from Jefferson Street to Columbia Avenue; and by reserving and placing on the City Plan rights-of-way for gas main purposes, water main purposes, and drainage 9 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. purposes. These streets were stricken to allow for the development of the West Parkside Shopping Center, which contains the Lowes. The Planning Commission approved Bill No. 080430, which was the first time extension for this ordinance, on May 20th, 2008. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 11 No. 100221 be approved. This concludes my testimony. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100226, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill No. 040511) approved June 21, 2004, entitled "An ordinance 10 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 55 in the area bounded by Aramingo Avenue, Frankford Creek, and Adams Avenue, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the terms and conditions stated therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 15 100226. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. George Gross for Donald Hudson of Don's Truck Sales, 4250 Aramingo Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19124. The purpose of this ordinance 22 is to further amend a previous ordinance 23 (Bill No. 040544), which authorized the striking from the City Plan and vacating of Tulip Street from Ashland Street to 11 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Adams Avenue and Ashland Street from Aramingo Avenue to Tulip Street. This amendment will extend the time period for compliance with the terms and conditions of the ordinance to June 21, 2012. The streets proposed to be stricken are not physically open to public traffic and the City is not desirous of constructing streets at these locations. The abutting owner has requested that these streets be stricken to allow for business expansion and improved security at this location. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) 12 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. I went ahead of myself again.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100226, which Councilman DiCicco introduced into City Council on April 8, 2010. This bill is a time extension to Bill No. 040511, which is an ordinance 15 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 55 in the area bounded by Aramingo Avenue, Frankford Creek and Adams Avenue. That bill allowed the owners of Don's Truck at 4250 Aramingo Avenue to consolidate the parcel by removing unneeded paper streets, Tulip Street and Ashland Street, under the on and off ramps to I-95. Bill 040511 authorized this action and was enacted by City Council on 13 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. May 13, 2004. The time extension, Bill 3 No. 050789, was approved by City Council on September 22nd, 2005. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 6 No. 100226 be approved. This concludes my testimony. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 100250, an ordinance authorizing HACE Community Development Corporation, 167 West Allegheny Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19140, to construct, own and maintain eight trash receptacles and 12 artificial metal palm streets on the east and west footway 14 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. of 5th Street, from Lehigh Avenue to Indiana Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit of the Department of Streets. I am here to offer testimony on Bill No. 100250, which Councilmember Sanchez introduced into City Council on April 15, 2010. This bill authorizes HACE Community Development Corporation to construct, own and maintain eight trash receptacles and 12 artificial metal palm trees on the east and west footway of 5th Street, from Lehigh Avenue to Indiana Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions. The Streets Department has 15 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. reviewed the plans and has no objection to the passage of the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100252, an ordinance authorizing Marianos Chris Fetfatzes, owner of 738 MOC Inc. (aka Hawthornes), 1108 Fitzwater Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to construct, own and maintain an encroachment in the form of an open-air cafe on the sidewalk located at 738-742 South 11th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name 16 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit of the Department of Streets. I am here to offer testimony on Bill No. 100252, which Councilmember DiCicco introduced into City Council on April 15, 2010. This bill authorizes Marianos Chris Fetfatzes to construct, own and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe located at 1108 Fitzwater Street. The sidewalk cafe consists of eight tables and chairs encroaching 15 approximately four feet onto the west 16 sidewalk of 11th Street. This encroachment leaves approximately seven feet of clear unobstructed footway for pedestrian traffic. The Streets Department has reviewed the plan and has no objection to the passage of the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) 17 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please let the record reflect that Councilman Curtis Jones, who is a member of this Committee, is now present. Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill. Thank you, ma'am.
Bill No. 100213, an ordinance amending Section 9-605 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing," by revising the provisions governing the licensing and regulation of towers, under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Please decide among yourself who is going to testify first. Thank you.
Good afternoon, 18 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee. , Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 100213, which amends Section 9-605 of The Philadelphia Code related to the towing of motor vehicles. Specifically, the amendments under consideration address the involuntary towing of vehicles from private property and vehicles located in the right-of-way that block access to or egress from legal off-street parking areas pursuant to the requirements of Subsection (11) of Section 9-605. The Department of Licenses and Inspections supports the enactment of this bill. The proposed amendments provide additional clarification with regard to the manner in which vehicles may be towed from private property under contract for towing services and the acceptable method of payment that 19 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. includes debit and credit cards that is permitted. Such method of payment must be indicated on all signs posted by the towing company at locations under contract for towing services and the towing operator must provide a list of all legal off-street parking locations under contract to the Department for review and placement on the City's website for public access. In addition, the proposed bill 13 provides a mechanism for the submission and receipt of citizens' complaints through the City's 3-1-1 system. This information is required on each sign that is placed by the towing company at locations under contract for towing services. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony on this bill. I'll be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let the record also reflect that Councilmember 20 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Green, who is a member of this Committee, is present and also Councilman Kenney, who is not on this Committee but is the sponsor of the bill that we're hearing now, is also present. Vince, are you next? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services and Councilman Kenney. My name is Francis Healy. I'm Special Advisor to Police Commissioner Ramsey. I'm here to testify on his behalf regarding Bill No. 15 100213. First and foremost, the Commissioner would like to extend his gratitude for allowing the Police Department to voice its opinion on this very important and long-needed piece of legislation. With that being said, let me state at the outset that the Philadelphia Police Department strongly supports this bill. For far too long, too many 21 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. problems have plagued officers on the street with respect to removing cars from private property and driveways. The first issue is whether the car was in fact illegally parked prior to being towed. The second involves whether the private property had lawful signs posted on the property. As the law is currently written, neither of these requirements can be confirmed by law enforcement officers prior to any cars being removed. As a result, officers are left to deal with scores of irate car owners that claim there were no signs when they parked their cars or that they were legally parked on private property. Regrettably, the current law actually facilitates these problems and is the very reason why the Philadelphia Police Department supports the amendments here offered by Councilman Kenney. Let me explain in more detail. As we all know, prior to towing cars from private property, the property must have 22 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. proper signage and the cars must be illegally parked. This sounds simple enough, but this is not the case. What most people don't realize is that those with financial incentives to remove illegally parked cars are the very people making the law enforcement decisions on what constitutes an illegally parked vehicle.
Furthermore, these very same people are the ones posting the signs needed prior to towing. So, in essence, under the current law, a private tower becomes judge, jury and executioner when towing from private property. Herein lies the fundamental flaw with the statute that this current bill remedies. Let me begin by addressing the removal of illegally parked cars from private property and the problems that have evolved. Obviously the towing and storage fees are in addition -- or associated with moving a car from a private property are additional penalties obviously for illegally parking and very 23 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. good reason not to park in someone else's property. Nonetheless, this additional penalty is supposed to be predicated on an illegal act and should be subject to some independent review or appeal. This is not the case in Philadelphia. Prior to removing a vehicle in all other towing scenarios in the City, a ticket is issued by an authorized officer that can be appealed to an independent forum for review. This is the only way private property should be taken by government officials or those operating via government-mandated legislation. However, the simple and basic right to appeal an administrative decision is improperly absent when it comes to removing cars on private property, and this has led to such abuse that action must be taken. On a daily basis, officers are confronted with aggrieved car owners who claim that they had in fact legally parked their cars, went shopping and returned to find their cars 24 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. towed away. These people were clearly victimized and officers are left powerless to do anything about it. At best, our officers can only advise these victims to claim their cars as soon as possible to avoid additional storage fees. There is no forum to appeal the actions of the tower. This is just inherently wrong. Those car owners that feel they have been improperly towed, like all aggrieved car owners, should know that decisions to remove their cars was made by a law enforcement officer, not one who stands to personally gain from the decision and that this decision can be appealed to an independent forum. As such, the Philadelphia Police Department fully supports the provisions requiring that a parking ticket be placed on a vehicle prior to being towed from private property or driveways. This will ensure that the law enforcement decisions are shifted back to financially disinterested 25 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. law enforcement officers and will provide all aggrieved car owners with the proper appellate rights. This is absolutely an additional burden on Police, but one that must be accepted to end the egregious abuses that are actually occurring. Next, when it comes to required signage on private property, police officers are hard-pressed to determine whether a towing sign was lawfully placed on the property by the property owner, whether it was improperly placed on a closed business by a tower or improperly placed on an illegally created driveway. This is incredibly important, because the posting of the sign is what currently gives private towers the lawful authority, assuming of course the car is illegally parked, to remove the vehicle. While this is true, there is no current mechanism for officers to determine if the sign was posted lawfully. Consequently, officers routinely deal with complaints from 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. aggrieved car owners who swear that there was no sign on certain lots, but that one mysteriously appeared after they had parked. Regrettably, this practice occurs weekly in Old City, Roxborough and a lot of other entertainment destinations throughout the City. Also, officers are confronted with complaints from neighbors who claim fellow neighbors simply decide to make a driveway onto their property without any City approval and post a sign.
Since the posting of a no 15 parking sign is required prior to any tow from private property, it's critically important for law enforcement officers to be reasonably assured that any signs observed are posted in a lawful manner and only at lawful locations. Currently, this is not the case, and the current bill before us adequately remedies this flaw. Requiring towers to register the signs with L&I will stop this 27 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. behavior and provide officers with the reasonable assurance needed that the signs posted actually belong where they're posted and are done so at the property owner's request. So for the reasons cited, the Philadelphia Police Department strongly supports Bill 100213. It's long overdue and it will immediately stop the abuse and victimization that occurs throughout the City on a daily basis. Furthermore, the Philadelphia Police Department strongly believes that the additional burdens placed on the Police of issuing parking tickets in these scenarios is far outweighed by the rights of the citizens and the visitors alike of the City to be free from such abuses. As such, the Police Department willingly accepts this responsibility. The additional burdens are consistent with the overall mission of the Police Department under Commissioner Ramsey and comport with our core missions of honor, service and 28 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. integrity. This concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Fenerty.
Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco. I did not prepare written testimony. I was asked to come in to support this bill, which we have read and our attorneys have read, Bill 12 No. 100213. I have specifically read Section 11(d) of this bill, which requires the issuance of a parking violation at this location, and I'm here to state on behalf of the -- as Executive Director of the Parking Authority that if this bill becomes statute, we will sit with L&I and the Police Department and act as backup to the Police Department in the Central Business District and everywhere else where we patrol. We will set up a designated number to take calls to have our officers answer and issue the proper tickets. I assure Council in 29 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. conjunction with L&I after the perimeters are set, our officers will be properly trained to professionally answer these calls and make a judgment. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, everybody. First, just for the record, I have to say I certainly understand why this bill is put in, because in both my lives here as an assistant to a Councilman and since I've been in City Council, I've heard numerous complaints from all over the City, as Lieutenant Healy has talked about, from residents who feel that they were not towed properly or with the proper notice. The one question that has come up -- and I'm guessing other witnesses will express this concern -- is the fact -- Lieutenant Healy, I think you 30 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. noted it -- that with all the other things Police have to do, that there'll be a problem in timely response, and they also are concerned about the Parking Authority. I think I can say the Parking Authority will not have a problem with timely response. You don't on anything else, so I would think you're okay there. But I'll ask the Police -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: That specific question I spoke with Commissioner Ramsey about. We understand it's an additional responsibility. We understand it's low on the priority scale when it comes to radio calls. However, the amount of victimization that we're encountering, we need to step up. So if this -- once this is passed, we will draft, with L&I and with the Parking Authority, different amendments to our current directive on ways that we can better facilitate and respond to these in a timely manner, because we're not looking to slow things down in any 31 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. process, especially a lot of the businesses that are out there. We're not trying to impede business. We're just trying to give a level of assurance to people that do have their cars towed that they are actually improperly towed and that if they have any objection, they have a forum that they can address those complaints to. So, yes, it is an additional burden, and we are going to do everything possible to meet that burden.
Mr. Chairman, a point of information relative to the personnel issue. In addition to the Police Department and the Parking Authority, the University of Pennsylvania Police, Temple's Police, SEPTA Police, any one of those entities that have ticket-writing capability would be considered an appropriate person to write the ticket. So, for example, I've had discussions with folks around Temple concerned about 32 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the delay. Temple Police are there all the time, and we expect a large amount of coordination between those departments when it comes to getting a timely response and a timely ticket placed on the vehicle. So it won't just be those two entities. There'll be other police departments involved in this also.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. Lieutenant, do you know how many cars are towed a year in the City of Philadelphia? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I don't have that number with me. I can get the number for you. From private property or in general?
From private property. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Because it 33 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. would also include the ones blocking driveways and stuff like that. I'll reach out to our tow files and --
So really how can you say it's not going to be a significant diversion of resources if you don't know how many? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I said it will be a significant burden. We agreed that up front, but due to the victimization that's occurring --
But you don't know what the burden is? LIEUTENANT HEALY: It's a burden we have to bear. That's the bottom line. There's too many people having their cars taken.
But don't you think we ought to have the data about whether or not -- exactly are there 100 cars towed a night? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, this is the reason why we collaborated with the Parking Authority, to make sure that 34 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. there were available resources, not just Police resources available. But, like I said, yes, there is -- I don't have the actual numbers, to be honest with you. I don't know. The Commissioner and the Deputies agree that this is a problem, that this is the only way to address it.
Well, let's talk about that. In your testimony you stated that the signs will have to be registered with L&I. If you're going to have a no parking sign on your property where you can tow people, you're going to have to register that; is that right? LIEUTENANT HEALY: It's register or notify, I believe.
Otis Haigler again. I believe in the bill that it indicates that the towing operators have to provide the Department with a list of all their locations that they have contracts for towing and that we would place that list on the City's website for 35 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. public access.
Okay. And the property owners aren't required to provide that list if they want to post? I mean, it seems to me like you're on private property, somebody is there without their permission of the private property owner, and what you're saying is that private property owner can't take -- can't on his own or her own remove that trespassing piece of property on their own?
No. Point of information. We didn't say -- the bill 25 doesn't say they can't remove it. The 36 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. car can be relocated. For example, when a construction company resurfaces a street and they post signs the night before that they must move by 7:00 a.m., and 7:00 a.m. comes and there's still cars parked there, they hire a tow truck that comes and relocates the car. The difference between relocation, what we're talking about, is the tower now impounds the car unilaterally and takes that person's private property to a site where they require them in many cases to pay cash in violation of the City Code and hold their car for an undue period of time. We've told all the private lot operators that they can relocate if the car is blocking egress or ingress or the car is doing something that is causing them a harm to their business. They can relocate the car. They can't allow --
-- them to 37 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. take the car --
They cannot -- so my question was correct. They cannot remove from their property a car that is trespassing on their property.
Yes, they can. They can relocate the car. It says specifically in the bill.
They can put 38 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. it on the street? So they can drive around with a tow truck and put it on the street. So essentially what you're saying --
No. It's within the -- I'm sorry. It's within the facility. They can move it out of the way.
Right. So they can't remove a trespassing car from their property.
But my point is, they can relocate the car within the facility. If it's obstructing their business, they can relocate it within the facility. 39 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
I understand, but what I don't understand is why there is not a remedy against the property owner who authorizes -- there is a remedy against the tower if they took it. We have laws against what they're doing today. It would be a crime if they committed fraud to move the car. I assume what we're doing is requiring this ticket to try to prevent fraud, someone posting a sign -- not posting a sign and then towing away properties. Is that -- tell me what crimes are committed under the current system. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Currently, there's two ways. The lawfully placed signs are there, but the cars are not illegally parked. Old couple goes into Wawa and they're in there a little longer than the average person. We have evidence from Major Crimes tow truck drivers are sitting out there scooping up the cars, and the people will come out and say, Listen, my car was legally 40 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. parked. Well, if the officer wasn't there to actually observe the people actually going into Wawa, these people are at the tower's mercy. They have no 6 way to prove that they were legally parked. Even if they went in with a videotape and said, Listen, I was in Wawa and went down to the towers, towers wouldn't -- it's irrelevant. You pay to get your car out or you just rack up storage fees. That type of egregious behavior, there's no one actually independent saying the car was illegally parked. What you do is, you have the people who are making money off the tows making the determination what is and what isn't illegally parked. It's just inherently wrong.
On private property, though. LIEUTENANT HEALY: On private property. But it's still a penalty that's imposed by City statute. They're making money based on a law enforcement 41 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. decision that should be made by an independent person. And that's all we're asking.
Well, we are authorized -- we actually are restricting private property rights with the existing statute. The existing statute restricts private property rights. So now you're further restricting private property rights. It is the responsibility of the property owner in addition to the tower -- I'm sure the property owner has the tower indemnify them for any suits or other things like that, but we've already restricted the rights of a private property owner by saying that you have to post signs, you have to say where it's going to be, you have to put it on the -- now we're going to have the tow companies have to put on the Internet, et cetera. This is further restricting the rights of private property owners in order to be able to remove something that is trespassing on their property. 42 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I disagree your point of view. The bottom line is to tow the car and impound it is what we're talking about. If the private property owner has a car blocking his driveway and he wants to relocate it to the street, cop comes, writes a ticket, moves it to the street. If you have to drag it, whatever you have to do, you get it off your property. We're talking about impounding --
So that means that the private property owner has to pay someone to come take it. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct.
Rather than the person who is trespassing being responsible for paying for that. LIEUTENANT HEALY: If he wants to push it off his property, he has that capacity, but I'm saying what he has to do is first -- he doesn't need a ticket. We're talking the cases here is, you've contracted with a private tower. Now, 43 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. these towers are authorized by City statute to impound these cars and they're entitled to the towing and storage fees. We're not talking about the owner that has something blocking his driveway and is able to push it off to the side if he has to. These people are actually -- these are towers making law enforcement decisions of what is and what is not an illegally parked car, and it's just inherently wrong.
Well, it's the tow operator and -- I understand what you're saying. The property owner is also responsible. They've delegated that to a tow operator. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct.
And so aren't they responsible under -- who is responsible under the law today if that fraud is committed? LIEUTENANT HEALY: If the car is not illegally parked and it's towed?
Yeah. 44 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. LIEUTENANT HEALY: It could be both. The question is now fraud to what. No one has testified or written anything down.
Well, people are calling you and making a complaint, and you're saying you don't investigate it because you can't prove it. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct.
But it's illegal. And you're just choosing to believe the tow operator over the citizen. LIEUTENANT HEALY: We have no 16 other choice. They already have the car in custody. They're already racking up storage charges on the cars. I can't tell you whether the cars are taken illegally or not, and therein lies the problem, and that's all we're trying to address here. And that's, like I said, an additional burden on the Police, but due to the volume of complaints that we receive -- and it's only from a small 45 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. number of towers. Most towers in the City are completely legitimate and we have no problems with.
And your testimony is that this is the only way to solve the problem? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yes. If you have your car towed and you object to it being towed, there is no way for you to go into court and object to that. The only way to get your car out of that impound lot is to pay. Then you have to file a private civil suit against the owner. Then possibly --
But here's the problem: Most tows are probably not fraudulent. And so what you've got is a situation where you're distracting Police, taking Parking Authority people off their normal route, so, in theory, they'll miss revenue, to deal with the less than 50 percent or less than probably -- who knows. We don't know how much is fraud and how much isn't, because 46 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. we don't have any data on how many tows there are or anything else. But once the ticket -- let's assume there's prompt Police response. Once the car is towed, the person has to go to the lot and it's impounded and they have to pay with their credit card or cash and they have to get the car out. So are we talking 90 -- 95 percent of the cases of tows don't have any issue and we're creating an extra burden on the Police and other people to deal with five percent, and I'm suggesting that maybe there's a different regulatory structure that solves the problem in a different way so that we're not 100 percent of the time having to respond. That's my suggestion. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I --
I mean, maybe lot owners are required to have video cameras. Most lots do have video cameras. It would be fairly easy for the Police to check the video camera of the lot and determine whether or not 47 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. somebody's car was parked legally or illegally on that private property or -- there's just lots of different ways to deal with this, including having L&I go check properties for signs and charging a fee for that to the tow operators. There's lots of ways to deal with this. That's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, just for information's sake, I'm sorry, on numbers, apparently the City Controller's report reported that 2,153 private tows were made by 33 different operators between May of 2008 and July of 2008. So May, June, July is three months, 2,153 tows. I assume you can multiply that by four. Councilman Green? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green?
Just from a data standpoint, the City Controller's report back not too long ago reported 48 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. that there were 2,153 private tows by 33 operators between May of 2008 and July of 2008. So for a three-month period there were 2,100 tows. I assume it would be safe to multiply that by four.
Well, a lot of people don't file complaints. There were 44 complaints filed from May to July. So you multiply that by four. And then you don't -- you take out the folks that paid their fee and went home mad, not to return again. I don't know how many there are, because there's no way to determine that.
No; 2,153 from May of '08 to July of '08. So I assume it's safe to multiply that by four.
All right. And 44 complaints were filed? 49 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
Forty-four filed complaints -- that doesn't count the people who didn't file a complaint -- between the same period of time.
Correct. So you multiply that by four. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. My math might be wrong. May of '08?
May, June and July of '08. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: May '08 to June '08 is one month.
No, no, no. 17 May -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To July '08.
-- to July '08. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's only two months.
May, June, July. 50 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's not the whole month of -- May 8th --
May -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me finish. May 8th through June 8th is one month --
No, no, no. 9 '08, 2008. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, I'm sorry.
May, June and July of 2008. Now, that doesn't count the folks that didn't file a complaint that paid the exorbitant fees, which were illegal fees to be paid anyway, and went on their way angry with a bad experience in the City.
That's great. That really makes my point. Two percent of all tows filed complaints and --
They file 25 complaints -- 51 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
And if you assume another 44 just went and paid and maybe it's -- we're --
We're recreating the structure -- well, all we have is 44 complaints. We can't -- I guess we can speculate that the problem is bigger than that, but 44 complaints is two percent of 2,153. So if you want to speculate that it's more than 44, you can say it's four percent, six percent, but we're going through an awful lot of trouble diverting an awful lot of resources from regular duties to solve a problem that doesn't occur, I think it's reasonable to say, 94 percent of the time to 98 percent of the time. And so this is 2,153 potentially, and if it's at nighttime, which is probably when a lot of this happens, it's Police, not Parking Authority, and so this is 2,153 responses to parking tickets by Police every three 52 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. months. That seems, I don't know, wasteful.
Unless of course it was your car that was towed and you went through that process. And I also believe that we have a responsibility -- see, a lot of this could be resolved if the private operators of the parking lots would simply hire reputable people, because a lot of this has been brought on themselves by the towers who act in the manner that they've acted. And they've been acting in that manner for the past years, 19 years that I've been here 17 and basically make comments as reported 18 in the Daily News that -- there's a guy 19 by Tow Decision, Mike Williams, says, 20 those signs -- Williams would never accept credit cards, a position that seems to be strongly held among tow truck operators despite City ordinances. "We work in cash and no one in the world can tell me I must take a credit card," 53 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. except the fact that it's City law. Now, I recognize that we're still in the process of dealing, through the administrative process, of dealing with those companies, but in the meantime they're out there like tuna fishers trying to scoop up cars, hold them for ransom and shake people down for cash.
I'm against that. It's fraud. It's probably -- it's actually probably --
Car theft, right. How many times has the Police Department, Lieutenant, asked or gone to see the parking lot operators' video when someone has made a complaint? LIEUTENANT HEALY: None that I'm aware of. 54 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
Are you saying you simply don't investigate it? LIEUTENANT HEALY: We don't -- we have nothing to investigate.
Sure you do. If they have a video, you can determine whether or not it was illegally parked. LIEUTENANT HEALY: No, we don't.
But you could do it? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I doubt it very much.
That would be 44 Police responses instead of 2,153. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're going to take a little bit more time I think having somebody sit there and review a video. I mean, you're really 55 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. starting to really --
But it's car theft. It's fraud. It's a serious crime. That's the way to get the tow truck operators. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, if the provisions of this bill, you tow a car without a ticket, you will be arrested. That's part of the provision of this thing, that it's an option in the statute.
But it's already a crime. It's car theft. It's fraud. You can probably list ten things in your head. And if you just go look at videotape, you'll be able to catch these guys. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Councilman, all we're looking for is parity with tows throughout the City. You tow a car, impound it, it gets a ticket. That's all we're asking for.
Look, I learn by asking questions. That's what I 56 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. do. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The problems we get, a lot of them are anecdotal. We get them from the police officers. This issue came up through the ranks to me to please address, and the problem is, when officers are on scene -- and this is some of the things that have happened -- officers end up ordering the tow truck drivers to drop the car. It gets into a heated discussion at that point. Obviously towers in their right mind will drop the car. Oftentimes they don't, and that becomes a bigger problem. Just having the ticket on the car solves a lot of these problems, and it's in parity with everything else that the City does. You tow and impound the car, you should have a right to appeal that decision. I mean, granted, it is a lot of work for the Police Department and I've debated this with the Commissioner back and forth. Due to the egregious behavior of a small amount of numbers, it's 57 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. something that we believe we need to do.
I understand. LIEUTENANT HEALY: So that's our position.
I liked your testimony better with the background noise. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Jones.
Amazing. As you rate phone calls that come into 9-1-1 or whatever processes you have, how do you prioritize those phone calls? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Those are probably the lowest protocols.
So give me a set of protocols. LIEUTENANT HEALY: If this passes, what I plan on doing with the Commissioner and Police Radio, who actually does the priority calls, is figure out how we can dispatch these in 58 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. an efficient manner.
All right. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Because we have to, especially in Center City. That's why the benefit is having a collaboration with the Parking Authority and their resources on the street.
My question is, how do you classify response calls? I mean, if there are three categories, five categories of priority. How many are there? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Off the top of my head, I'm not -- Deputy Commissioner Johnson could actually speak to the number of priorities.
Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Councilman, good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 59 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Basically we have what's called a computer-aided dispatch system. It's predicated on the severity of an incident. For example, it goes from zero to, I believe, six. Zero is the highest priority, six the barking dog at 3 o'clock in the morning type perspective. So --
I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Not a problem. Zero would be an assist officer. Obviously that's predicated on an absolute danger to the officer or some civilian that we no longer have the ability to protect. A one would be an assignment in progress. It's a robbery, a shooting, something of that dire nature. And then it de-escalates. A two -- again, I'm doing this off the top 60 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. of my head, because I've never worked in this particular discipline. But a two would be something similar to a disorderly crowd or a drug dealer on the corner, something of that nature, and it de-escalates along the line. A parking situation, to the best of my knowledge and just my own acumen at the time, would probably fall somewhere in the four and five, unless there's possibly repeated calls, unless it's conveyed in the verbiage to Police Radio that there's some propensity for violence that would escalate it up to the status of an assignment in progress. But just a homeowner or someone calling about an illegally parked vehicle and it's not causing a serious impediment of any sort would probably be in the lower rung of the hierarchy in the priority assignment.
Generally categorizing them, would that be like with the barking dog, the loud neighbor with the music category? 61 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. The loud music would probably come in somewhere in the area of a four, sir, because it's not the end of the world, predicated on the other incidents we respond to. However, if your point is that, yeah, it may be dire to the person at the time, we can escalate -- if we get repeated calls on any type of incident, we'll promote that to a higher category and we'll get a quicker response. It's still not going to circumvent responding to assignments in progress, sir.
So what I'm trying to get to is, what is your average response time per category? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That I would have to -- obviously I wouldn't know that off the top of my head. We try for the priority assignments -- and this is more speculative than anything, just my experience. We try to get there, needless to say, as soon as possible but 62 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. within several minutes of the actual call, and all that is predicated on availability and other factors that we have to deal with at the time of the call.
It has been my experience -- and I base that both personally and with people that call my office -- that lower priority if it's similar to the barking dog is indefinite, and I want it to be indefinite because I'd rather you respond to higher priority issues that even then have challenges to meet in response time. My point being is that I'm kind of confused as to when we are close -- we closed the 192nd Police -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: No; 92nd, sir.
The 92nd Police District in the park in order to reduce response time and we're going to add a category of response that probably is better suited in another realm. I 63 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. want you guarding me. You know, I can go to civil court. If a parking garage does something that I think is wrong or even criminal, that I have -- I can take out a private consumer complaint and even a criminal complaint against them. I'm just vexed as to why this bumps up when I have people clamoring to get response times to more serious crimes due to shortages of resources that we would add this to a list of responses. I'm vexed about that. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Well, in all due reality, sir, whenever we receive an inquiry or a service request to our E911, as we call in our parlance, we have to make a response. That response may not be in, I guess, directly dispatching a police officer, but we have supervisory oversight. If we get a preponderance of calls relevant to one particular incident, even though it's a lower priority, then we will have some type of response mechanism where a 64 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. supervisor will say, Well, we're receiving a great many calls on this, we'll notify the street supervisor, we'll dispatch a message to him or her, and he or she will have that ability to maybe dispatch someone to that assignment as soon as they could without deterring the system. So we do have oversight, if that's what you're asking me, as far as --
It's not -- I believe that you have great oversight. It is the response time and the impact of adding that, not to mention that there is probably going to be a business trying to conduct business while they wait. The other issue I have is that -- and I'm not an expert on this matter and you would be far greater qualified to speak to it, but it seems a trend by which -- and I take this in account of New York -- that terrorists are using the opportunity to go into public parking garages, leave a car that 65 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. often is suspicious, whether it's smoking or something like that, and without the authority to remove a car, it seems as though that there might be some implications even there. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That example is relevant, but, again, if I can respond to that, because this is my expertise.
Yes, it is. I yield. Go ahead. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I am in charge of Homeland Security and Domestic Preparedness. We disseminated information to business people, businesses, including parking facilities, if a vehicle arouses their suspicion, we try to educate them to be precise in their verbiage to tell us why it's doing this. If they just think it's illegally parked, then obviously it's not going to receive a high priority. If they feel as though there's some suspicious indicators -- and we educate the 66 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. businesses relevant to that -- then we will dispatch not only district personnel but people from my particular command purview to go and make an inquiry. So the terrorism nexus is very relevant maybe in this conversation, but it's a different story all together. I mean, we'll use the analogy what transpired over the weekend. If we receive a call like the call of that nature where we have smoke emanating from a vehicle, we have other factors, indicators that would convey to us that possibly this is more than just an illegally parked vehicle, we will have a more substandard response. We're trained to do that. We train the business people to look for that. We train the public. We have a campaign, without digressing too much, we have a very intensive campaign to educate public personnel or people in business, or whatever entity you want to convey or you want to name at this time, to be aware, because the 67 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. preponderance of information in deterring a terrorist incident will come from the community, it won't come from our investigative resource. So, again, sir, if that answers your question.
That gives me more than an answer. It gives me comfort. But I would like to ask that you guys -- and no one on the panel seems to be able to tell me about response times on average to lower priority calls, and I do know that the Fire Department keeps response times. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: We do also. Understand my response to you is that I'm simply saying I don't have immediate access to that information. It is accessible and within minutes of this inquiry, I could have that for you, sir.
If you could provide that to members of the Committee, the Chair in particular, that would be 68 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. helpful. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Just so I understand exactly what you're conveying to me, you want the entire realm of response times to each category or just the lower ones?
Just the lower ones. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And more relevant to the parking perspectives?
No; just the lower ones then, because if you're going to put them in a batch that kind of fits a mold, then let's see what that is. Because, again, I know it will affect the others. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. One of the caveats I want to convey, to state at this time -- and I don't know if I've answered this for you, but I would for my own edification, if we have incidents involving disturbances relevant to parking circumstances, 69 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. private lots, public entities or whatever, then that goes into a higher category, because that is now a disturbance. That's not merely a parking circumstance per se. It means that now someone is in some type of either verbal or potential physical altercation where there could be damage to life and property. So that would escalate the priority. So much is predicated, if I may, sir, on the verbiage that is conveyed to our 9-1-1 operators. If they call, just as an example, say there's an illegally parked car at such-and-such a location, well, sir or ma'am, we'll respond to it, but obviously it's not going to be one of the higher priority items. If they say again as you indicated, Well, it has wires sticking out and there's smoke emanating, obviously a very dire circumstance in light of what's transpiring in the world, terrorism, today, that will get a more 70 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. substandard response. If they say, Well, we have a tow truck operator out here, they look like they're going to go to fisticuffs, well, let's face the reality, we have people in the City who are prone to violence, and that would definitely, that verbiage would definitely escalate it. So, again, so much is predicated on what we receive at the initial time of the call and the priority system in and of itself.
I appreciate the explanation. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. If you have an additional 44 calls in the low priority, eventually at some point you have to respond to them. That has to impact the other priority calls in some way.
Mr. Chairman, just if I may say, if there's a car in a private parking lot with wires hanging out of it and smoke coming out of it, I don't want these 71 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. private towers hooking and taking it, because it will probably blow up. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Just to be very clear, all we're asking for is, this current statute is missing something that all we're really asking for is put what it should have had in the first place. Every tow in the City should have a ticket on it so as when you come and get your car, you know that some independent person made an evaluation that it was illegally towed or illegally parked prior to having to pay all these additional storage and fees. It happens in every other situation. We do understand it's a burden, and we're going to work to see how we can expedite these cases, and that's something we would absolutely do. But we will get you the response times for the lower level.
I appreciate it. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Thank you, 72 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. sir.
Thank you. Are you familiar with the Illinois Truth in Towing law? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Am I personally? No, sir.
It requires registration of tow company operators, which I assume they're required to get a business privilege license. I don't know. Are they required also to get a license to tow cars?
They have to have 73 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. insurance. They have to -- it's all stipulated in Section 9-605 of the Code. I have a copy of it here.
Is there a requirement under the law right now for tow operators to time stamp when they take a car?
Well, that's required in most jurisdictions, and that can help resolve a lot of disputes about whether or not the car was -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order. I'm sorry. I was side-barring on this issue. Could you explain -- I didn't hear the last question.
The last -- well, it was more of -- I guess it was more of a statement. But we've looked at towing laws in Illinois, New York, other 74 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. places, and they have requirements that I think that we don't have that might be an interim step to see if it has an impact on the two percent of cases where there appears to be a demonstrable problem. One of them is requiring time stamps when things were towed. The other is requiring them to give a final itemized invoice upon demand to the customers. They require tow operators to maintain records for five years. There are specific penalties for enforcement of these acts that are up to $1,000 per violation and license suspension or revocation. I mean, I'd like your reaction to that.
We have provisions in The Philadelphia Code also that speak to license revocation. We have provisions in there that speak to the class of violation. If there is a violation, it's a per offense penalty for the violation. I believe this is a Class 75 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. offense for towing, I believe, and 3 that's up to a $2,000 fine that could be imposed by the court system.
So the tow operator that Councilman Kenney read the quote from in the paper, have we moved to revoke their license or suspend it? They're clearly saying they're breaking the law. What has L&I done about that tow operator?
Well, the law specifically as written now -- and I have a copy of it -- doesn't really say specifically this is what the amendment will do. It says specifically you have to take a credit card or debit card.
So what have 76 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. you done to enforce that law?
And if the Department were to go out and do an inspection, we would look for whether or not you have the capabilities of taking the credit card or debit card. If you don't, then that's a violation.
Point of information. The way in which it works with some of these bad operators is, they all have a credit card machine. It never works when a person comes to use the credit card. So until the police officer shows up, then magically it goes back online. So they do have the capability of doing it. When the person comes there at 1 o'clock in the morning and wants to use their credit or debit card, they're consistently told that it doesn't work, and until the person persists and calls a police officer, magically it works.
I understand. 77 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. How many times has L&I said they have a car in the lot, looked at a car, said that's their car, asked for the bill and then tried to pay with a credit card? Sort of a little sting operation.
I don't have that information. I really don't. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have a question, Mr. Haigler.
Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe you don't have the answer. Do we have any idea -- maybe some of the parking lot guys would be able to answer this better. Do you have any idea how much time it takes from when the call is placed by the parking lot/garage operator/manager before the tow truck comes to respond?
I'm sorry. Point of information, because we've been through this. They don't have to call anybody, because in many locations, they are sitting there waiting for the time to 78 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. expire on the meter so they can scoop the car. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm getting to that point. I think it ties in -- I appreciate it, but I think it ties in what I was having a sidebar about maybe there should be a timing mechanism, not unlike what we just recently did with the Department on stolen vehicles, allowing the owner of the vehicle once notified, there's a certain amount of time now before the tow truck operator can take the car away. I'm just wondering if the sponsor of the bill --
San Francisco is an hour. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If we can figure out a way. The call comes in, there's a car parked illegally on our parking lot, 9:00 p.m., Police have one hour to respond to ticket. If they don't respond within the hour, the car gets taken. I'm just using that as --
79 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem considering that, and I think maybe that may be the direction we're going in, but you have to understand the dynamic of this, quote/unquote, industry. The dynamic is that they're -- as I described them before, they're like tuna fishermen. They want to go out and catch a big tuna, and then that means money to them. So the parking lot operators don't want to interact with them. They allow them to contract with them. They allow them to place their sign, and then basically those guys are free agents after that. There's no call from a parking lot attendant that says the car is blocking the entrance, could you please come get it. They just hover around the City all night long looking for some car to hook. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm aware of that. I get e-mails, not a whole lot, but I do get them from time to time about disgruntled people who come into the City to shop or dine and have been victims of 80 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. that behavior. They never come back, and they probably never file any appeals. Mr. Fenerty, is your phone off?
I hope so. I'm bad. Mr. Chairman, we've investigated some of these complaints. They're not generally within our jurisdiction in some of the most egregious cases, which usually come from Council, some around a sporting facility where cars have mysteriously disappeared. What we do know and are able to obtain, a great number of these tow companies don't own their own vehicles. They may own one or two and then they subcontract to others, who they pay a percentage or a commission on what we call vultures where they come in. If the tow fee is 150, they may get a percentage, a split or however it may happen. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's 125 for the tow and 250 to use the winch that 81 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. pulls the car onto the truck.
And that's bull crap. We all know that. It's just -- if it's a wreck, if it's an accident scene and there's a cleanup and there's special towing tools or equipment that has to be used, there would be different charges. For a straight tow, whether it be a flatbed, an eagle claw pickup, an old-fashioned strap truck or a chain truck, it should be one flat fee. People are victimized by commissions or independent operators who paint their trucks with a company's name on it to bring it in. This is what -- this is what this has done. I've seen them hanging around parking lots myself down the street waiting for somebody to come in. There's a church parking lot or something like that, somebody goes in a Wawa or goes in a restaurant and the car is gone. So I think there is some accountability needed there, especially 82 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. for the credit cards. Although it's there, there needs to be an enforcement measure. In here it says that a competent court of review can look at it. It is very frustrating when we do answer a complaint that we've been sent -- we've looked at it, we've talked to the tow company, we believe the people, there's no independent body whatsoever that can sit and say, Okay, tow company was wrong, give them their money back. It's generally a tourist or a senior citizen who is victimized or a young new driver who is calling their parents when they go down to a club or a restaurant, Come help me with the car. By the time they're out of there, the clock starts a little after midnight. Day one could be 10 o'clock at night. Day two is 12:01 a.m. Unlike the City Code says for City impoundments it's a full day. So some type of regulation is needed here to protect the people who 83 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. visit our city and people who live here from vultures. As Councilman Green said, it is going to place a great burden on the Parking Authority where someone may have to take a call and walk to a parking lot or drive there rather than finish patrolling their beat in the proper and timely manner. It could distract us to some degree. I would say I would rather see the Parking Authority be a little distracted than the Police a lot distracted. And we will do our best to respond to anything within 15 minutes where we have people working. A lot of sections we don't. Most of the towing is going to be done, I would assume -- I've seen those statistics. I'll be perfectly honest, but most of the calls I think would be in the Central Business District and University City, and I would think Lieutenant Healy could provide those details if Councilman Kenney doesn't already have them. 84 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of the problem is not just the private parking lots. A lot of the problem comes off the street itself where these guys scoop up cars that they say were blocking a driveway. I mean, there's no reason why -- there's no 11 emergency unless the driveway is a garage for a rescue squad, there's no real emergency why there couldn't be some period of time to get a ticket on that car, because these guys -- and there's no 16 proof. The car could be close to the driveway and not in it and they scoop it anyway, and there's no way to prove that the car was legally parked unless there's some objective non-financial incented person that says, yes, in fact it's in the person's driveway.
That does happen, Mr. Chairman. It does happen. We answer those calls, because the Parking 85 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Authority generally patrols the streets. We do all the towing on the streets. There is an ordinance on the books that says if you're parking a private driveway and a private vehicle, a private vendor can tow you as long as it is marked specifically that Joe's Towing is going to do it. What we have found, there's no 10 markings. They come by, say get a call, they scoop them up, people don't know where they are. It's not properly called into the Police Department's queue tow system. So when the 3-1-1 operator or the 9-1-1 operator answers a distressed citizen's call, it may be hours or a 17 day or two before we figure out where the 18 car is. They call us, they go wait in 19 our lines thinking we have it. It's not 20 uniform. 21 Something we could also look 22 at -- and this is just a thought -- is 23 when our officers or when the police 24 officers are on the scene and the tow truck is on the scene, that could be 86 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. called into the dispatch center, either our dispatch center by our officers or the Police at that point, that company ABC is now taking it and it's located there, and we both as law enforcement agencies, the Parking Authority and the Police Department, have the immediate access to place it in the queue tow system, so the public could be quickly informed and maybe also close that deficiency at the same time, if Lieutenant Healy and Deputy Commissioner Johnson would agree to that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. There are four other panels. I appreciate your testimony, so unless there's any other questions for these guys.
No. 21 Thank you for your testimony. I do agree that this is a problem we need to get to the bottom of. I'm hopeful that we can find a less distracting way of resolving the issue. That's all I 87 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. have to say. Thanks. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Councilman, could I have a copy of that law? Could you fax me that, from Illinois? I'd like to read it.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you gentlemen don't mind waiting around, if you can, in case there's any other questions, I'd appreciate it. The next panel, Angela Mebane. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Angela Mebane and I'm here to support the Bill No. 100213. Never in a million years did I imagine that I would get the opportunity to be standing or sitting here in front 88 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. of you in the midst of you. I only wish that it was not under these circumstances. My name is Angela Mebane. I am a 43-year-old -- I am 43 years old. I'm sorry. I'm a little nervous. This is my first time here, and I only seen you on television or something like that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're fine.
Thank you. Never in a million years did I ever imagine that I would get the opportunity to be sitting here in the midst of you. I only wish that it was not under these circumstances. My name is Angela Mebane and I am 43 years old. I am a newlywed since February 2010 and I have three daughters, 23, 15 and 7. I was born and raised in Philadelphia and I have worked over the years in and around Philadelphia. Changing careers from the medical field, 89 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. I went back to school and got my Bachelor's Degree in paralegal October 2009. I have been doing an internship since January here in City Hall Courthouse in the Case Management Conference Center while seeking permanent employment. I was put in a bad situation and was a victim to a crime. I call it a crime, and I'm sure you will too. I was robbed and my integrity was challenged. I must say that becoming a paralegal and then doing an internship in the courts gave me the insight and courage to fight back legally. Transitioning from my medical career into my legal career has given me an opportunity to meet the people that deal with the persons that commit illegal activities and understand how important their jobs are in creating law and order in Philadelphia. I have lived in Germantown in an apartment complex for one year and four months. The apartment complex has a 90 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. visitor parking lot and a tenant parking lot. The management gave me a temporary parking permit when I first moved into the complex and then a permanent one, which was to be placed in the rear window of the vehicle. I knew that there was a towing company that came to the complex to tow vehicles that was parked illegally. So I was very much aware of these guys, because I was a tenant and because I have seen them come into the parking lot every day 24/7 and tow vehicles within a couple of seconds after people vacate their vehicles. My mini van was hit in the back by another tenant's truck in the tenant parking lot around March the 18th, 2010. The tenant's insurance agreed to fix my mini van. I put my mini van into the body parts shop to get repaired on March the 27th. The insurance company allowed me to get a rent-a-car. On March the 27th, I drove the rent-a-car home and parked it in the tenant parking lot in 91 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. front of the apartment complex office so that I could go and talk to the management about getting a temporary parking permit. In the manager's office there is a window to look out and see the car. So it was in a safe place at that time. I did not want the rent-a-car to get towed, because I did not have the money to spare to recover the car. The manager gave me a temporary parking permit that day. I never took the permit in the house. I immediately put it into the car. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday the temporary parking permit stayed in the car. On Thursday, April the 1st, April Fool's Day, I woke up thinking about what April Fool's joke I could play on my daughters and my husband. Well, little to say, the jokes that I played on my family backfired on me. My daughters and I got dressed that morning to go Easter shopping. They were excited, and I felt good about 92 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. having the extra money to take them shopping. My husband was at work. My daughters went outside before me and immediately came back running into the house saying, Mommy, the car is gone. I just knew that they were playing an April Fool's joke on me. They were not. I went outside and the car was gone. I called the towing company right away, because if I had to choose, I would rather the towing company have the car and it not be stolen. When I called, I asked the guy that answered the phone did he tow my car. He asked me to describe the car, and I did. He said he had the car, and I said, You towed my car illegally. I had a temporary parking permit in the back car window.
He said verbatim, The temporary parking permit was not visible. There is another tenant in my complex that went through a similar incident. She left her temporary parking 93 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. permit in the car also and came out of her apartment, and the towing truck had her car almost up, but not all the way, but was lifting her car as she was telling them she was a tenant and here is my temporary parking permit. They still made her pay $150 to let her car go. I told him that I know for sure that the temporary parking permit had been in the car window because I put it there the night before. I hung up and called the complex manager. The manager told me that they could not do anything to help me and that I should get an attorney. They told the other tenant the same thing. There are many tenants that have experienced if not the exact same thing, very similar. I decided to call the Police. They told me to call them once I got to the towing shop. So I had to go by myself. My girls and I started walking to the shop. We had no ride. We walked 94 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. about a mile and a half before I saw a police car. I stopped the police car and told them the situation. They offered my girls and me a ride the rest of the way. I assured them that when we got there, there would be a temporary parking permit in the car. When we got to the shop, the Police told me to stay back while they went to the car. Needless to say, there was no temporary parking permit in the car. I felt terrible. I did not know what to say or do. I was just numb. My daughters were there, and because they have been there from the beginning, I had to keep my cool. I did voice my opinion on what I thought about them doing what they did. I explained to the man in the shop that I had a temporary parking permit in the car and that somebody had to go into the car and take it out. His response was, We did not see any temporary parking permit. The Police tried talking to the 95 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. guys inside the shop about not making me pay $189 to get my car back. They said my car was parked illegally and that I had to pay. I asked them could I give them a credit card or pay by credit card. They said no, they do not take credit cards or checks. I asked to speak to a manager and what was his name. They would not tell me. My daughters and I had to walk three more blocks to an ATM machine to get cash. I asked the Police to stay until I was finished doing everything that I could do to get my car back. I did not want to be alone with these guys. At this point, I did not trust them. It made me so angry that I went through the necessary steps to get the temporary parking permit and to avoid getting my car towed and not have to pay any money, and the car still got towed. I felt violated, I felt robbed and I felt 96 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. confused. I felt really bad for my daughters, because what we planned for that day did not happen. Once I got the car back and before I drove away, the Police from the 35th District where I got the DC number for the report said that they get calls all the time from people trying to get their cars back from this particular towing company and how they have to pay so much money. The Police tell them to file a claim against the towing company. Well, I had to let my rage out, so I took their advice. The same day I drove to Center City to find out what I could do. I wanted my money back, but most of all, I wanted these guys to be punished for breaking into my car. I wanted justice. They had no right to break into my car. I knew they broke into the car, because the same day I decided to take the car back to the renters, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, I knew -- Enterprise rental 97 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. agency and let them check the car out. The rental place and I saw marks where the towing people left on the car door and the body of the car when they broke into the car.
The rental agency wrote a report and I took pictures the same day. The legal steps that I took: I spoke to Councilwoman Donna Reed's office. This was all in the same day, because I just was so mad, I just wanted to get some advice on how I could pursue this matter. So the same day down here in Center City, I went to Councilwoman Donna Reed's office, because I was told that she handles the area that this happened in. I was advised to file a claim with the Attorney General's Office next door to Family Court on 11th Street. I did, and they said because of the complaint, they did not have the authority to help me. I filed a claim in the Small Claims Court and paid $89. The hearing is June the 7th, 2010. I hope that the 98 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. owners get served the court papers. I have shared this story with family and friends and now I'm sitting here before you. Call it coincident, fate or a blessing, but Councilman Kenney could not have presented this bill at a better time. I thank him and I thank you for listening, and I hope that this bill 10 will be approved for cracking down on illegal towing and justice for all the citizens of Philadelphia. I'd just like to say that sometimes people don't have the money to get their cars out when they're towed, and the other thing is is that not to violate the private property rights or anything, but something has to be done. This matter is going to get bigger. I'm an ordinary citizen and I am out there, and I know that the ones that are doing illegal towing -- and I know all of them aren't, but the ones that are, they need to stop, because it's not fair, and they are hurting people. 99 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. The complaints, as far as the Police, we will understand if the Police can't respond immediately, but the thing is is that if they were more involved in this situation -- I know a couple of tenants. One went out there and actually sat in the car before the tow truck took his car away, and they called the Police, and the Police made them give him his car back. The Police definitely need to be involved, because it's getting bigger out there. You can't tell if a car is towed illegally because there's nobody there to witness it. They come in like a thief and a robber and they do what they do and they're gone. And because I was a victim to this and I'm still hurting behind that because I did everything legally and I did the right thing and I try to live morally and right, and I just felt as though they did what they did and it was wrong. So that's all I have to say. 100 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. One minute, ma'am. Excuse me. Councilman Kenney, but before, you said another tenant in your complex --
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you know of others? Was it just him?
Yes, I know lots of them, and we were talking this morning and she was saying that the management was even saying get a petition, get the other guys to sign. And her car, she had a ticket temporary -- see, the management give these temporary parking permits and they say that it will help us, but then the towing people come and they just disregard that temporary parking permit. And they had her car lifted up. They still made her pay $150. 101 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Has anyone discussed with management about maybe changing the tow truck operator, a different company?
I called -- not to get another towing company, because we're thinking -- and I don't want to assume or anything, but a lot of people are saying that they're actually getting a cut from this. And so they tell you they can't do anything, that like she told me, get an attorney. And so she told me that. She told the other lady that. And, you know, I don't know -- like right now I'm asking her to give me a letter so that I could take to Small Claims with me that she did give me the temporary parking permit. She told me this last week and she told me again this week, and now she's telling me that it's going to be up to her boss, which is the higher management. They want to be the ones that write this letter for me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. 102 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Thank you.
Point of information. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kenney.
I'm just curious as to what the name of the company is.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's one of the companies that was cited in City Controller Butkovitz's report.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. You did very well. Very well. Thank you.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. Any other questions? I'm sorry. Bill. 103 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
Yeah. That's a horrible story. You're certainly tenacious. I wouldn't want you working against me. That's horrible. Let me ask you a question. Are there security cameras at your landlord's building?
Yes. There are securities, but only in the evening time. They work from 7:00 until 4 o'clock. And actually one of the security guards when I told her the situation, she said they was just looking at your car, your rent-a-car, the night before and she told them that that car was fine. They don't check in with no security. They don't check in with the management to say, Okay, well, is this car okay or not? 104 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. They just take it.
Well, when I called the Police, I called them on two occasions. The first time I called them was when I was going to get my car. Because I called to try to get the DC number later on that evening, like I was advised or told by the Police. They couldn't find the DC number or something, so I said, Well, I'm going to call again and file another report. And so then at that time that evening, another couple of police officers came to my apartment complex and then they did the DC and they also talked to the security at that time, too.
And did they follow up with the tow company; do you know?
No, because they said that they can't do anything because of the law right now. They said they can 105 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. only go but so far, because of the law and that, you know, they can't do but so much.
I understand that that's what they're saying. There's sometimes a difference in what people say and what they can do.
Well, the thing is, sir, that they were there with me when I tried to get my car back, so they talked to the towing guys, and because they know their rights and know what they can and cannot do, they said what they said and the Police just made the report.
I'm not certain I'm going to support this bill, but I want to try to solve this problem in some way.
Thank you very much. 106 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
Yes. Thank you, sir. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you again. We're through. Thank you. Next, Christine Young-Gertz. Did Vince Fenerty leave? (He's in the hallway.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When the Parking Authority tows a vehicle for being either in a tow zone or parked illegally for whatever, is it ticketed before they tow it? (Audience member talking without microphone.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You can't tow it until you ticket it? (Audience member talking without microphone.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Do you want to get that on the record? 107 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe you can testify yes, no, whatever to that question.
On the record. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Come on up and identify yourself. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So my question is, before the Parking Authority tows a vehicle for whatever reason, whether it's in front of a hydrant, whether it's parked at a tow zone, whatever, does the Parking Authority, do they tow the car first or does it need to be ticketed before it's towed?
No. A ticket -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Identify yourself for the record.
I'm sorry. Edward Thornton, Director of Parking Management with the Philadelphia Parking Authority. 108 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In order for the car to be towed.
In order for the vehicle to be towed, a ticket would have to be issued to the vehicle prior to towing. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you do not tow unless it has been ticketed?
No. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: By either the Parking Authority or the Police?
By either. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon. My name is Christine Young-Gertz. I'll spell the last name. It's capital Y-O-U-N-G, capital G-E-R-T-Z. I'm with the -- I'm the Government Affairs Director for the Apartment Association of Greater Philadelphia. Thank you very much for 109 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. allowing me to testify today, and it was rather short notice and I appreciate your accommodating me on such short notice. Just a little bit about the Apartment Association. It's a trade association whose members are owners and managers and developers of apartment communities, the larger apartment communities, many of which throughout the City have private parking lots for the use of their tenants. We have approximately 150 members and we represent approximately 140,000 apartment units. That means 140,000 homes. And I don't have hard and fast statistics. I think it's about a third of which would be Philadelphians. We represent the five-county area. I'm here today to oppose just one little piece of this bill. I understand the great difficulty rogue towing companies who flagrantly violate Philadelphia law, the problems they cause for everyone, and it's a little difficult 110 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. to follow the wrenching story of one particular tenant who's obviously had a very, very difficult time, and I'm very sorry that happened to her as well. But I have to point out that most apartment building owners -- and my association, we stress responsible property management and adherence to all laws. I have to point out that most apartment building owners with private parking lots in Philadelphia will have a very difficult time getting unauthorized cars towed, illegally parked cars towed from their properties if the provision that requires ticketing first goes into effect. It's going to be a crucial -- well, getting cars towed from parking lots in a timely manner is a protection for the tenants. And while I understand the bad apples and the aberrations and the horrendous stories that people go through, the fact is that private parking lots, apartment parking lots, have to routinely and frequently get illegally parked cars 111 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. towed from their properties. Typical scenarios are it's and o'clock in the morning and somebody takes advantage of the parking lot in an apartment complex and tenants come home and they can't find a place to park in their own homes. It happens a lot in areas where the apartment house, the apartment building, is adjacent to some public facility, SEPTA particularly. It happens a lot where folks go off on their daily commutes having parked their cars illegally in an apartment complex and taking advantage of a free spot, and tenants are left out in the cold, and frequently that means very unsafe situations for many tenants. That's just the one piece, and I would urge that of the bill that I'm arguing about, I would urge that some language be crafted to carve out the situations where places like private apartment owners have to protect their tenants and their tenants' rights and 112 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. they have to do it in a timely manner. I really appreciate the sincere efforts on the part of the Police Department, the Parking Authority and License and Inspections to responsibly look at this and work something out where they, with all good intentions, want to respond in a timely manner to get cars ticketed. Other folks have testified and there's been discussion already about the financial burdens and the priorities that necessarily have to be a part of any decision to dispatch someone to give a ticket on an illegally parked car, and in the best of times, that would strain any departments' resources, I understand that.
I get all that, and it's for that reason alone that I would respectfully submit that the language has to be tweaked to allow for apartment communities or other private facilities to be able to protect their tenants and their own property in a timely manner. 113 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. If they have to get tickets beforehand, it's going to virtually shut down any kind of towing, I think, that will be able to take place legitimately. That's the one point I wanted to make. I really appreciate your time, and I'd be happy to discuss or answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. You're under the assumption that it's going to take something that is untimely or not as timely. I'm trying to figure out what, in your opinion, would be a timely manner in which the vehicle that was improperly parked on one of the facilities in which your group owns a property, what do you consider to be timely?
Well, in situations -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And let me just finish. There's another piece to that. Explain to me, explain to us what the general procedure is for having a car 114 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. removed. Does a call from the manager of the building get placed to the towing company or is it a towing company that just would rove through the parking lot to see if there is a vehicle or vehicles that do not have proper ID?
It's my understanding from my members that, generally speaking, it could happen both ways, that an apartment complex owner, manager would have a contract with a towing company, and hopefully a legitimate, law-abiding towing company, and they would call when the need arises to tow an illegally parked car. Other times there are parking stickers, and I do understand that many owners have contracts with hopefully legitimate, law-abiding towing companies on a routine basis -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If they were all doing it legitimately, we wouldn't be here today.
We wouldn't 115 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. be here. (Continued) -- on a routine basis, would drive through the lot and look for the valid parking stickers that are issued by the apartment complex and take actions if they don't find it. I do sympathize so with the story that was just conveyed to you prior to my testimony. That sort of thing hopefully, with responsible property management, would not be allowed to happen, and hopefully the problems ensued would be addressed in a little more responsible way. And I certainly don't condone -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I know you'd have to go back to your members, but something on the line of what I mentioned earlier, and I'm not suggesting that an hour is the appropriate time, but if we had some sort of a time sequence where the property owner or the manager notified the Police or the Parking Authority that there's a vehicle parked 116 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. on their property that shouldn't be there because it's not -- doesn't have a permit to park there.
What would be a reasonable time? Yeah, I would have to poll my members. Just given the testimony that came earlier about the difficulty in nailing that down -- and, of course, I as a citizen as well don't want the Police to be forced in any situation where there are more pressing concerns certainly to respond to. It seems to me I would really urge that the language be tweaked to carve out an exception for private apartment -- lots in private residence. In the alternative, if this bill were to become law as is without such an amendment, I would offer the services of my association to work out -- to work on maybe a task force situation or whatever to come to a reasonable idea of what timely response would be. Perhaps we can work together to look at 117 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. all sides of it and consider the angles. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, Councilman Kenney, as you know, is the sponsor of the bill and that's something you would need to discuss with him. Questions? Councilman.
When they're done, when the members of the Committee are finished. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, I certainly understand your concern, but I guess I have to take issue with a couple words you used. Early on in your testimony you used the word "aberration," and I've certainly heard enough over the years -- and I said this early in the hearing. I don't know if you were here. It's not an aberration. There's a lot of it going on. Now, there's a lot of legitimate 118 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. companies, but unfortunately, when there's enough illegitimate companies, action has to be taken, not just on this, but on other things, because there's not enough control. And the second thing is, you said carving out private apartment units. I think that's one of the places it happens a lot, again, depending on who the apartment owners hire to be the tower. So I think carving it out, you're carving out also a lot of the people that have the problem, in my opinion.
The rest of the bill does a great deal of good to further regulate the industry and make sure that legitimate, law-abiding towing companies are the ones that operate in the City. Maybe "aberration" was too strong a word, but if we tie the hands of every apartment complex owner who's got to frequently and routinely rid themselves of illegally parked cars, we're not protecting most of the tenants. 119 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. And it's hard to minimize. I certainly don't want to minimize the difficulties that perhaps frequently arise, but I think in the routine and frequent operation of a typical apartment business, if we could not cast such a wide net to prevent managers from protecting all tenants, I think that's what I'm suggesting.
All right. But I will just quickly add that the Police and Parking Authority both testified that because they are very concerned about this issue and they've heard about it, they are going to be as proactive as they can be and --
I fully appreciate their intentions. It's just in the best of times, I know that's going to be difficult.
Lots of things are difficult. Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kenney. 120 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are most of the members of your association in Philadelphia? Do they have private surface lots, I guess, adjacent to their apartment complexes?
So they're not street spaces, they're generally spaces next to or across the street from an apartment building?
In general, what this bill would apply to would be private parking lots.
We're 121 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. addressing the problems that private parking lots would have.
Two questions. Number one, I realize there's an expense associated with the first suggestion. A lot of surface lots that service folks like that, you have a key card and a gate and the gate goes up and you go in and then the tow truck guy don't go in and no one who doesn't -- shouldn't park there goes in. I think that may be a better way to protect the tenants in that particular building, is that the only people who could park in there are the people who have the key.
Sure. Lots of apartment communities have that, but I would venture that many apartment communities who offer decent, affordable housing don't have that.
That's one suggestion. The other question is, do your members get complaints routinely from their tenants about the story that 122 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. was told here today, which represents lots of other folks that have gone through that? Does the management of your members get complaints from their residents about being illegally towed?
To my knowledge, I don't know if that is a huge problem. If they did get that sort of complaint, if a tenant were to come to them and say this is ridiculous --
The question I have for your folks, for the parking lot owners and all the other stuff is, why are these folks hired in the first place? I mean, they have an ongoing bad reputation, and it's been publicized in numerous newspaper accounts, TV undercover operations. These are the guys who are constantly the violators, but why would you contract 123 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. with someone who has had a history of abusing folks?
Well, again, our association stresses responsible property management, complete compliance with the laws. So I would -- I don't have any hard and fast facts to give you about my members and who they hire, but we would certainly and I would venture to guess that most of my members, being responsible property managers, would deal with legitimate companies and not hire the ones that clearly are problems. I don't -- I can't promise you who is hiring who, but --
-- we certainly would stress doing the job properly, and that's really what we're talking about, is we have to do the job properly on an ongoing basis.
I'm sure you don't know of every arrangement, but 124 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. do you have any knowledge of what the financial arrangements are between the property management and the towing company? Is it a case-by-case? I mean, is it whatever they tow, they tow and get or is there financial contractual arrangements?
I'm sorry, I don't. I could look into that and get back to you on it.
Do the property managers pay the tower to be of service to them? Does the tower pay the property manager to have the contract? MS. YOUNG-GERTZ? It's a contractual arrangement and I could look into the typical details.
I'd be interested in knowing what the financial arrangement is, because obviously the financial incentive is to tow as many cars as you can. That's the financial incentive. Whether they're legally towed cars or illegally towed cars, the 125 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. financial incentive is that. So I'd be interested in knowing if your membership and how they contract with towing companies.
And the incentive of doing the job responsibly from the property management side is to make sure to protect the tenants and make sure the tenants have the spaces they're entitled to to park. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We all agree on that.
But as we heard today, once the sign goes up and the person gets illegally towed and they go into the property manager and say, Hey, they towed my car, Well, I have nothing to do with that, it's between the tower and you. That's not protection of tenants either.
If I were involved in any sort of discussions between a tenant and a property manager or if a property manager used the 126 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. educational facilities and resources of my association to address that problem, I would encourage the property manager to protect that tenant and to look into it and, again, handle it in a responsible way and, again, encouraging complete compliance. And the bottom line for any responsible landlord is, they're going to do that anyway, they're going to protect their tenants. Their bottom line depends on a happy tenant, and they want to deliver a good product. That's what I would emphasize to my members.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions from this Committee for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate your testimony.
Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The next 127 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. panel, Mr. Anthony Boyle, K&A Salvage; Mr. Richard Antoacci, Philadelphia Towing and Transport; and Mr. Joe Parente, Wharton's (sic) Towing. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon.
My name is Joseph Parente. I am the owner of Morton Towing and Recovery. My company tows stolen and abandoned vehicles for the City of Philadelphia. I'm here as a representative of the Philadelphia Towers and Salvors Association to testify in favor of Bill 100213 amending Section 20 9-605. It is our understanding that these amendments will help to make the towing industry more responsible and accountable in the towing of a vehicle. It is also important that the towing of a 128 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. vehicle is fair to the consumer as well as the towers. Having signs, fees, location, hours of operation availability is imperative for the retrieving of a vehicle. In the towing of stolen, abandoned, repossessed or an accident vehicle, the proper authorities are notified. This is done for several reasons: To ensure that the vehicle is not in stolen status. In some of the above instances, vehicles are ticketed as to the violations which authorize the towers to be able to remove that vehicle. And also so that there is a record where the vehicle was towed from and where it is going to be stored. We feel that this bill will not hinder the legitimate towing of the vehicles, but will ensure a better standard in the procedures for all towers. Thank you, Council. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions, comments? 129 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Are you testifying, sir, or are you just coming along for the ride? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm along for the ride. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. We appreciate your testimony. Next panel, Rob Zuritsky, Parkway Corporation; Harvey Spear, E-Z Park; Janine Bauer, Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein and Blader; and David Farber, property owner. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, thank you for allowing us to testify. First thing I want to say is, I also am a member of HAPCO, which is the largest property owners, apartment owners association, and I'm authorized on their behalf to voice their opposition for the same reason that the Apartment Association did. 130 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. So if there's any further questions -- I know a little bit about -- she's the attorney for the Apartment Association. I'm on the Board of HAPCO and I'm authorized through the President and through the counsel to explain HAPCO. HAPCO has a number of low- and moderate-income members and they provide housing for low and moderate income, in addition to middle class. And they have on-site parking and they have parking adjacent to their buildings, and I could tell you that in a case of emergency or something like that in Germantown Avenue where there's an apartment complex, there is no way -- I already spoke to Mr. Fenerty from the Parking Authority. I said, What happens at 2:00 in the morning if somebody is blocked in and a pregnant mother has to get out or somebody -- an emergency situation? He admitted there's nobody to come and give a ticket at that time. So I just wanted to -- if 131 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Councilman Kenney would like to ask any questions regarding the Apartment Association, I can answer for HAPCO.
We can give a pregnant mother an exemption, I'm sure. That shouldn't be a problem.
I don't think it's all revolving around pregnant mothers, so --
Well, it's not only that. Suppose you're going home to go to sleep one night at 2:00 in the morning and you can't get a Parking Authority or a policeman?
Mr. Chairman, why don't we -- before we get into a dialogue, we should do the testimony.
I just wanted to offer that testimony on behalf of the Apartment Association. As far as the parking 132 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. association, Rob Zuritsky and myself will give our testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Robert Zuritsky. I'm President of Parkway Corporation, an 80-year family-owned parking management, real estate development business proudly headquartered two blocks down the street, Broad and Race. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue. Regarding this bill, I have to express my company's concerns about the new requirement that cars need to be ticketed by the Police or Parking Authority before a towing company will be allowed to tow a car. My company now operates pay-by-space or 19 pay-and-display open parking lots. We hope to park 370,000 parkers on those lots this year. For customers who forget to pay our kiosks, we issue them tickets from our hand-held device similar to what the Philadelphia Parking Authority uses. Our system automatically records the 133 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. car's description and license plates. After three violations, we tow the car. We call for a towing company. Parkway is now averaging around 50 cars towed per year from our facilities, a very low number of cars compared to how many cars that we are parking. So the system is working. We have used this system for over four years since we have had these kiosk machines on our parking lots, but we have also been towing cars, problem cars, off of our parking lots for 40 years and we've never had a problem. Though the concept of having another penalty, a $50 parking ticket, to enforce our own parking regulations is intriguing, my concern is we will have to depend on a third party, the Police or Philadelphia Parking Authority, to work with us. It was noted recently in an article last week about the Philadelphia Police will no longer respond to car accidents. We are sure this new responsibility of writing a ticket for 134 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. parking violators on our parking lots is not something that the Police will respond to, and we don't think that they should spend their time responding to that kind of an issue. So that leaves the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Now, they may have the tools and staff to respond to our needs, but the fact that we only need one tow per week -- and some of them are, as Harvey noted, late nights and weekend when the PPA may not even have people out -- we have some anxiety about them supporting us. The parking industry in Philadelphia has been devastated by the recession. In the first year that the new 33 percent parking tax went into effect, all parking revenues for the City fell $30 million, or eight percent. On top of that, we had to pay an additional $12 million in new parking taxes. This has had a catastrophic impact on our industry, as we already were the highest taxed industry in the City before the 135 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. increase. Many companies have had to make painful layoffs, and for my company, as an example, had our first layoffs in the first time in our 80-year history. My concern is that this will further burden our industry by taking away the threat of towing from our facilities and reduce revenues yet again. There are licenses and laws already in place to punish bad towing operators who don't follow the rules. And we just -- going through this process, we heard about one of the towing operators that we use, we heard that they have some problems and we're now investigating probably leaving them, but we didn't know about their problems before, and we read the papers all the time. We suggest that these rules be enforced, the rules that are in place, or if other rules need to be put into place, let them be enforced before passing additional ones. This new law is meant to hurt those bad towers, but by taking 136 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. away our flexibility to tow scofflaws, you risk damaging good businesses that are complying with the existing laws and causing no problems.
I would encourage City Council to encourage that they use the enforcement that they already have on the books and go after the bad towing companies and again -- or maybe exempt public parking companies who do keep good records like we do. Whenever we do tow a car once a week, we issue the information -- we give the information to the parking towing company, so they have it as a record that they have had at least three strikes on our facilities. So we are keeping good records, like the Parking Authority. So we hope that we can work and we can work to either change the laws that's going in or work with the existing laws that are in place. So thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. One quick question, 137 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Mr. Zuritsky. The automatic system that you have for ticketing, after the third offense a ticket is issued, the tow company is called. Is that standard in the industry in Philadelphia?
The system that we use on our parking lots is similar to the ones that are a little less confusing than the Parking Authority ones, but it's basically the same concept, and we've been using those for four years. The kiosks -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not talking about the kiosks. I'm talking about the system in which you begin to issue violations to those who have not put the money in the kiosk or whatever.
These are available to -- where I was going -- what I was going to say is, not too many of the parking companies have implemented the kiosk systems on their facilities yet. And, again, parking operators that have -- that collect ticketing -- you 138 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. know, a lot of them are set up where you get a ticket on the way in and there's a gate and there's a cashier, so there is no towing issue for those people, or garages.
There still may be towing issues. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let Rob finish.
Just a point of information. Mr. Spear said that there still may be towing. Why would that be?
Because we may not have a system like Parkway has, but we do keep records, and we don't tow the first time either.
Some of our locations that are not gated but that are ticketed.
High rise, structured parking? 139 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
I just want to make -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think I'm trying to get --
There's no 9 structured garages involved in this conversation, correct?
There's no 16 emergency, you can wait for a ticket for that one. That's not --
We're saying on some of our locations, our surface locations, you may have cars who were blocked in by other cars and they'll come in and walk away, they won't pay, they'll pull in and block another car. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are those 140 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. automated parking garages?
I'm not talking about automated. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, if you have attendants and cars are being parked and someone's blocking another vehicle in, wouldn't that be --
I wish it was foolproof. We do have attendants. We have an attendant at Broad and Vine and a car may pull in at 13th and Vine and run away without paying and block somebody in.
-- we addressed it in the legislation through an amendment that allows them to relocate that car. It's in there.
The danger of that is that what if we do see that, we wait for the Police to come, the car -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: He said 141 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. you can just relocate it.
You can get your tow truck guy who is waiting across the street anyway to come and move the car.
That's where I disagree. First of all, to answer your question, this is standard for our company. There aren't too many companies -- I don't think there are too many other companies that use this or use kind of the honor system like we have. So it is really kind of -- it's not really that big of an issue yet in our industry. It is for my company because we do this and we have this system set up. The issue is that we do not have tow companies waiting, on our situations, on private parking lots. They only tow from our facilities when we call them, and they are not waiting. They take traditionally 20 minutes to an hour to respond to us when we call for a 142 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. tow. That's typical. So the concern, again, is waiting for the Parking Authority to respond to us. We're not natural allies in this world of parking to begin with. But let's just say that they do respond, and Vince -- this is the first time I got to talk to Vince about this. He said -- I asked him how long it would take to respond. He said, you know, to 40 minutes. So now we take 12 the risk of losing -- of opening this 13 door wider. Just like it sounds to me 14 like there might have been good tow 15 companies and they're not being policed. 16 Now they're bad tow companies. My 17 concern is that we have good customers, 18 and if we can't police our customers, 19 they'll become bad customers, and 20 that's -- this is the only punishment that we have, is the towing. That's the third strike and that's all we have.
But, see, I think -- again, I don't mean to interrupt, but since we started this 143 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. conversation. If you're giving them two free passes anyway --
We give them a ticket, and they are responsible to pay not only the full day amount, plus a $10 fine.
So, I mean, this will actually be better for you because you could have them towed the first time and you won't have to worry 144 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. about it.
I still don't think I would do that. I still think -- I don't want to -- see, that's the thing. We don't want to -- I don't want to piss off good customers. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me interrupt. They're not going to come and tow a car out of any of your garages unless you call them anyway.
I want to make sure the discussion is clear. We're not talking about high rise -- we're not talking about structured parking here. This is a surface lot problem, correct?
I just want to say there are times that we don't have the luxury of waiting for a tow truck. Right now the law is sufficient. We call a tow truck, they call the Police, we have a record. We don't tow until after three times. The tow -- 145 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. On average, how long does it take for the tow truck to arrive after you make the call?
It could take 15, minutes. And if you have an irate 8 customer that's blocked in in one of the 9 lots for whatever reason it is -- and 10 it's happened to us -- 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I agree. 12 I think the person who blocked them in 13 should be either towed or relocated. I 14 don't think there's a disagreement with 15 anybody on that one. 16
See, the problem 17 that we have is, what if it happens at 2 18 o'clock in the morning and what if it 19 happens in one of our locations that's a 20 remote location? It's already been said that they won't -- the Police won't come out for -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there that much activity at 2:00 in the morning that if you had to wait for an hour for a 146 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. police officer --
Councilman, the problem is, if it happens once -- we had a car that was blocked in on Third and Arch and you wouldn't believe what happened. I mean, he started a fight. The Police were called. It took at least a half hour for a major crime like that. He ransacked our attendant booth and -- this is what I'm afraid of. If you take a guy's car and you're jeopardizing putting it on a hook, moving it feet 14 away while the customer is coming back -- 15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wait a 16 minute. You want to move the car so that 17 the person who is blocking -- 18
We want to get the 19 car out of there. We want to let the tow 20 company deal with the car. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Whether they relocate it or get it out, the question is how do we determine whether it was towed legally or did a roving tow company drive through the lot and take it 147 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. away when it may not have been blocking anyone in?
We don't do business that way. We're the same as Parkway. We only tow after three times unless it's an emergency. We tow maybe cars a year. 9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then I 10 don't think there's an issue for you 11 guys. 12
Well, the issue is, 13 you're putting the onus on the legitimate 14 business to -- 15
I'm sorry. I just asked a question. I didn't hear the number. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Fifteen. 148 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
A year. 6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman 7 Kenney, they don't ask for the car to be 8 towed until after the third time, unless 9 somebody is blocking someone in. 10 Is that accurate? 11
Or unless they're a 12 violator. They may be a violator and 13 they may after three times. 14
But if 15 Parkway tows 50 a year and they tow 15 and I have 176 or so valid complaints or at least filed complaints, I mean, I don't -- I thought you were going to tell me you tow like literally hundreds of cars a year.
And we don't even half the time collect, but our concern is the times that we have to tow, that you're putting an onus on a legitimate company and making us responsible to wait 149 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. for the Police or the Parking Authority to come.
I will go back to my original premise. We wouldn't be sitting here if the folks that everyone hired followed the rules, and there are folks out there who follow the rules. Actually, there's more of them than don't.
We're not here to support the tow companies. We totally agree with you, and we feel that the laws on the books today, that if the laws were enforced that are on the books today, that if a tow company tows a car illegally and doesn't take credit cards, we totally support your bill. All we're saying is to exempt legitimate public parking companies that have no other recourse but to tow at times.
But your testimony indicates that you feel bad for the poor guy who's blocking at 2 o'clock in the morning. How about the poor 150 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. person who can't find their car at 2 o'clock in the morning because one of those rogue operations have it locked up behind bullet-proof glass and won't take -- my point is, I have more sympathy for those folks than the poor guy who is blocked in and he probably could take a taxi home if he had to. These folks can't find their car.
I agree with you, but we've been in business for 50 years and I think out of the 50 years, we've never had a problem like somebody being -- the wrong towing company, and I can vouch for most of the association, that I don't think there's ever been -- have you had a problem like that, Rob, where they towed the wrong car?
That's what I was saying. That's why -- we do keep the records. We do agree. We don't want bad towing operators, and we won't use them if we knew that they were bad. We wouldn't use them. And they should be 151 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. shut down by L&I, but not by us.
But you just said that we shouldn't use bad towing operators. We don't know if they're bad unless L&I shuts them down. If you have 44 bad complaints --
No, no. 11 Forty-four in three months. It's 176 or so.
It's more complaints than both of you guys tow in a year.
So why doesn't L&I or the City Controller go after them and close those companies down? I mean, then you got the problem solved. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just want to go back to my original line of questioning. A tow truck driver can't get on your property unless they're allowed in, either by an attendant or -- 152 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. I don't know how they get into the automated garages. They go in, but they got to be able to pay to get out, right?
Unless there's no 6 gate. If there's no gate, they come in only if we call them. We don't have roving tow companies come on our facility.
Just for your own business safety and your own customer safety, why wouldn't you gate the lot?
Some lots are too small to put gates on. It's not physically possible in some lots.
And some lots have entrances on each side that you can't gate them. We do have video camera and we will be happy to supply that information if the wrong car is towed.
What's the 153 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. financial arrangement between the parking lot and the tow company?
For my situation, they help to collect the fines. We supply them with the record of bad --
Do you have to pay them or are they just on a piecework basis?
They collect the fine for us. No, we don't pay them. They get their fees. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Their towing fee?
And then they collect their penalties and parking fees that we are owed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So the printout, not to interrupt, but the printout says three tickets, $100 each violation, so you owe us $300 for non-paying --
No. We're talking about $15. 154 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- for non-payment of parking. The tow truck company gets his or her fee for towing, collects the other 300 that you were entitled to, and you're reimbursed?
On our end, we ask for the daily rate, whatever that is, $15, $10 a day, and if they're after three days -- if they're there after three days, they'll collect the money. We don't -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're asking for the money you're entitled to for having them park their car in your spot for whatever length of time?
That's the last line of defense what we have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 155 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Understood.
And we put tow signs up to tell people if they don't pay. Now, I have to tell you, there have been times that I did call the Police when somebody refused to pay, and the Police were put in a situation where they told the people to leave and not pay. So, I mean, we don't want to put the Police in that position either. There have been a number of times recently that the Police would come on the lot and say, Well, I'm not here to be judge and jury. You let that car go and leave them off the lot. I mean, we don't want the Police or the Parking Authority to become a judge and jury. When we're ready to tow, we want to get the car out of there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. 156 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. Ma'am, we'll get to your testimony. I apologize. Thank you.
It seems to me that there is a relatively simple solution to the problem, if the Police would agree, and, that is, provide an exemption in the bill for attended lots. In other words -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's what I just said.
Oh, is that what you just said? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, not out loud. I've spoken to him about maybe we can carve that out.
I'm sorry. Or provide an exemption if a lot owner calls as opposed to have it being one of these trolling situations. Either thing seems to me would solve the problem relatively easily, and we're talking about a very small number of the cars that are towed. And if you have an attended lot, you're talking about 157 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. somebody that's probably a responsible businessman. That doesn't solve your problem for the lots that aren't attended.
Okay. What happens is, we have roving people who walk around and write the tickets. We call for a tow --
Yeah. And the person waits for the tow company to make sure they get the right car and to hand them the information. So, I mean, in a sense, it is attended when there's a tow. But, yeah, all of these lots that we're talking about, or most of them, are unattended, machine operated, but they're roving --
We can guarantee that we can have somebody there to sign for the tow, if that's what you're asking.
So here's 158 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the issue that the Lieutenant explained to me, and, that is, the Police are planning to try to enforce this by if there's no ticket on the window of a car that is being towed, they're going to stop that tow truck driver. So one way to solve that problem would be to allow people to apply for something that you could -- a City-issued thing that would go to people who are going to be there when the car is picked up so that that essentially ticket is visible to the Police as it's driving down the street.
Well, this ticket could be visible too, the one that we print out. I mean --
Well, then you'd have tow operators do it, but I'm talking like a blue and yellow -- something that clearly came from the City of Philadelphia that your roving people could have with them and put under the windshield. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So they're 159 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. basically doing the work that the legislation is looking for the Police and/or the Parking Authority to do?
Right, because where they plan to enforce this is on the street, not in the lots, as tow trucks go by without tickets.
If we can have something to identify the car, we sign for the car, we call, the tow company does -- the legitimate ones are supposed to call the Police so that the Police has a record, we have a record. Now, my concern of the way the bill stands now, if you think this thing through, if we have to wait for the Police to come --
Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kenney. 160 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
Part of the problem is, I have to go by what the Police Commissioner is telling us they're willing to do, and we talked about exemptions, for example, for some residential issues and private residential lots. It is the Police Department's belief that carve-outs begin to create an uneven system and they want to -- now, I'm not saying they're right or wrong. I'm just saying this Police Commissioner is pretty firm and pretty direct in what he says and what he believes, and he has told me through Lieutenant Healy that they want to see how it goes for a couple months, and if there's a problem, we could adjust at that point, but do not want to start carving out now, because there will be additional requests for carve-outs that will weaken the bill.
I guess what I'm suggesting is, we have time -- we don't have time today to get a response 161 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. from Commissioner Ramsey, but the bill 3 is --
Well, he's authorized to speak for the Commissioner if he wants to come back and --
Well, then I guess I'd like, after this panel, to hear Lieutenant Healy's explanation of why we're not solving -- the problem the Police were trying to solve by requiring everyone to have a ticket is so they can enforce it on the street. If we give people with attended lots or ticket or a piece of Philadelphia paper that we've clearly authorized, I don't see why we haven't solved -- we haven't met Commissioner Ramsey's goal.
Well, I'll let Lieutenant Healy do that at the end, but I think the testimony here at the table is that many of these lots are not attended.
Attended or -- well, they are calling for the tow 162 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. and they will have someone there when the tow truck comes.
Well, the issue is is that and what we're trying to stop is when their rover, which seems to me to be not someone --
We have people who walk around and they're patrolling. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They're employees. 163 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
If their employee is not there, Councilman, there's no sticker, there's no ticket or sticker or other thing that we authorize 164 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. them to --
I understand that. But the three hours that the rover is not there, there's no 6 way -- and there's no gate --
If we had ever a complaint like this, we would reimburse the customer. We would fire the company. And like the first time I heard a bad thing about Tow Decision was with the Police in your meeting, and it was eye opening, and we are investigating. We're probably going to not use them.
Where would a person -- who would a person complain to if -- so you've never personally received a complaint. We don't know for sure that it hasn't happened. 165 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
I have a claims department and complaint department and I get a lot of complaints. I like to hear about complaints, so I know what the heck is going on in my parking lots. So I appreciate complaints, and I respond to them. I don't always agree with the remedy, but we handle a lot of complaints and we try to do it as professionally as possible, and I've never had a personal call about a tow. Again, we tow so few cars that --
See, that's why I don't understand why this is such a burden.
Because we're concerned about this, just like if you open the door and people start to feel better -- just because I only tow so many cars, that doesn't mean that I have -- just like the Parking Authority comes out every year with like $75,000 worth of parking fines, we're starting to develop that. We have people here that have $250 166 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. worth of fines that they haven't paid. You open the door up a little bit more and you're not able to get those people, it's going to get worse and it's going to get worse. And our collections, it's on an honor system, and it works now. And if you open the door, it's going to get worse and it's going to be bad for my company. It's going to be bad for the City because the taxes that we collect for the City also.
But it's also bad for the City when people have a bad experience and don't come back.
If it happens on my lot, I'm going to remedy it, and it hasn't happened to me. I agree with you.
We have two. We use either George Smith or Lew Blum, and I have to say over the years, I've never had any problems.
Well -- 167 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again --
-- maybe you don't park in your own lot, I guess, or something or you don't have your car towed, but of the three operators that you just raised, it's three of the problems why we're sitting in this room 9 today.
We're not here on the side of the tow company. All we want to do is be treated as legitimate business people and be able to run our own business.
I agree with you, if there's a bad tow company -- we don't tow out of driveways unless they're blocking a driveway. We don't tow unless somebody is a violator, and all we're asking for is not to be put in a position where we have to wait -- it could be hours if it's in the middle of the night for a tow truck to come. 168 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
So if you have to wait -- hypothetically, you have to wait for hours. Where's the car sitting?
Well, some of the lots are small. They won't be able to move them anywhere.
And the issue is, you can't turn that parking space over or there's some --
That's one of the issues. The other issue, it may be blocking another car in.
We put it in the legislation that you can relocate the car. 169 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
But the tow companies are not going to come -- I mean, we talked --
Don't you guys have equipment too that can move a car, you can jockey cars?
We open ourselves up to liability if we have to get into that.
We have some equipment that might do it, but we open ourself up to liability.
You have some equipment that might do it. You either have the equipment that can do it or you don't.
It's much more complicated -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I need to ask everyone just to hold their thoughts for a minute. Councilwoman Sanchez needs to leave and she wants to get something 170 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. on the record. So just hold -- and I apologize. I usually let the panel go, but I opened the door and I apologize. So Councilwoman Sanchez.
First, again, I think we're very much open to working with the parking folks around how do we do this bill, but I have to put on the record because in the last month, two of my staff members' cars have been towed, and we do have tremendous amounts of complaints, and unfortunately for folks in my district where these companies have just popped up all over the place encouraging people to put these on driveways, those ugly yellow signs on driveways, it is out of control really. And I don't think that the L&I numbers truly reflect the level of complaints, because I know in my case in the Latino community, many folks do not complain. But I had two staff people who experienced these companies, the credit card didn't work. I mean, we just went 171 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. over and over, because they're going around hunting down folks who shop. In one case, one of my assistants parked in a parking lot to pick up something at the shopping piece, went across the street to say hello to somebody and got towed. I mean, it is just -- so I want you guys to understand, when you're talking about 50 and this is happening hundreds and hundreds of times in my district and I'm getting folks who are paying exorbitant fees from this, unfortunately we end up having to legislate because you have these bad characters. But there are hundreds of people in my district who have been impacted. So I just want you to know that to the extent that we can work with you, we will, but your cases -- your number of cases is so little in comparison to the consumer part of this that it's out of control. So I don't want you to think in any way we're not being sensitive to 172 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. that, but this has to be -- this has to stop and what these companies are doing. So I'm in full support of this legislation that Councilman Kenney has put forward, and I just wanted to put it in the context of the consumers who are being defrauded every single day by these companies. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would ask -- again, I apologize, Ms. Bauer. Would you please give us your testimony. I'll ask everyone to hold any further questions until you're through with your testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of the private tow industry. This industry has serious concerns with the bill, and we strongly urge you to delay 173 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. passage of the bill or advancement of the bill until we have an opportunity to work out some of the concerns which have been raised by members of the Committee, as well as many of the people who have testified today. I think it goes without saying that everyone does recognize that the private tow industry has a place and performs a very valuable service and a service that's economically valuable to this city as well, and I want to particularly address since there's been a lot of testimony about residential lots today, and I do represent tow firms that tow from residential lots, but I want to particularly stress commercial and industrial, because I wasn't sure until Councilman Kenney just said so that there was not going to be a residential carve-out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry.
That's quite all right. 174 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. If there's not going to be a resident carve-out, which is one of the versions of the bill that we saw, then I would like to point out -- and I do think there is no distinction really between an institutional lot and a commercial lot and a residential lot in terms of the enforcement aspect, at least of the problem that you're trying to solve and regulate. But we represent many customers and have contracts with many customers and accounts which are both institutional and commercial, and they rely upon, as I'm sure you have received many letters from both commercial lots, institutional, churches, all kinds of things, copies of which have been given to us, where they rely upon frequent turnover so that their patrons and customers can find parking. Because, frankly, if you don't find parking, you're not going to patronize that business anymore. So it's extremely valuable to the accounts that we have 175 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. that those contracts be serviced and serviced very efficiently. We're extremely concerned about the ability the Police, who absolutely are well intentioned and should be our partners, but the Police's ability to efficiently respond. We did ask -- and we were very thankful to Councilman Kenney and Councilman Kenney's staff for hearing our concerns in a pre-meeting that we had. We did ask if there had been any kind of representation as to what would be a timely response, one of the very concerns that you, Mr. Chairman, have raised today, and one of the things that would help us to feel more comfortable about the bill is if we had that kind of representation or if we even had some kind of draft protocol, but to hear the Police Department say, Well, if the bill passes, we'll figure out the protocol, which is what was said today, I really feel that that is going to impact tremendously the people that we have 176 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. contracts with that depend on our services to police the lots. And I just want to point out that there really is no distinction -- there certainly wouldn't be a distinction under the law -- for the residential lots, and I credit the gentleman's testimony who just went forward, but they have employees that are essentially acting as the determining agent to figure out whether the car is illegally parked or not, because they have a kiosk system. One of the things that I would suggest and I have suggested to my clients as well whom I represent here today is both technology and information, which will lead to more competition and better service, as well as regulation by the Department of License and Inspection can go a long way to help solve this problem. One of the things that may not be clear to the Committee is that there is a written record of when the call is made. Obviously every private tow firm 177 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. on a private lot, whether it's roving or not, but generally they do police several lots because they have several contracts. That's the only way they are in business obviously. You wouldn't just stick around one lot. You might have one tow or not even a tow. They have to call into the Police, and the Police record the time that the request for permission to tow is made, and then that callback probably happens minutes later, 30 minutes 14 later. So there's already not only a 15 written record, but there's a built-in 20 16 or 30 minutes before the callback occurs 17 and the car is towed. It seems to me 18 technology can solve the problem. And, 19 for instance, Parkway has the technology, 20 because they have both the kiosk, so they know whether the car paid or not, and they have, I guess, apparently sort of a private ticket-writing procedure that they use. But that's not public authority to write what is essentially a 178 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. public ticket or a government ticket; in other words, in lieu of a summons, which is what a ticket is.
So I think that with technology, we can provide that sort of consumer recourse that you're looking for and that the Police Department says it's looking for, so that the police officer doesn't have to make the decision. Because the other flaw with this bill, aside from the waiting time -- and the waiting time is going to result, from my clients' perspective, in a danger to them while they wait around. It might be a bad neighborhood. It might be an irate customer or something who was illegally parked. There's nothing to say that illegal parkers are irate at a different rate than somebody who happens to be victimized by a bad company. But the other problem is, you're making the officer the determinant, and the officer is going to come and will have absolutely no 179 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. information and will not feel comfortable having cause to write the ticket. So we feel that not only the time delay, but the lack of personal knowledge, I would say, somewhere between personal knowledge and probable cause to write that ticket is essentially going to shut down the apartment owners, commercial businesses, restaurants, bars and so on and so forth that hire my industry to police their lots, McDonald's, shopping centers, strip malls and so on and so forth, that are next to SEPTA stations, you know, all the things that you've heard today. They're going to be shut down by that, because the officer is going to show up and he's going to say, Well, I don't know. I don't know that that car parked there, the person got on the SEPTA train. In other words, there's nothing to suggest that an employee of Parkway is somehow more reliable or less reliable than another person in a different situation 180 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. than another person in a different situation. It doesn't seem reasonable in terms of resources to put it all on the Police, and what I'm suggesting is, even if you did that and even if the delay time were not a factor in terms of efficiency, safety and everything else, you're still going to have the situation where you're putting the officer in the position of making a determination that a car, where he was not on the lot for the last hour, was illegally parked. I, frankly, don't see how that's going to happen.
Point of information, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. I must have missed your earlier testimony. Who are your clients? Who do you represent?
Today I represent 181 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. George Smith, Steven's and Tow Squad.
Okay. But you don't represent the entire towing industry?
Well, I'm an attorney, and as an attorney, I represent one tow firm and that's Tow Squad, and I've represented them for years.
But you're not speaking on behalf of the entire towing industry?
No. Today I'm speaking on behalf of those three that I've just named.
So your testimony that like the City is going to shut down and all the commercial and retail and entertainment areas are going 182 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. to shut down as a result of this legislation, you're speaking on behalf of three clients?
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just ask you, Ms. Bauer. I don't mean this with any disrespect, but I'm not hearing any acknowledgment that there is a problem out there. Do you acknowledge that there is a problem with tow companies doing many times the wrong thing? And not just in the one witness's case, but in Councilwoman Sanchez's, Councilman Kenney's estimation, hundreds of them. Do you acknowledge that?
I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but I'm sure that that's so. I've certainly seen 183 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. press reports, and what generally happens, especially with Tow Squad, whom I represent, is that the industry unfortunately gets painted, as happens with many industries, with the bad apples in the barrel. So absolutely you are correct, there are bad apples in the barrel.
But going with that theory of the bad apples, I guess isn't the question is there enough bad apples that maybe you have to do something different because of those? Maybe Mr. -- I think Mr. Zuritsky's company operates well, Mr. Spear's, but there's a lot that don't and that you have to -- maybe, as was said before, maybe there's some other amendments that could take care of this. But I guess I'm just not getting, with all due respect to you, that there is a real problem out here. You're telling us about your problems, and I understand that, but there's literally hundreds, probably 184 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. more, people, individuals, innocent folks, that have a problem because a lot of people in the industry you represent, maybe not your particular companies, but the industry you represent are acting in a -- I don't know what else to say, but an outlaw manner. Do you acknowledge that?
What I would like to say is that rather than -- I think there's been a lot of commentary and support today for having the Department of License and Inspections more closely regulate and in fact kick out bad repeat operators, and certainly the tow company -- I mean, the tow industry supports that. My clients that I'm representing today supports that completely, because we don't want to be aggrieved and economically hurt by the 185 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. bad apples in the barrel. So we 100 percent support the objective that the City Council is trying to do. I guess what I was trying to suggest -- first of all, I've only addressed myself to the one issue, and that is the ticketing. There are many good things not only in the existing ordinance but in the bill. The ticketing we find to be extremely problematic. And with respect to the consumer recourse aspect of it, what I was suggesting by both technology and information, there was talk about the website, the lots would be licensed or at least registered, they'd be up on the website, the signs would be up, it would be clear to consumers what the -- or clearer to consumers what the rules were and what the rates were and so on and so forth. I guess what I'm saying is, what I'd like to see and what we would like to see is a more surgical approach and also a more attractive approach to not only preventing those problems, but providing 186 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. a quick and speedy response if there is a problem. And if there is an illegal tow as opposed to an illegal park and a proper tow, we certainly don't want to have any illegal tows, and there absolutely needs to be recourse for that and better recourse for it, because we're hearing that there's not a good recourse.
Mr. Chairman, if I can -- and I appreciate your testimony and I know you represent your clients, so I'm not trying to -- but let me give you one of the worst anecdotes that I've had in this issue. A couple years ago, about 15 cars parked in the stadium complex area in a street that was unsigned. There was no 21 signage from the Parking Authority, no 22 signage from anywhere. People parked. All 15 of those cars were impounded by these tow companies and a sign was then placed after the cars were taken. 187 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. The cars were taken to an empty lot at Front and Oregon, around Front and Oregon, and they were put in the circle of tow trucks, all cars, and the tow 6 trucks circled around them, and the 7 owners came and were demanded $300 cash 8 before they would let their car go. 9 Until the Police came and threatened to 10 arrest all the tow truck drivers, the 11 cars magically then were released. 12 This is the type of stuff we're 13 dealing with, and this is the type of 14 stuff that too many people in this 15 industry engage in, and this is the type of stuff that those guys over there have come to ask us to pass a bill so they're no longer besmirched by this kind of activity. This is why we're here. Now, I can listen to Mr. Zuritsky and Mr. Spear and Mr. Spear and maybe try to figure out a way to deal with their issues, but we're sitting here because some poor guy 2 o'clock in the morning has to go to some prison-like 188 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. environment behind double-pane bullet-proof glass to get shook down for more money than the City allows them to collect and won't take a credit card or a debit card to do it, until the police officer comes and then the credit card machine magically comes back to life. This is what we're talking about. We wouldn't be here if everyone acted the way the legitimate tow truck guys operate. I'm willing to listen to, if the Police Department was willing to cooperate with us, to listen to what Councilman Green is suggesting with these attended parking lots, but I have been fighting with this issue for years, 19 from wreck chasing to today, and every time we pass an ordinance, every time we pass something, they figure out a way to get around it. We shut them down and they open up another company under another name with the same people running the company and the same drivers driving 189 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the trucks. It goes on and on and on, and you know what, I'm willing to legislate this thing forever, but at some point in time does anyone care about this poor consumer? I mean, does anyone care about this person that -- this is one of my favorites. New Era Collision towed a car, an '08 Honda Civic. The tow fee was $125. The winch fee, the winch fee was 250. The garage fee was 75. The administrative fee was 75. The clean-up was 75, and the storage fee was 57.50, for a grand total of $657.50, and they wouldn't take a credit card. That's why we're here. So, again, you represent your clients. I mean no personal offense, but enough is enough with this stuff, and we've gone from times where they're having fist fights in the street, fighting over a Mercedes-Benz that was in an accident when the cops had to intercede and break up fights. We've been in situations where tow truck 190 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. operators will go into emergency rooms and try to solicit people for business for wreck-chasing lawyers. It's a bad, complicated business and it's taking people's money out of their pocket, and I'm tired of sitting by watching it happen, and that's why we're here. So any punitive or apparently punitive measures is a direct result of their operation and the way they run their businesses, and that's why we're here.
Councilman, we are in no way here in support of the tow companies.
But we are getting caught in the middle of this. We're legitimate businesses, and we are saying that the tow companies that do this should be penalized. I wouldn't want my car towed. I wouldn't want my daughter to have to go to one of the places that they have. 191 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
I hear you, and we're going to discuss it, but somehow --
If there's a way we can distinguish ourselves, we'd appreciate it.
And the worst part is is that legitimate guys who pay their taxes, have their insurance, drivers are licensed, have the right equipment, follow the rules, they get -- you're right, they get painted with the same brush for a half a dozen or seven of these guys that need to either clean up their act or go.
Could I just add to that? You mentioned earlier that reputable certified L&I tow companies, if there's a list, they would be acceptable to you.
Well, I think the 192 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. further testimony that I just want to say -- and I think you're absolutely right and I couldn't agree with you more, Councilman Kenney. I think we just don't want to -- and, frankly, we and our customers don't deserve to be waiting around and have a lot of problems in terms of policing our lots because of those bad apples, and I think there are some more strategic or surgical ways of doing it. The situation that you described, that $600 with the admin fee and the winching fee and so on and so forth, clearly that's a deceptive business practice. Clearly that company should have their license pulled. I have no idea what the enforcement record is on either more closely regulating so that people like that don't get licensed or in terms of pulling their licenses, but we're just here to say it's an overbroad approach. And I do want to make just one 193 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. other point before I close, and, that is, the tow -- at least in terms of the witness list that I understood, the previous tow firm that testified, they don't do our business. They don't do impound lot business. They only -- they're called for disabled cars. They do police towing and so on and so forth. So that tow firm that said that they represent the bill, just be aware they're not in our business. So as far as I know, I'm the only witness that represented the business that is going to be regulated by this, other than the apartment owners and, for instance, Parkway and so forth. So it's a very broad brush that you're painting with, and we are really just identifying the ticket as being the one that really -- we would love to sit down. If the bill does advance today, we'll deal with it, but we would like to see a mutually and collaborative approach, because we've only had a couple 194 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. days. I know that there's been about a dozen letters, as I say, from hospitals and churches and universities and so on and so forth that went to you that expressed concern about how they were going to be policing their lots, and that's really just with two or three business days' notice from us that this bill was coming down the pike. We think there's going to be some serious unintended consequences. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very, very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I believe we do have one more witness.
I'm sorry. I just wanted to make a comment. We do do roving towing too.
I stand corrected 195 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. then if he does. (Witness speaking without microphone.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: John Haliburton. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Lieutenant, if you don't mind, would you come up and respond on the record. Sit down, gentlemen. Just stay at the table. There's three seats up there.
Councilman Kenney, you clearly are very passionate about this issue and you've worked hard on this issue for a long time and you're trying to solve a real problem facing citizens in Philadelphia, and so I appreciate your patience with me as I get up to speed on this issue.
Lieutenant, 196 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. you heard, I guess, what I was suggesting and Councilman DiCicco had discussed with Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez, and, that is, maybe providing an exemption for called tows and essentially provide the people who call the tow trucks with something visible that can be put on the windscreen issued by the City of Philadelphia or the Police or somebody else so that you will be able to enforce the law the way you intended. And that could include perhaps requiring lot owners to keep records for a year to demonstrate that that was a valid tow, something like that. Is that something that you think the Police Department could consider given the low number of cars we're talking about? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Obviously we're willing to consider anything. You see the problems that we're dealing with and we're facing. There's two issues. One is the law enforcement side of it, 197 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. making sure that the cars that are towed were actually illegally parked. Therein is the reason for the ticket, one reason. An independent person says, Yay, that's an illegally parked car, it deserves to be towed. The other side of it is, as the Councilman mentioned, the consumer advocacy side of it, because when you do get your car towed, in any other place when you take property, when the government takes property, there's due process, except in this scenario. The Parking Authority takes your car, you have due process. You can go in front of a judge, determine whether or not yay or nay should have been towed. In this scenario, the consumers, even if they're illegally parked cars or not, have no 21 forum to go to to address the complaint. They have to actually invest their own money and file a lawsuit. Well, that's contrary to due process. All we're trying to say is put this standing on par 198 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. with everything else. A ticket. Now, the question is who can issue a ticket. The only problem I see here that everybody is really concerned about is the ability to respond quick enough to issue a ticket. The issuance of the ticket is not the concern. It's whether or not they can get there quick enough to do it in an efficient manner, and I respect that. And that's something that we're looking at to make sure that we can do. And we agree that we don't know for sure how well we can do it, but the question is maybe we can expand the people that can issue lawful tickets. Maybe that's an avenue of a way around this hurdle, because it seems to me the only hurdle is how quickly the Police or the Parking Authority can get there. City Code says authorized persons can issue parking tickets. Now, is there a mechanism that we can sit sidebar and discuss who other in the City 199 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. could be authorized to issue these specific tickets? I don't know. That may be --
Well, essentially what I'm talking about is the same thing, except they're not actually issuing a ticket. They're putting in a sticker, but that's the same thing as them issuing a ticket. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, yes and no. It's -- actually, no. That ticket is --
Because their car is towed at that point. LIEUTENANT HEALY: But the ticket is what gives them, on the flip side of that, the authority to have that decision appealed. So whoever signs the bottom of that ticket can be called into court and say, What did you see. As it stands right now, there's no one to come to court to say, Yeah, it was illegally parked or not and I can swear to it. So that is where the consumer advocacy side 200 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. is missing in the current law and actually should have been there.
But there is much greater protection under what I'm proposing, because the lot owner is required to call the tow company. That makes them responsible for the decision. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct. I mean, I'm with you. I understand the policing side --
And, yes, there is a civil penalty for that in Small Claims Court, which is not the same as being able to appeal your ticket, but appealing your ticket doesn't deal with the other civil issues with respect to that, including appealing the -- just because you win an appeal on a ticket doesn't mean you don't have to pay the tow company. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The judge can order the release of the car, yes. That's the whole point of appealing, because otherwise the car is sitting in 201 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the lot racking up fees. If you believe your car is not legitimately towed, you make the appeal and, yeah, the judge can order the release of the car. That is his authority. So that's really what you want. Like the poor victim that came forward, she has to go pay $98 to file --
Right, but we're talking about a very small number of cars here. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. And what I'm trying to say is maybe there's a mechanism -- I'm not sure if there is. I'm not saying there is -- that we can expand the authority to issue a ticket.
I'm saying that I don't think that that's necessarily the proper solution. Just giving them something they can put under the car for a very small number of cars solves the problems of your enforcement, given the number of cars we're talking about, 50 a year. LIEUTENANT HEALY: If it's a 202 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. small number, then I'm sure something could be worked out obviously, but we need to address the larger problem, like I said.
And I agree with you. I'm with you on -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: The ticket is the most logical thing, because that's what's actually missing in the statute that should have been there in the beginning, and we're just trying to really backfill what should have been there from a due process perspective. Right now you get your car taken from whatever, residential, commercial, whatever, lot, people have no forum.
Well, no 19 other city in the country actually requires a ticket before towing off of a private lot. So, I mean, we're not solving a problem that we should have solved before. There's no other city in the country that has this requirement. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We could 203 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. be the first. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I don't know that for a fact. I know that --
We've done a survey of all the major cities. Obviously we didn't look at every city in the country, but we couldn't find a city that -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, the question is towing off a lot, a lot of the other statutes that I'm aware of will remove the car and relocate it. They'll relocate it to a lawful position. So if it's on your -- you take it and move it. We're actually impounding it. So we're actually not relocating it.
I understand the problem we're trying to solve, and I agree with you on solving that problem. I'm just saying let's have a narrowly tailored exception that addresses people who are responsible in the industry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I agree with that. Councilman Kenney 204 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. mentioned something earlier about the Police Commissioner not wanting too many carve-outs. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not wanting too many carve-outs, and I understand that, because now you got to try to figure out who is in and who is out. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, the officer on the street can't make the determination of what's an exception and what's not. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When I hear the testimony of Mr. Zuritsky and Mr. Spear about their process, I would venture to say that they don't want to have people towed because it's bad business for them, unless they're not being paid. So they're not just going to have somebody towed for the sake of having that vehicle towed unless it's blocking or they're not being paid. And there is an accountability there. What 205 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. we're really looking for is where there is no accountability, you have these rovers just going through parking lots and other places, but when you have a legitimate parking garage and/or surface area parking location that there is management that sees what's going on, I hate to use the word "carve-out," but I think that that's maybe what we can -- if we can work on some adjustment to that, that industry would be held harmless. LIEUTENANT HEALY: In sidebar, that's where I'm thinking we can -- I don't know legally whether 100 percent, but I think I might have a solution, but I'd like to say it privately.
I understand what you're saying, but remember, the problem we're trying to solve, all the testimony about cars that were taken, things that happened to people, not one person said somebody -- the lot owner called the tow truck on me. Every problem was roving, right? So it's these 206 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. rovers that are sort of these pirates out there doing this, and we solve that problem if we give people who call the tow operator, keep a record of it for a year, a sticker to put on the car so that the Police will know when that car goes by, it's been authorized by somebody who called in a tow. That would mean that also that the Police could spot-check to make sure that the tow was called in. So it's just -- it's a suggestion, and I hope you'll consider it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you for your patience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is John Haliburton. I'm with Compiled Logic. We work with cities and counties around the country in the towing area. Believe it or not, we wake up every morning and think about 207 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. vehicle towing. We appreciate you giving us the opportunity to speak. We're going to be very short and to the point. This is Don McAfoose with Compiled Logic, and he's going to say a few words. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. MR. McAFOOSE: Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Councilmen. My name is Don McAfoose. I'm with Compiled Logic. We as a company serve the municipalities, the towing industry and the citizens within the municipalities. Fundamentally what we have found is just like what you're finding. One of the key things is reporting of information and the sharing of information. What we have found is, jurisdictions just like yourself require reporting of tows on a timely basis; for example, within 30 minutes to an hour. Our solution is a web-based solution so that the reporting is done via the Internet into a central 208 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. repository. What that does is, the Police have information very quickly. It allows the towers to enter the information that's required for them very quickly, and, most importantly what it does, it gives the citizens of the county, of the city, of whatever, the ability to go onto a portal and actually see a number of things: if their car was towed, who towed it, where it was towed from, and we're also putting a new feature in where they actually can see what their tow bill would look like. What we have found is, giving this type of information to the citizens allows them when they go to pick up a vehicle, they know up front what their tow bill should look like. And it's the -- like you were saying before, like 80 to 90 percent of the towers are legitimate towers, and how do you handle the extra ten percent or the five percent. Part of it is consumer awareness, consumer having information, 209 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. so when they go to retrieve their vehicle, they know exactly what they should pay, they know what the fees should be, and if it's wrong, they have a recourse, they can call the Police and the Police can come out. That information is also stored within the repository, so the Police can actually query to find if we've got towers that are actually charging too much or have complaints against them. So what we are here really is more from an industry -- this is the industry we deal with. This is the stuff we deal with on a daily basis, and we just want to offer ourselves as maybe some subject matter experts, as well as our solution as this legislation moves forward to consider using an electronic repository versus just handwriting or faxing in and then having the delays, as well as the inefficiency of that type of system. So thank you very much. 210 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you very much. I would suggest that you contact the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Kenney, and maybe from there, Parking Authority Police might be interested in this program of yours. Thank you for your patience. MR. McAFOOSE: Thank you very much.
We also have a website called towedcar.com that you have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I saw it on there. Thank you. This Committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock -- make that 8:30. Thank you. (Committee on Streets and Services adjourned at 5:40 p.m.) - - - 211 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 5, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)