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.