COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 26, 1999 1:25 p.m. - - - BILL 970590 - Amending Section 12-2405 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Removal or Immobilization of Parked Vehicles Notice". . . BILL 980048 - Amending Chapter 9-1600 of The Philadelphia Code relating to the prohibition against unlawful eviction practices. . . BILL 980274, 980275 - Held at request of sponsor. BILL 980550 - Amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land. . . BILL 980684 - Amending Title of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and 14 planning. . . BILL 990425 - Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning. . . BILL 990601 - Amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land. . . (Full text of all bills appear in body of transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 10/26/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Bill 990601 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . Michael Sklaroff, attorney for Amtrak . . . . 9 Bill 980550 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 11 Gina Caruso, Co-chair St. John's Leadership 15 8 Suzanne Haney, Southwark Civil War Historic District Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Bill 980684 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 17 Bill 990425 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 21 Bill 980048 Michael Nardone, Deputy Managing Director . . 26 Special Needs Housing 14 Marcia Berman, Deputy City Solicitor. . . . . 42 Bradley K. Moss, Counsel for Coles House. . . 60 Susan Lewis, Executive Director, Coles House 60 Michael Carroll, Community Legal Services . . 95 Dennis Pollard, Director of Development, TAG 109 Robert Meek, Atty., Disabilities Law Project 116 Bill 970590 Jeremiah J. Connors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Deputy Executive Director, Philadelphia Parking Authority 3 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Council Committee on Rules. First, we have A quorum present, with Councilmembers Nutter, Cohen, Ortiz, DiCicco, and myself as chairperson, Councilman Kenney. There is one announcement. Bills No. 10 980274 and 980275 will be held at the request of the sponsor, and they will not be heard today. The first bill we will hear is Bill No. 13 990601, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area generally bounded by the Schuykill Expressway, Arch Street, 30th Street, John F. Kennedy Boulevard, certain Amtrak and SEPTA property lines and a line parallel to the center line of a certain Conrail High Line and a line parallel to and located approximately 800 feet north of Arch Street. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. 4 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo Chief of the Planning Commission, here to speak on behalf of this bill. I'll try to be brief and just give you an overview of it. There are representatives of Amtrak who are here, who may want to address you in terms of their plans and then answer any questions that you may have. As it was stated, in the short time that this bill was -- it was proposed to rezone land basically north and west of 30th Street Station, approximately acres of land, from 14 Class G2 General Industrial to Class C5 15 Commercial. C5 Commercial is the zoning 16 classification of the business core of Center 17 City. 18 When the Planning Commission did the 19 plan for Center City, now about ten years ago, one 20 of the elements of that plan was the recommendation that as a natural extension of the business core, the zoning should be changed in the vicinity of -- changed west of the Schuylkill River to a compatible zoning classification to permit the eventual redevelopment of this area 5 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 with high-density, mixed-use development, similar to that found in Center City. When one considers the excellent highway and mass transit access to this area, it seems to be a natural -- it would be a natural extension of the business core, and especially, which we foresaw back when we did the plan for Center City, with the growth of business along the Amtrak corridor, the need to have zoning in place to permit more intense development of this area of the city. Under this proposal, this is sort of a Phase I zoning, only zoning a portion of the larger general industrial area. It would allow for initial development to take place. That development would include a parking garage, eventual commercial uses within the existing 30th Street Station that would connect back across Arch Street to the parking garage, development of surface parking, and future development of an approximately 300-room hotel. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 16, 1999, recommended to the Mayor and to this Council the 6 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 adoption of Bill 990601.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for these witnesses? Councilmember Cohen?
Mr. Lombardo, could you tell us how close any residential areas are to this area.
Okay. Well, it's -- basically, what you have is -- to the west of this area, you have additional property as part of the Amtrak rail operation -- that's approximately another block of rail usage -- before you come to the high line, on the other side of a high line. You basically run into the campus of Drexel University. And to the south of that, the campus 7 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 of the University of Pennsylvania. So there are residential units, but they're residential units in terms of dormitories associated with those two universities. There is a residential community up around 32nd and Powelton, the summer-winter community. Mr. Kramer's pointing to it on the map. I would say that that is the nearest residential community, and that's probably two blocks away, but it's separated by -- there's not like immediate street access. Again, if look at the map, you'll see there's no cross-street access across the rail yards over to that neighborhood.
Based on your experience at the Planning Commission, would, as you described it, the intense development, to make it possible for intense development, would there likely be any residential impact?
I would think that in this stage of development, I would answer that no. 22 Most of the traffic and access would be using the very same streets that -- basically they're using Market Street and Kennedy Boulevard, the very same streets that all of Center City traffic uses. 8 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 That map there shows the access is being built right up against the Schuykill Expressway, so traffic access would really be either onto the expressway or east and west along Kennedy Boulevard, north and south on the Schuykill Expressway, or down through the University City. I think at the later phase, which would have to come to this Council for later discussion of rezoning, if there was later phases, that issue could come up as you got further up towards Spring Garden Street. But this proposal does not envision any access into the residential community at this time. So to answer your question -- it's a long answer to say no. 17
Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there someone else here to testify on this bill? (Michael Sklaroff comes forward.)
Lest there are any questions, Mr. Chairman. 9 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601
I have no other questions. Identify yourself for the record, please.
I am Michael Sklaroff, attorney for Amtrak in the matter. If there any other questions, there are people here from Amtrak and the architecture firm.
May I raise with you, Mr. Sklaroff, the same question that I raised with Mr. Lombardo 'cause you've had a great deal of experience in these matters. Based upon your experience, is it likely that as a result of the zoning, we would later at sometime get residential complaints?
I would say that the short answer is no. The impact on the city and any residents would only be good.
Well, because of the jobs and the activity and the resources that that development would provide.
You don't think it would interfere with the normal residential 10 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 development that might occur in that location?
Normal residential development could not occur in that location because essentially we're talking about the construction of railroad tracks.
And the development that would occur on the location you're talking about that's subject to the zoning change, you don't think that would impact on existing residential, particularly in the area around 32nd -- that's around 32nd Street, which was mentioned by Mr. Lombardo?
For the very reasons Mr. Lombardo stated, there would be no detrimental impact whatsoever.
One procedural thing: we would ask for a suspension of the rules.
Thank you. So noted. Is there anyone else here to testify on 11 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550 this bill? (No response.)
Since there are no 5 further questions on this bill, we will now move on to the next bill, which is Bill No. 980550, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Washington Avenue, Seventh Street, Tasker Street, and Front Street. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission. And I'm here today to speak on behalf of 980550. This is one of a series of bills that we have been working with Councilman DiCicco on over the past couple of years to basically look at the zoning within the area of -- the South Philadelphia area of his district, a portion of his district, west of -- east of Broad Street, 12 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550 south of Washington Avenue. This particular area, which is about 175 acres, has been the subject of several previous zoning bills. We're coming back again to this particular area. The long and the short of this bill is, what this bill does is, it takes out all of the residential zoning classifications that allow for as-of-right conversion of rowhouses to multifamily units. As I said, there's been previous bills in this area that have done similar rezonings, but in both previous instances, there was multifamily zoning left in place. The problem of conversion without any community input has gotten to the point where the neighborhood and the Councilman feel that they would rather have all conversion to have to stand the test of the Zoning Board hearing.
So for the record, there's no prohibition of multifamily conversion; it's simply a requirement to pass a test.
And to show hardship and to get community approval and Zoning Board approval. 13 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550
That's right. And I do want to point out that there was a typo made in the map, and we will be giving an amendment to the Clerk's Office and to the committee.
Yeah. The block is basically what would be the northeast corner of Second and Reed, through to Hancock Street. And what happened was, when we did that particular block, the A was left off. The difference is -- what the zoning is doing is changing it from R10 to R10-A. We have an amendment here to correct the map and make that an R10-A also, which is a single-family rowhouse district. With that amendment, for the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 21, 1999, recommended, through the Mayor and through this Council, the adoption of Bill No. 22 980550.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman DiCicco? 14 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, Mr. Lombardo, this is consistent with what we have done in the past, basically from a much larger area, from Washington Avenue to Oregon, from Broad Street to Columbus Boulevard, and this was just one small area that was left undone.
It was such a large area, we had to break it into a series of bills.
And this is just one of them. As I say, it was a series of bills that we got, and I think this is the last one of the series of bills that we have done.
Thank you very 15 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550 much. Are there any more questions of these witnesses?? (No response.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Please come forward. (Gina Caruso comes forward.)
I'm sorry, is there another witness for this bill too? Do you want to come forward too? Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Gina Caruso. I am the co-chair of the St. John's Leadership Team, and I would like to go on the record that the St. John's Leadership Team supports this bill.
It's different from the last time we were here. (Laughter.) (Suzanne Haney comes forward.) 16 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684
Please identify yourself for the record. MS. HANEY; my name is Suzanne Haney, and I represent the Southwark Civil War Historic District Committee, and we are also in favor of this zoning change that would promote single-family homes and not subdivision of existing properties because of the historic nature of many of the properties in the area.
Terrific, great. Thank you very much. MS. HANEY; thank you.
Hearing none, we will now move to Bill No. 980684, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by amending Section 14-1607, entitled "Special Controls for the Center City Commercial Area," by amending Section 14-1803, entitled "Criteria for Granting a Special-Use Permit," by requiring a 17 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684 Zoning Board of Adjustment special use permit for certain users for properties fronting the north side of Market Street between Front Street and Fifth Street, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo from the Planning Commission. I'm here to speak on Bill 980684.
As you stated, this bill 14 proposes to amend the special controls area for Center City, though the larger special controls area is, as you described, on Market Street between Front and Fifth. Currently, what we're really talking about is -- I'm sorry. What we're talking about really is just not the larger area but basically the north side of Front Street, between Front Street and Fifth Street.
Market Street, I'm sorry. 18 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684
Okay. You don't mean the north side of Front, all right.
Yeah. On the north side of Market, between Front and Fifth, it's only the properties that front on Market Street. Basically what we have here is, we did a special controls for Old City a number of years ago. That bill basically came down to the rear property line of the properties on the north side of Market Street. In that particular area, the restaurants, any kind of entertainment of guests and patrons, public-assembly type uses are prohibited. South of that line, to Market Street, which is actually the properties fronting on Market Street, those uses could continue to be permitted. What this bill attempts to do is continue to allow them to be permitted to put some quality-of-life controls on the operation. Basically, it requires the issuance, after a public hearing by the Zoning Board, of a special-use permit for restaurants and other types of restaurant-like facilities at the public hearing. A special permit is not a variance; a 19 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684 special permit is a situation where evidence to a particular issue is taken by the Board, and the Board evaluates whether you've met the threshold to provide that evidence. In this particular case, the evidence would deal with adequate trash and garbage storage, that the restaurant will have adequate trash and garbage storage, that there would be proper ventilation of all cooking fumes through the roof of the building rather than coming directly out onto the sidewalk and that those fumes will negatively impact neighbors. And lastly, that there will be -- where live entertainment is a part of the venue of the facility, there will be adequate noise -- with either live or electronic entertainment, that there will be adequate noise abatement to ensure that there it won't be heard outside of the premise. With that evidence being offered, the Board -- I mean, as I say, there's no variance threshold; it would just be evidence offered at that time. The Board, I would assume, would grant that the special-permit use would be allowed. 20 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684 This bill actually is a compromise over, I think, an initial request from the civic association to extend the ban of restaurants and clubs and what have you all the way down to Market Street. After a series of meetings, it was decided to compromise with the special-use special permit process. And I know that Tom and I attended a meeting, I guess now, almost a year ago that the Councilman held out in the community. And after the issue was aired, I think there was pretty much agreement by all people there that they would support this bill.
Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
I'm sorry. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 21, 1999, recommended the adoption of Bill 22 980684.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? 21 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 990425, which is an ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia 6 Code relating to zoning and planning by amending 7 Chapter 14-1600 entitled "Miscellaneous" by 8 amending Section 14-1697 entitled "Special 9 Controls for Center City Commercial Area," under 10 circumstances. 11 Please identify yourself for the 12 record. 13
Yeah. Good afternoon, 14 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of Bill No. 990425. This bill again amends a portion of the Center City Special Controls area, which, again, is a much larger area, but these particular amendments are dealing with the Avenue of the Arts, which are basically properties along Broad Street, south of Penn Square, down to Washington Avenue. What this bill does is a series of things in refining the overlay and defining the 22 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 use controls. It would now allow sidewalk cafes, which would be permitted as a matter of right. Restaurants that exist along Broad Street now could come out onto the sidewalk as sidewalk cafes. Full-service restaurants, which currently require a Zoning Board hearing, now would be permitted as a matter of right. Uses currently requiring a Zoning Board certificate are drugstores, delicatessens, pet stores. Other public utility uses would no longer be permitted, and other -- two of the uses, food markets and sale of general merchandise, which is like a five-and-dime or a dollar store or a variety store, would no longer be permitted. So this bill was done in conjunction with the Avenue of the Arts and the property owners along Broad Street as a part of a concerted effort to upgrade the type of activity, the type of commercial uses on Broad Street in this area. As I said, this would be effective from Washington Avenue to City Hall to properties running on Broad Street. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 17, 1999, 23 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 recommended the adoption of Bill 990425. This bill was -- this bill was prepared in conjunction with the Avenue of the Arts organization as well as individual building owners along Broad Street.
That's right. It would only go from a point forward. If they're already there with many of these uses that I mentioned, like food markets, you would be grandfathered in. You could stay there, you could sell your property, someone else could buy it and continue the use, but that wouldn't take away that right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to read into the record a letter that was sent over by Ellen Solms, S-O-L-M-S. Ellen is the Executive Director of the Avenue of the Arts, Inc. "Avenue of the Arts, Inc. a nonprofit agency charged with overseeing the ongoing development of the Avenue of the Arts is in full 24 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 support of the proposed revision of the special controls for the Center City commercial area. "Since 1993, Broad Street, from City Hall to Washington Avenue, has been transformed into the Avenue of the Arts, the city's premiere performing arts district. Linked by gleaming new streetscape, the district is home to a eleven cultural and educational institutions and seven individual performance venues. The development of the new or rehabilitated cultural facilities has stimulated significant commercial development -- new restaurants, new hotels, new retail and office and residential conversion. "With the opening of the Ritz Carlton Hotel next year and the Regional Performing Arts Center in 2001, the Avenue of the Arts will be well-positioned to continue as the engine for the city's ongoing economic development into the next century. The proposed controls will strengthen our ability to attract the kinds of businesses that will add to the Avenue's success by enabling us to protect on the over $600 million that has been invested by both the public and private sectors in the Avenue of the Arts." 25 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Thank you very much. That will be entered into the record. Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Anyone else to testify on the this bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Now we will move to Bill No. 980048, which is an ordinance amending Chapter 9-1600 of The Philadelphia Code relating to the prohibition against unlawful eviction practices by excepting from the definition of "landlord" a nonprofit landlord operating a boardinghouse or a lodging house. Is there anyone from the Administration to -- I'm sorry, we'll get the Administration first. You could sit right there. Mr. Nardone? (Michael Nardone comes forward.)
My name is Michael Nardone, and I'm the Deputy Managing Director for Special Needs Housing. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on Bill No. 980048. The bill before you today would exempt nonprofit lessors operating boardinghouses from the prohibitions against self-help eviction procedures. The bill defines the term "boardinghouse" as any house containing furnished rooms or apartments kept principally for the residents or permanent guests, which are let out by the week or month, with full or limited meal service. When this legislation was originally proposed, the Administration had concerns about whether or not this legislation would impact programs currently run by City agencies, or that contract with City agencies to provide residential services, such as the Office of Emergency Shelter and Services that I oversee. After further analysis, it would appear that the legislation before you today with respect to its impact on our 27 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 programs would appear to be quite small. OESS contracts with over 40 emergency shelters that provide temporary housing, food, and other support services to more than 2200 homeless individuals. Many of these agencies may classify as nonprofit boarding homes as part of the language contained in this legislation. Clients seeking emergency housing from an OESS provider voluntarily enter into an agreement in which they agree to follow a prescribed service plan as well as abide by OESS rules and regulations, including a process for termination of service. This OESS client service agreement is critical to enforcement of an individual service plan and the individual's progress towards self-sufficiency, as well as the smooth and effective operation of the emergency shelter program. Thus, it appears that the OESS processes, as well as other programs that are within the City agency umbrellas such as the Department of Public Health, that their provisions are consistent with the provisions contained in this ordinance. Beyond the type of nonprofit 28 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 residential provider mentioned above, it would appear that the number of entities falling in the category of "nonprofit boarding home" would be narrow. Coles House, the main proponent of this legislation, is one of the few nonprofit boarding homes that I am aware of that falls outside of existing City and/or State provider systems, such as the OESS system. Although it is seeking an exemption from the prohibition against self-help, I understand that Coles House does provide its residents with certain procedural protections during the eviction process, and I believe you're going to hear more about that in testimony in a few minutes. The legislation before you today could be strengthened by adding language specifying that nonprofit boarding homes exempted from the self-help prohibition likewise must have in place an eviction process with procedural protections for the residents to ensure against any unintended consequences of this ordinance. With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks and would be happy to answer any questions 29 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 that you may have. And in following that concern that there be certain protections put into the legislation, I have drafted a proposed amendment that I could provide to the committee.
Thank you very much. We'll just need a copy of the amendment.
Is it your testimony that this legislation is instigated by only one boarding home?
So we're doing this legislation for just one boarding home? Is that it?
Yeah, we're talking about doing it but we haven't done it yet; we're just talking about doing it.
Yeah. It's just that I find it unusual that we're doing an individualized legislation like this.
Well, maybe I can 30 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 comment on that, Councilman Ortiz.
Back around 1996 or '97, I had the occasion to visit the Coles House, which is in my district, and I met Susan Lewis, who will be up shortly to testify. And as a result of that meeting, which I was brought down to look at the facility to see if we can get some funds to do some interior renovations and electrical work for the facility. As a result of that, a dialogue was created between my office and Susan Lewis. Subsequent to that Lieutenant McCarthy, who was then the lieutenant in charge of the South Street detail, had on occasion performed -- in the performance of his police duties, was summoned to the Coles House for the purposes of some disturbances between the tenant, or tenants, that were in that facility. As a result of those incidents, we began to explore the possibilities of maybe some legislation that may give the nonprofit agency and then the manager or the person in charge of the facility some input into the process of eviction. And I think when Susan 31 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 gets up to testify, she can explain to you what some of her problems and difficulties had been in the past. So when we speak to an individual piece of legislation, I guess this may apply to other boardinghouses that fall within the category of the Coles House, but this was a legislation that I put forward based on my experience with the Coles House.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Nardone? (No response.)
Mr. Nardone, could you please do me a favor and read into the record at least your proposed amendment on what it would accomplish.
The proposal that I have put forward would insert at the end of the definition of "landlord," where it says the following: "Except for nonprofit lessors engaged in the operation of one or more boardinghouses," and then insert: ", which lessor shall provide to 32 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 residents both notice of the impending eviction and an opportunity to cure the reason for the eviction in advance of utilizing any self-help eviction practice."
Okay. Are there any questions on the amendment? (No questions.)
Mr. Nardone, this may or may not be up your alley, but what, in your words, does the amendment accomplish or help to do or help to prevent? And, secondly, what is your understanding of the impact of the bill overall or -- I mean, what problems have you experienced that are either not covered by present law or are helped by the implementation of this particular bill?
I guess what -- this is not a bill that I was putting forward --
-- in terms of the Administration. 33 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
What I was trying to do in drafting the amendment, or crafting the amendment, was, to the best of my knowledge, the number of nonprofit boarding homes that would come under this definition are limited. In other words, nonprofit boarding homes that are not a part of, say, the OESS system or the mental health system were under some of the other City agencies that fund services. And under those circumstances, they would not, according to our analysis, be impacted by this legislation. However, there may be --
Well, just so I can understand. So in the reverse, are you saying that only systems that are associated with OESS or other City departments or agencies are subject to the bill?
No. What I'm saying is, is that there is a process in place which is somewhat consistent with the language that's concerned in this legislation that would allow those entities to terminate client services without going through the landlord-tenant 34 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 process. And so that they're relatively unaffected by the language contained in this bill. And as best as I can determine, the only nonprofits that would be impacted by this legislation are those nonprofits that would not be a part of the OESS mental health system. Coles House, apparently, is definitely one that isn't affiliated or involved in contracting with City agencies. There may be -- I am not familiar with other -- I am not personally familiar with other entities, except I -- other entities that would fall under this category. However, I can't be totally confident that that's the case. And the reason for -- and the reason for putting forward -- the reason why I, in testifying today and being asked to testify today, put forward this language was to try to ensure that the type of protections that Coles House has in place, with respect to -- which you'll hear a little bit more about today, with respect to notice, as well as procedural programs, due process, would also extend to people who might be impacted by this, that we're just not aware of at 35 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 this time.
Let me ask it this way because I am obviously missing something here. Maybe you can answer it this way. Can you tell me -- I mean, either before the bill or after the bill, there seem to be categories of these boardinghouses, even in the nonprofit world, that seem to be subject to different rules and regulations or different eviction procedures, depending on whether you are associated with OESS or a City agency or if you're standing independent; is that correct? I mean, is that the way the system is set up?
I think that what I was trying to say is, there's a different relationship.
What I was trying to refer to is that many of the boarding homes that are nonprofit boarding homes basically are 36 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 providing services under contract to either OESS or the Department of Health.
And those basically, I think you could make the argument, which we would, that those would not come under the landlord-tenant provisions contained in the existing law.
Because, A, there's a different relationship between the clients who are in the programs and the people that are providing the service. For instance, it's the City that's paying for the services that are provided under the mental health system, and the client doesn't pay anything in terms of services. So it's not the typical landlord-tenant relationship.
So in that circumstance, you're taking the position that the City has a right to stop service and put someone out --
Put in place -- there is a process, and each one of those -- 37 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
There's an internal process in place that has -- you know, which involves meeting with the case managers.
So that's what goes on with people who have a contract with OESS or some other agency or department of the government?
Right. And what I was trying to state is -- and maybe I didn't do it as eloquently as I could have -- is that, as best as I can determine, that many, if not most -- that most of the nonprofit boarding homes are somehow affiliated with that -- those systems. It was -- because I'm sitting here and I'm not -- I can't a hundred percent testify to you today that the only entity that's impacted by this legislation is Coles House, I felt that it 38 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 was important at a minimum, if this legislation was moving forward, that there be put in place some process that would at least ensure that there are protection s in place similar to the people at Coles House.
The landlord is going to put the process in place in order to evict the person? I don't think that's a level playing field.
That would be -- I mean, I would have to defer to the Law Department, but I think that the process would be subject to challenge.
I think we need to have the Law Department to look at how the procedure of due process is affected by this. I authored an eviction law in late-'87 in order to 39 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 avoid this type of self-help by the landlord, you know, which was rampant in Philadelphia. And I think this is opening up a Pandora's box right here.
So, Mr. Nardone, you have the City system and the City has its own process in place. The City takes the position that it, as a government, is not subject to the landlord-tenant provisions, I assume, of probably either the Philadelphia Code --
All right. Now, 40 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 the rest of the universe, the nonprofit people who don't have contracts with the City, they are?
Okay. And the bill 6 is trying to exempt the rest of them?
And that they would then put in place their own system somewhat similar to the way the City deals with the people we have contracted.
Right, or is similar to the way the Coles House system is in place -- that you'll hear more about after I testify. I was saying that as a minimum protection, that that would be something that we should look at, and I took the initiative to write the language.
Okay. Well, maybe I should wait until we hear from Coles House.
Your position relative to the City's contracted or State-contract operations is that the contractual relationship is what makes it unique.
And that there are protocols that, by virtue of that contract, were put into place or are in place, in the City's opinion, is a safeguard for capricious evictions without cause.
I've been joined by Marcia -- this is Marcia Berman from the Law Department.
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify -- 42 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Would you please pull your microphone closer to you and just formally identify yourself for the record, please.
Yes. Marcia Berman, Deputy City Solicitor. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the case law -- that the requirement that landlords not engage in self-help and go through the legal process is actually not in the Landlord-Tenant Act; it's been created by cases by courts. And it is unclear whether or not a boardinghouse is subject to that prohibition against self-help in State law. My research revealed a case back in 1914, which was the only case I was able to find, that suggested that a landlord-tenant relationship does not exist when a person contracts with a boardinghouse operator for room and board for any amount of time. And that case is Davis versus Hartel (ph.). And it's a 1914 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision. So it is somewhat unclear whether or not the boardinghouses are subject to that prohibition against self-help under State law. 43 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Can I ask you a hypothetical so I can try to understand what the boardinghouse operator and tenant relation or boarder -- I guess "boarder" is the appropriate word -- boarder relationship is. If I allow a person to enter my home, my private residence, to take a bedroom that's a spare room, and that person lives there with the promise that they're going to contribute to the utilities or to the food or to whatever domestic circumstance there is. And over a period of two, three months, the individual exhibits disorderly behavior -- he gets drunk and he busts up my house and does other kinds of things, and I want him out -- what is the relationship between me as the homeowner and now this boarder, which I allowed in the property? I mean, I did so voluntarily but now have changed my mind because of whatever behavior and want that person out. Does that person have landlord-tenant rights in my home? I mean, is --
We'll say the 44 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 boarder hypothetically was contributing to the food or to the utilities.
Again, there's not a lot of case law out there, but I would argue that under this case, Davis versus Hartel, which is still good law, that there would not be a landlord-tenant relationship.
Okay. Are boardinghouses viewed by the law or viewed by the courts -- I guess there's not that much -- there's not that many cases that give us that indication, that boardinghouses are more considered a private home as opposed to a commercial apartment building or a commercial operation?
I'm sorry. I didn't understand the answer. What is the distinction?
That with a boardinghouse, there is no landlord-tenant relationship because it's not the typical commercial type of enterprise that a landlord-tenant relationship means. 45 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Is the primary definition of the "landlord-tenant relationship" that there is a lease or a contract for a certain amount of time and a certain amount of rent, and maybe utilities included, maybe utilities not? I mean, taking the alternative of Councilman Kenney's example, if his example was not, I think you said, a boardinghouse relationship, then either, one, what was it? And, two, what created -- I mean, what is "a boardinghouse"?
The Philadelphia Code doesn't have any other definition for "boardinghouse." The Code, in this provision that this bill would amend, has a definition of "landlord." And it defines "landlord" as "the lessor of any residential dwelling unit." So I think, at least under this definition -- and I haven't researched this extensively. But I think that there is a requirement that there be some type of lease 46 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 arrangement.
Do the people in this particular situation for the bill that we're talking about, do they have a lease, or have they signed some sort of an agreement to come and live at a particular place for the week or the month and get some certain services that go with that?
Well, the definition in the bill says, "which are let out by the week or month." So I think that would imply some sort of arrangement where they're paying money to live there. I don't know if a technical lease, you know, as we think of it, is required.
Well, does that definition then imply that there is a landlord-tenant relationship?
I don't know. I can tell you that under the case law, there are no cases that say a boarding you house is a landlord and is subject to the self-help prohibition. 47 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Based on the definition on and Item number 5, what is the nature of the relationship between the people who run the boardinghouse and the people who are being let out? I mean, that the room is being let out to for the week or the month, with full or limited meal service? What is this relationship?
Didn't you say earlier that it was not landlord-tenant?
And there is very little case law. I can't tell you that there's any reasoning in that case law that makes this distinction. It doesn't; it just says it's not considered a landlord-tenant relationship. I -- I wish I could be more helpful but there's just not a lot of case law on this.
And, therefore, not 48 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 subject to landlord-tenant statutes?
Well, it's -- the prohibition against self-help is not in the statute; it's developed under the case law. It's not in the Landlord-Tenant Act.
So -- fine. Let's I want to go into the boardinghouse business. Are you saying because of either case law or State statutes, I can't determine for myself what the nature of the terms and conditions of your staying in my boardinghouse are? And if you're violating them, I can't put you out?
-- and I say that you can stay here on the week or for the month, and I'm going to provide certain services -- either meals or social services and the like -- and it seems like there's some kind of either contract or lease between me and you, and I thought you said earlier that that relationship is 49 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 not a landlord-tenant relationship, according to the case law.
Under the case law. Am I able to then draw up a list of rules and regulations of conduct and behavior and expectations for you to be in my boardinghouse, the violation of which will automatically allow me to do certain things, including termination.
My answer to that question would be yes, and that would be a question that would be litigated if and when any of those conditions were violated, and the legality of that would be determined by the court.
Then, lastly, what did you say earlier about there were certain prohibitions about self-help? What did that mean, what does that mean? Where?
Not where does it come from. What does it apply to? Where are self-help provisions not allowed?
There are cases, and I can 50 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 -- you know, one of them is a -- there's actually not a lot of even appellate-level decisions on this. There's a Court of Common Pleas decision called Wolford versus Vavrick (ph.), where the court enjoined a landlord who had padlocked the tenant's door and terminated water and electricity supplies from the victim-tenants through self-help measures. So it's through an injunction by a court saying you can't do this. And another source, I guess, would be in the Philadelphia Code, in this section. There is a rather extensive list of what self-help eviction practices are, what constitutes self-help eviction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the term "nonprofit" change any of the issues that are being discussed here? When we speak of boardinghouses, I think we're speaking of 51 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 it in the context as a nonprofit. Does a nonprofit have less rights, more rights? Does it change the circumstances? Or what is the distinction between the two, profit versus nonprofit? Because I'm certain there are for-profit boardinghouses out there.
I'm sure it does have some impact; I can't really say what it is. Again, we're operating not with a lot of guidance from the courts. In this case that's the 1914 case, there probably wasn't such a clear distinction back then between profit and nonprofit, or such a legal distinction. And so I can't really answer that. I think there would be a distinction, but I can't tell you what it is.
I mean, for me having gone through the Coles House, I compare that kind of to a bed-and-breakfast, where there's a common place and there are many common areas that distinguish those kinds of buildings or facilities from an apartment house where you generally have a private entrance, private facilities, your own bathroom, and your own 52 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 kitchen facilities, for the most part. I mean, that's generally what apartments are all about. And there is a separation of the tenants. In the Coles House, with the exception of bedrooms. And maybe in some cases, some of the units may have their own private bathrooms, everything else is a common area. Does that give, or should that give the landlord of these boardinghouses more flexibility in how they treat problems or problem tenants?
I guess the question is, are these individuals residing in this property a tenant or a boarder? And I think there may be a distinction between a tenant under the law, both statutory law and case law, and the term or the issue of a border, which I think is distinctly different from a contracted tenant. Councilmember Cohen?
I think the discussion that's taking place is indicative of the concerns that I would have about the bill. I think there's confusion between boarders, between 53 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 boardinghouses. A boardinghouse may be a nonprofit or it may be for-profit, depending on -- nature of the ownership determines whether it's for-profit or nonprofit. It has nothing to do with the spatial arrangements, whether there are separate apartments or not. There can be such things as nonprofit companies that run apartment houses. So I don't know what the relevancy might or might not be about nonprofits. All I know is that I participated very strongly in the '80s. I was about to claim ownership of the bill, but Ortiz claimed it before. (Laughter.)
But I think the real author, as far as I've been able to determine very quickly, is that -- I think former President Street was, in fact, the introducer of the bill. I haven't been able to pin that down, but I think it was sometime in the '80s. There were many complaints about behavior by landlords, and a real study was made over time. We had a number of hearings, we tried to develop a relationship between landlords and 54 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 tenants that seemed fair, that seemed to provide recourse to a tenant who complained about improper practices by a landlord and that sought to provide recourse to landlords if there were improper procedures by tenant. As a matter of fact, I understand that today, the housing courts of the City operate very quickly, that you can get a hearing within a short a period as a two-week period, and that you can get redress, if necessary. Now, of course, each party has their rights. And, of course, to a landlord, it's never quick enough; and to many tenants, it's never slow enough, you know, to protect their rights. But I think this kind of a subject needs all kinds of study. There's very little case law, as the City Solicitor's representative indicates. And I think, to base legislation upon a single instance of concern, to me doesn't add up to a sound basis for a legislation which may impact upon many others that we don't know. Once you draft legislation and put it into effect, it can be applied by courts in circumstances that are totally unknown. 55 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 That's why Mr. Nardone who is not here basically -- you're not here in support of the bill; you're in here expressing concern that maybe this bill would hurt the rights of tenants in the kinds of situations you described, which is not the normal landlord-tenant relationship, and you wanted to make sure that it could not hurt them. Am I right in my --
Well, I think that my general conclusion, based on the information I have, is that it doesn't affect the City programs, and that at least the --
It does not. And that my initial read is that because it is limited to nonprofit boarding homes, that -- at least in my knowledge and the people that I have talked to -- that it is not a broad definition of "providers." I guess what I wanted to -- the reason for proposing the language was because I was aware that Coles House did have in place a -- some procedural protections that I thought beared (sic) consideration in terms of applying to if you were 56 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 going to extend this nonprofits, that at least these protections should be in place.
Well, I think any lawyer representing any tenant would not believe that any protections that are set by a landlord who seeks to evict him provide him any protection at all. There are all kind of questions like that, and I think this legislation threatens the whole structure. Just this little piece of legislation threatens the whole structure of tenant-landlord relationships. And I think legislation is the wrong way to go in this direction. If there were failures in the court system, let's deal with those.
If I could just make one additional comment. For all of our discussion here today about whether or not a boardinghouse is a landlord and whether or not the prohibition against self-help applies, if a State court were to find in the future, after this bill is enacted, were to find that either way, if a boardinghouse is 57 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 subject to the prohibition against self-help or isn't, that would take precedence over this ordinance. So if there is -- if this ordinance 6 says that boardinghouses can use self-help, and a court later finds that they cannot, that that would -- you know, the State law would be supreme there.
Well, we have a City law, don't we? Isn't it the City law that controls in the eviction process, not the State law?
But you say currently, it's the State law. Well, let's hear from -- we're going to hear from legal analysis, the Community Legal Services is here, and I would like to hear their investigation. 'Cause it's my understanding that City Council enacted an ordinance related to eviction procedures, and it's the ordinance that this ordinance seeks to change, and it's that ordinance 25 which controls eviction in the City of 58 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Philadelphia, not the State law.
To the -- it's my understanding that to the extent that there's any inconsistency between the State law and the ordinance, that the State law would control.
But there's no 8 inconsistency we're talking about. The reason for the introduction of this amendment is that the Councilmember representing the constituent's interest, the constituent believes that the City ordinance, as presently constituted, prevents the landlord -- let's call her a landlord currently because we don't know to the contrary -- prevents her from carrying out an eviction in which she believes is a timely manner. So she's seeking a change in the City ordinance; she's not seeking any change in any State law, and of course, we couldn't do anything about a State law. It's the City ordinance that creates the problem in the mind of the Councilmember introducing this ordinance. So I'm not certain why you're referring to State law. We're dealing with the ordinance.
I think her 59 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 example, Councilman, was that if we were to pass this law -- whether we do or whether we don't -- in a State court, the State law precedent would supercede any action that we take on this bill.
Well, that's all her point was; her point was that. And that, I think, was enough. I mean, I understood it, and I'm not a lawyer, thanks.
Because you didn't understand all the complexities that revolve around it.
Is that what it is? You guys do complex things, don't you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. The Chair calls to the table Brad Moss and Susan Lewis. 60 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 (Mr. Moss and Ms. Lewis come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Bradley K. Moss, and with me is -- do you want to introduce yourself?
Susan Lewis, who is the Executive Director of the Coles House. I am counsel to the Coles House. We've handed up some testimony, and let me go through that, and also amplify on that in light of the enlightening discussion that we just had about the law. I promise that, although I am a lawyer, Councilman Kenney, I won't digress into legalese.
Thanks a lot. For the record, how many weeks does it take to get a hearing in landlord-tenant court?
I wish that Councilman Cohen was correct. You know, from his lips to the court's ears.
So it's a little 61 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 more than two weeks, I guess?
We are here today to provide testimony in support of Bill No. 980048. The proposed legislation is needed to ensure the long-term survival of facilities like the Coles House. It will not detrimentally impact low-income persons, and it will not exacerbate the incidents of homelessness among the City's low-income persons. Bill No. 980048 proposes to amend Chapter 9-1600 of the Philadelphia Code, which is the City ordinance which Councilman Ortiz as well as Councilman Cohen have taken the credit of having introduced a while ago. It would except from the prohibition against self-help eviction practices any nonprofit landlord which operates a house containing furnished rooms or apartments, kept principally for the residents or permanent guests which are let out by the week or month, with full or limited meal service. 62 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Chapter 9-1600 prohibits landlords -- that's the law that we currently have that Councilman Cohen and Ortiz have been referring to. It currently prohibits landlords from engaging in self-help eviction practices, and those practices or defined in the ordinance. It was enacted -- and this is important -- in 1987 to help protect low-income persons who are perceived to be unable to avail themselves of the judicial process to protect them from unlawful eviction. Without Chapter 9-1600, it was believed at the time that there would be an exacerbation in the incidence of homelessness among the City's low-income population. So that's the context in which the legislation was originally enacted. The Coles House is a nonprofit institution which has the mission of preventing homelessness among low-income women in transaction, by providing a safe, comfortable, and affordable room and board. Miss Mary Coles established the house in 1865. Since 1872, it's been located on the 900 block of Clinton Street. Today the Coles House consists of four adjoining townhouses that were altered to form one 63 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 residence, in which 61 single women live in 61 rental units. The average stay for the residents is between three and six months. Most of the women come from the Philadelphia area. Approximately 75 percent at the Cole House are African- or Asian-Americans. There are about 400 women who are residents in the Coles House each year. The Coles House helps to prevent homelessness by providing room and board at below-market rates. The rental rates are between $78 and $125 per week, or between $336 and $560 per month. In addition to a room, the Coles House offers its residents breakfast and supper each day, weekly room-cleaning, living, dining, and TV rooms, a snack kitchen for personal use, a coin-operated laundry, a study, a soundproof recreation room, and a secluded outdoor patio. What's the Coles house experience with eviction? The Coles House evicts four or five residents a year as a result of the long-term failure of a resident to pay rent significantly. And, by the way, we would agree with the amendment which has been suggested, which -- there is a need 64 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 for procedural due process. The Coles House, with its own experience, as I'll explain does, not use self-help in the instance that there's a problem. Rather, there is an elaborate procedural due process procedure which protects against the types of issues that Councilman Cohen and some of the other people here to testify are concerned about. The Coles House has a procedure that affords its residents with many opportunities to cure a failure to pay rent before the locks on the resident's room will be changed. A resident who fails to pay rent will receive notices after payments are two, three, and four weeks late. That's three notices that are given.
In most cases, payment is made or a satisfactory arrangement is agreed upon, and that arrangement is either moving the person to a less expensive room or even asking that person to contribute to the house by working in the kitchen or in some other fashion. And that is the process that's used. And those people, for the last seven years, Susan Lewis has been the Executive Director, and she's the person that those people 65 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 talk with. A notice is delivered giving the resident the choice of moving out or having the locks changed, only if there is no resolution 6 after six weeks. The Coles House relies heavily on the rental income that is paid by its residents. Now, the Coles House has an average operating budget of approximately $350,000. It does not receive funds from the City and is not, as was explained before, the type of institution that has contracts with the City. Of that budget of $350,000, approximately $200,000 to $225,000 comes from rental income. $60,000 comes from the income of a trust, approximately. And there is a guest room 18 that provides about 7 or $8,000 a year. For the past several years, there be an operating deficit, which is only covered as a result of income as well as principle from a small endowment. So the long-term survival of the Coles House is jeopardized unless it is exempted from the current law, which is Chapter 9-1600. Requiring the Coles House to obtain a judgment of 66 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 possession, which is what would be required right now under that law, before it can evict a resident will result in the Coles House not realizing any income from the room at issue while seeking to obtain the requisite judgment. Additionally, the Coles House will be forced to spend scarce financial resources on attorneys' fees and costs to obtain the judgment. In light of the fair procedure used by the Coles House and its mission, the balance between the long-term survival of the Coles House and protecting its residents from unlawful eviction practices tips in favor of exempting the Coles House from Chapter 9-1600. Now, there's been a question raised as to, is this just legislation for the Coles House? And as far as we know, there are at least two other institutions in the city that would also be beneficially affected by this legislation. There's the Lucy Eden Smith House, which is located on the 1900 block, if you're familiar with it, the 1900 block of Sansom Street. And there is St. Mary's, which is located at Fifth and Locust. St. Mary's only has 15 or so rooms. The Lucy Eden 67 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Smith house has I don't know how many rooms, but it is larger than the Coles House. All three of those institutions, I believe -- certainly the Coles House -- would come under the definition of "a boardinghouse," as it is proposed in this amendment to the legislation. It is ironic that the long-term survival of the Coles House and those institutions like it whose mission is to help to prevent single low-income women from being homeless is jeopardized by Chapter 9-1600, which is an ordinance enacted to prevent homelessness. As you've heard from Mr. Nardone, enacting the proposed amendment will not have a detrimental impact on homelessness in Philadelphia or the services which the City oversees to take care of that. I would say, with respect to what Councilman Cohen had mentioned at one point, that I think it's a little unfair, Councilman, that -- to say that, and I believe you said it in good faith, obviously. But you don't know the Coles House. And to make a blanket statement that landlords cannot be trusted to come up with 68 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 procedures that will protect the people that live in their spaces is somewhat unfair, certainly as it applies to the Coles House.
I said no tenant's lawyer would accept the notion that a landlord's process would be fair.
That the tenant would feel that he or she is entitled to a court to make that distinction.
Then I misunderstood you, Councilman. And what I would like to point out -- and perhaps you would agree -- is that the procedure that has been set up and has been set up by the Coles House is a fair procedure. And the amendment that has been suggested by Mr. Nardone will ensure that fair procedures will have to be set up if --
How would that be 69 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 enforced?
Let me just -- can I -- (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.)
Okay, thank you. What I'd like to do, if possible, is to have you finish your testimony, not engage in a colloquy --
And then maybe we could hear from Ms. Lewis and then we'll have our question-go-round.
I'd just like to thank everyone for the opportunity to present testimony. Miss Lewis and I are here and are 70 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 pleased to answer any questions that anyone has about the Coles House or about this legislation in particular.
Ms. Lewis, would you like to give some testimony as to what some of your experiences have been or anything you would like to offer? And, please, you have to identify yourself for the record and pull the microphone closer to you.
Please -- I'm sorry, you got to pull the microphone down right towards you. Thank you.
Okay. Back in '96, when Councilman DiCicco came to Coles House, we had an incident where we did do self-help, and I was arrested, and it cost us $18,000 in legal fees to get to go to court.
Could you kind of describe the circumstances of the arrest and what 71 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 happened and why the action was taken. Why the action -- you said -- you described it as "self-help." Could you explain what the circumstances were and --
We went through our procedures where we give 'em notice and remind 'em that they're late, sit down to speak with 'em. And we sent her a letter stating that if she didn't come -- she ignored everything. And if she didn't come forward, we were going to change the locks on her door.
What period of time was it that she was delinquent in her pay?
Right. And I'm sorry, just please proceed with your -- with the circumstances.
So she went to the 6th District and said that we had did a self-help eviction, and then they came over and --
I couldn't get that. Could you repeat that? And speak, please, into the microphone, get a little closer. 72 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
What was the action taken that was considered to be self-help?
Okay. And she left went to the 6th District to complain?
They called me over at Coles House and told me they were going to come and arrest me.
All right. Do you have any other testimony that you want to offer as far as what -- in addition to what Mr. Moss has given?
Okay. The question I have is that during the course -- Mr. Moss testified that during the course of a given year, there are maybe four or five evictions from Coles House. Can you give me an idea as to the average length of time a person is in arrears and what action Coles House takes in order to effect the eviction?
Typically, they're in arrears for about six weeks before we take any kind of action, but we do work with them. We offer them more credits in the kitchen, they can waitress. Sometimes I'll just ask 'em to draw up a plan of how they want to pay me back. It might be, you know, $30 a week versus $75 a week. And it just -- they do it long term like that.
Mm-hmm. And how are these evictions accomplished, the four or five a year? Is it a normal eviction process that you 74 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 go through?
Okay. And has anyone taken Coles House or yourself to court as a result of these actions?
Okay. And during the course of a year, do you have any idea as to what it costs Coles House to basically pay for those tenants' rents during the course of the six weeks to two or three months before they are actually evicted and what the loss of revenue is and the loss of space is for people who are low-income and would like to play by the rules?
The loss of revenue runs around 12,000 a year -- just from nonpayment of rent.
And do you have any kind of a waiting list where people are waiting to 75 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 get in to your --
So there are periods of time where people who refuse to pay their rent are keeping other individuals who want shelter, that are willing to pay this moderate price, from getting into the property?
Now, often these landlord-tenant ordinances and bills are passed as a result of landlords who are unscrupulous and non-responsive and don't fix the water pipes or the heater or other things, and then there becomes a dispute between the landlord and tenant about the payment of rent based on things that the landlord hasn't done or that the landlord has taken advantage of people in an apartment building or in some other rental facility. How would you characterize the conditions of Coles House, the experience of the tenants? What kind of living conditions are they in? I mean, is it something that is a bad place to live? Do you have leaky water pipes and a bad 76 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 heater?
Or are there any infestation of vermin, mice, roaches? Any of that stuff?
Okay. So people are basically just refusing to pay -- well, they're not refusing to pay but refusing to even cooperate in a payment plan or in a work-payment plan.
Miss Lewis, first, in the process that you follow, have you taken these people to court or not?
And the loss of rent 77 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 comes from your following the process; is that right?
And you say you've lost what sum of money did you say? Was it $12,000 in the course of the year?
So you didn't lose it because of court action or anything else; you lost it because you went through a process. What happened at the end of the process?
They moved out. Now, I didn't know whether Councilman Kenney was suggesting that the way to save the money is to eliminate the process. The loss of the money is as a result of their carrying out whatever process they chose to carry out, which they proclaim is a fair process.
Well, let me recharacterize my question 'cause I think you 78 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 characterized it incorrectly. It's my understanding that the loss of a revenue is based on the fact that the people refused to pay it. I mean, I think the basic premise here is not their process, but the fact that someone that's living in this particular facility has decided for one reason or another that they're not only going to not pay what it is they owe, but they're going to refuse to enter into an agrement to either work off the rent or to pay at a lower rate.
But the only way you could effectuate a savings on that is to cut down on their process. But as soon as they complete their process, they have taken the steps to evict the tenant.
No one is -- I'm sorry. No 19 one is suggesting that the Coles House is going to change its process so that it cannot lose as much money. What we're suggesting, Councilman, is that without this relief, to follow the law and to use -- and not to permit us to use self-help would provide even greater losses, and you would not have the Coles House. 79 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Well, I haven't heard a word of testimony, not a single word of testimony, to indicate what you've just said.
She has testified, and she has stated that at the end of the process when the people did not pay the rent, steps were taken to evict them. Those steps, whatever they were, occurred, and the tenant left.
So that all that happened was that any loss -- and everybody regrets the loss, but the loss occurred as a result of a process. It did not occur because of the --
That is the most twisted logic I've ever heard. The reason -- the loss occurred as a result of --
Councilman Kenney, I can't help you in your analysis. 80 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
But the only way she could have avoided that, Councilman Kenney, which you don't understand, apparently, is by immediately throwing the person out of the place without having a process.
And this amendment from the City would require the process.
A process, yes. And they're satisfied with their process, which they're proclaiming as fair.
Well, if you go by what you're saying, you put them under the process of the landlord-tenant court, and those people could be living there rent-free for another year.
You are, Councilman Kenney, trying to assert that somehow, the loss of money is a terrible thing, we're going to stop that loss of money.
No, we're going to keep the Coles House from closing. 81 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
I'm trying to get you to understand that the only way, in these particular cases, you would save that money would be by short-cutting that process. And that's one of the reasons why we're very concerned about processes set by the landlords and giving the landlords the right to shortcut processes.
Sitting on this side of the room, Councilman Cohen, that's not what I understood -- at least what I understood Councilman Kenney to say at all.
Well, it's what I understood Councilman Kenney to say very clearly.
So that I hope you understand what we're saying on behalf of the Coles House. We're not --
And you would not -- you're not suggesting that we -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Don't worry about being interrupted; it happens all the time. Go ahead.
I'm not. But, yes, I 82 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 believe you just said -- we're not suggesting that the process -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I don't believe anybody's suggesting that the process isn't important, shouldn't be followed. And, in fact, I think, to Mr. Nardone's credit, he came prepared with an amendment which clarifies and makes sure that there is a process. Because, as I think -- and I don't know, I don't think anybody in this room's going to tell you that having a process is not important.
Well, Councilman Kenney seems to be very disturbed by that loss of money, and the only way I know that money could be saved would be by short-cutting the process.
First of all, it's not my money so I'm not disturbed. The problem basically is, is that this place -- and remember this quote, because it really applies to you -- that no good deed goes unpunished. So what you have established and what you're working for is a nonprofit operation which 83 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 gives people the opportunity to avoid homelessness. And because of the fact that the four or five individuals a year decide to take advantage of that charitable attitude, that you wind up losing money and losing space that could go to people in need and money that could be used to further your program. And that's my only point. I'm upset about the loss of money because people feel that they can take advantage of people with good intentions. And those four or five people who do that every year jeopardize the program and the whole process for the entire group of people who live there. And that's all it is. It's not the vast majority of people who live there; it's four or five deadbeats who decide they want to take advantage of the system. And I understand your concern and I understand your problem, and what I would like to see is Coles House continue to be serving the community as it has, with the ability to remove those people who simply refuse to pay their fair share. And that's it.
And that's the reason, 84 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Councilman Kenney, that --
Eviction for nonpayment of rent. My understanding of the situation was just the opposite, actually, when I sought to get information. I understood it was never a case of money; I understood it was a case of bad habits. That's what I was told was the problem that was involved. But in any event, I'm also interested in finding out why did it cost you $18,000 in that arrest case? It sounds to me like a simple case: they came and arrested you, got out on bail. What happened as a result of the arrest?
We had to appear in court three times. And we had, you know, one of the bigger law firms in the city. So it just -- the numbers ran up and the case went on for six months. And that girl was able to live there for six months.
That was my question I was going to ask. She remained living in the Coles House during the litigation period of six months.
Oh, no, no. That's absolutely false, as you will hear from testimony about to be given by Community Legal Services. That's just landlord propaganda.
So she remained in the Coles House for the six months during the time you were appearing in court for trying to evict someone who had not been paying rent.
And that was because of a court prohibition upon your evicting her, right? You didn't have a right during that six 86 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 month period to evict her.
And that was because of the legislation, that the court's trying to grapple with the legislation that you and Councilman Ortiz enacted.
And that's what you'll hear from landlords all the time. Every time they can't evict a tenant at their own will, they say that.
Councilman, I'm just saying that the charges, the summary offense -- I mean, it's a fact. The summary offense that was brought, and I was -- neither I nor my firm were involved in defending Ms. Lewis in that matter. But the summary offense that was brought was brought as an alleged violation of the ordinance. And that's all I'm saying.
And I don't view Miss Lewis and the Coles House folks as landlords under the definition of "a landlord" because it is a nonprofit entity. And you and I, Miss Lewis, got to know each other because you were seeking some help to do improvements to the facility so that you can 87 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 upgrade the building to accommodate the people that you care about. There were some electrical problems, if I'm not mistaken, where you tried to get Local 98 to come down and see if we could get some reduction in the price to do the work and do the carpentry work also.
Things like that. And you, as Councilman Cohen would suggest, as a landlord, would just do what any landlord or anyone would do if someone doesn't pay you for services provided to you -- tell you to leave. And in that process, you wound up in court.
And having incurred over $18,000 in legal fees while the girl lived there for the next six months free. And the other tenants were paying their rent.
And which basically were subsidizing the legal fees that the Coles House had incurred to remove someone who wasn't paying her fair share. 88 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Apparently, the police thought there was a criminal offense involved in whatever was done by --
Well, that's what we're here to do, to see if we can remove that so it doesn't happen in the future and so that Ms. Lewis doesn't go to jail for putting a lock on the door for someone who hasn't paid their rent from six weeks to eight weeks or beyond that.
And that's the reason you want to jeopardize all the tenants in the city.
It's nonprofit boarding homes that we're talking about here.
It's nonprofit boarding homes. 89 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
It's actually even more restrictive than that, Councilman Kenney. It's nonprofit boarding homes who provide meals, which is another restriction. As I say, there are three institutions. Certainly, I believe we would fall under that definition. There are two other institutions that probably would fall under that. I don't think anyone's going to come up and suggest that any of those three institutions are the type of vicious landlord that's out there preying on people.
And they all provide an important service. And that's the irony, that when the legislation -- in the preamble of the legislation when it was written, the purpose for passing it was to help with the issue of homelessness. And here were three institutions that do exactly that, and then they are being potentially put out of business as a result of this legislation.
And more 90 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 importantly, the City --
The City itself exempts itself from these rules. I mean, in the testimony from Mr. Nardone, the City, because of their contractual relationships with OESS and these boarding facilities and the State and their contractual relationship, have taken it upon themselves to exempt themselves from self-help. And basically what now people are saying is that these three nonprofits who are doing actually public service should be held to a different standard. To me, it's just bizarre.
And, Councilman Cohen, it's not an overblown statement because that's why I came here today prepared with figures to let you know that the Coles House -- and I went over them in my testimony. The Coles House is living on the edge here, and that having to pay legal fees, 91 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 whether they are $18,000 or $5,000, for evictions and whatever else, and having to lose that income is --
But that can be no 6 justification for adopting procedures that are undemocratic or that denies due process.
And I agree with you, Councilman Cohen, and that's the reason for the amendment, and that's the reason for --
Well, the expense she paid on the law case would have been avoided if she had done what most people would do. They would follow the order of the police and then they would call their attorney and say, What do I do? I think this order of the police was improper, but they don't fight the police. They forced an arrest to get an attorney to discuss the matter. And the police, if they were wrong, I think would admit so.
With 5 evictions a year, that's $5,000 an eviction, and that's $25,000 that Coles House has to pay for. Then there's the loss of income. And let's say, for example, Councilman, that it doesn't take two or three 92 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 weeks, and maybe it takes six months. Now, there's five tenants, six months. Now you've put the Coles House out of business. And the figures support that.
The Coles House will not go out of business. You know, we're told that -- we're told anytime anything is done on behalf of ordinary people or poor people, we're told of all the dangers to everybody else. Every time you want to raise the wage, you're told businesses are going to be thrown out of business; therefore, workers will lose, and the very people you want the wage increase for will be hurt. That's sheer nonsense and it's been proved over all the years. I believe your statement makes no sense whatever with respect to the loss.
Well, let me just say, from my perspective as a Councilmember here, that ordinary people are people who pay what they owe, who go into a contractual relationship, who lives in a place that's a lower rent than they would normally pay, who eat the meals, who live in that property, who are good residents and pay their bills. 93 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
And who pay their bills like everybody else. This is not a free-lunch country.
I'm sorry. And as you're suggesting, Councilman Kenney, another sadness in this situation is that we have about 400 people that come through our doors every year. And what we are saying, if you believe us, which I hope you do, is that four or five rotten apples are -- essentially may pull down the whole system and jeopardize the good work done for the other 396 tenants.
So that in the last 94 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 134 years, it has not been pulled down. This law has been in effect for years and Coles is 4 surviving because Coles is probably a decent 5 institution. 6
And provides fine 8 service for a portion of the population that needs 9 it, but that doesn't justify Coles then going 10 around and denying basic rights. They're trying 11 to avoid the same rules that everybody else goes 12 by.
And that's where I assume, Councilman, that your analysis -- and you get to vote and I don't -- and my analysis differ.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. The Chair calls Mr. Carroll, Mr. Pollard, and Mr. Meek. (Above witnesses come forward.)
Identify yourself for the record and proceed. 95 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Thank you. My name is Michael Carroll, and I'm with Community Legal Services. I guess I'd like to start off by applauding Ms. Lewis's courage. I think if I were in her situation and a police officer called me up and told me I was going to be locked up if I didn't take the lock off the door, I'd be sorely tempted to take the lock off the door, especially if I had to remedy it by going into Philadelphia Municipal Court. Now, fortunately, or unfortunately, I've spent a lot of the last twelve years of my life in the Philadelphia Municipal Court -- whether that's something to brag about or not, I don't know. But I can tell you that I know a little bit about the eviction process. And I can tell you that in that six weeks' time that you're waiting, you could have had the person out by then, and you could have done it safely by following the law. A hearing is assigned within two weeks. After the hearing in Municipal Court, within 21 days later, the person can be evicted. Now, the appeal process exists, but as 96 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 anybody who follows the appeal process knows, it has been severely tightened up in the last few years. The amount of money a tenant has put up has increased dramatically, the number of appeals have gone down by 50 percent after the change in the law, and most cases are not appealed, and most cases are ended by the Municipal Court. I state with confidence that someone can be evicted within that time frame.
Well, can be evicted, absolutely. So if you choose to follow it versus a course of continuing to change the locks and essentially acting in civil disobedience to make your point, well, that -- she's probably got more courage than I do. But let me say how I see this.
You're on trial again, Miss Lewis. You're looking at another six months.
Now let me say how I see 97 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 this process. I believe we're carving out an exception that applies to the whole city. Now we hear that maybe it's just Coles House, counsel here is representing only Cole House, I think, but he says there might be one or two other people out there who he does not represent? But he says they will be affected by it. I don't know, but we're changing the whole landlord-tenant framework here to benefit this small number of people. And let's look at who we're focussing on here. To Coles' credit, they admit that their clientele is low-income, more vulnerable people. I think we can all generally agree that people in boarding homes tend to be a little bit closer to the edge, a little bit worse off than people in the Rittenhouse Apartments or in the middle-class apartments of the city. So what we're doing is, we're carving out from the normal protections that apply to every other tenant, we're carving out the poorest, the most vulnerable tenants, and we're saying that the protections that apply to everybody else don't apply to you. Now, when we -- when I heard about this, and I was only catching up to speed as of 98 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 yesterday and trying to find out where the testimony was being given, etc. And I pulled out the actual ordinance that we're here amending and took a look at it. And in the legislative findings at the beginning of it, it talks about people who are threatened with self-help eviction, and many tenants who are victimized by self-help are very low-income persons. These are the folks who are targeted for protection under the ordinance. It says that self-help evictions exacerbate the incidence of homelessness. Existing remedies do not afford adequate protection. Self-help eviction practices include the use of violence, the infliction of physical harm. And I suspect and I represent that when you do try to self-help, you increase the likelihood that there's going to be some violence if the police are going to be called, and I don't think it's fair to put the officers on the spot to make a determination that a judge usually makes about what we have out here. It's not the role for police officers, and I would venture to say -- almost guarantee -- that 90 percent of the 99 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 officers would say -- maybe closer to 100 -- would say, We don't want to be judge of landlord-tenant cases, we don't want to listen to both sides of the story and determine who should be thrown out and who should be locked up. And I say to you that the ordinance was designed to eliminate that by forcing this back into the court system. Now, the ordinance also talks about it penalizes the ability of a person to complain about defective conditions, and then it talks about self-help practices. And it says that the following activity -- plugging, changing, adding or removing any lock or latching device to a dwelling. So that would be illegal for every tenant in the city except boarding home tenants, except for the poorest and most vulnerable of tenants. It bars removing windows and doors from dwelling units. If this amendment passes, such conduct would be illegal for everyone, except for the poorest, most vulnerable boarding home tenants in the city. It bars interfering with utility service, cutting off electricity, hot water, cold water, gas, or phone service. That would be 100 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 illegal to do that, except for the poorest, most vulnerable people in the City of Philadelphia. If the amendment passes, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying these things are illegal for every other tenant in the city, except for the poorest and most vulnerable. Forcing a tenant to vacate by use of threat or violence, that's illegal for every other tenant in the city, except for the boarding home tenants, so that the poorest, most vulnerable are most likely to become homeless if they are evicted.
I respectfully suggest that people should do it by the book. Councilman Kenney talks about people following the rules; I agree with that, and I say the rules are to go to Municipal Court. I can say with confidence that most tenant lose in Municipal Court. There were periods when close to 100 percent of the tenants lost in Municipal Court. The eviction can take place --
What is your interpretation of "lost" or "lose in Municipal Court"?
Judgment for possession 101 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 entered against the person, and days later, that person can be evicted.
That would be 5 evicted. What is your experience in Municipal 6 Court of people who are evicted within that 21 7 days or right after that 21-day period? 8
Overwhelmingly, they 9 leave on their own. That's my experience. 10 Overwhelmingly, they -- 11
If they basically 12 decide not to leave, what is the normal extension 13 period that is granted by the courts? 14
After the 21 days, most 15 evictions that the landlord does the paperwork can 16 be scheduled within 5 days, 7 days at the most, by 17 Robert Messerman's (ph.) office. And I would 18 suggest that -- 19
Paperwork is then 20 scheduled. And when does that tenant -- 21 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
In my experience, Mr. Messerman -- I'm talking about scheduling the eviction. And going into Messerman's office today 102 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 with your papers that you paid your money over at City Hall and Mr. Messerman scheduling the actual physical eviction for early next week -- and I encourage anybody to talk to Bob Messerman's office and confirm or deny --
In my experience being in the business of politics and doing constituent services, in most cases, the landlord, who has taken a tenant to court for a whole variety of reasons, whether it was nonpayment of rent, whether it was destroying the property or they were just bad tenants, in every case that I can remember, the judge at least has given the tenant at least, at the very least, a 90-day period in which to vacate the property.
And by the way, I was listening to all of your testimony and I appreciate what you're saying, but you keep referring to the most vulnerable people. These are people who do have other choices, do they 103 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 not? They have a choice: either to go into one of the City facilities or opt for places like the Coles House. So they enter into a contractual, as Councilman Kenney eloquently described earlier, and they have a contractual agreement, which they do not, in some cases, live up to. Why should the burden be placed on the Coles House and not on the tenant?
And I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to deal with all this stuff about going into Municipal Court and filing papers and all of that stuff.
If I could answer. I'm sorry you've been most unlucky in your Municipal 104 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Court experience. I rarely -- I can count on my one hand the people who have 90 days' extension in the last years. I don't remember any, frankly, 5 but I say you've been most unlucky in that 6 experience. 7 But if anybody else -- you talk about 8 contracts. If there's somebody who has a contract 9 with Donald Trump and Donald Trump violates it, 10 he's got a right to go to court, or the poorest 11 guy in the street or a working stiff, he goes to 12 court.
Donald Trump, what he makes in five minutes, the Coles House doesn't bring in in a year.
Everybody -- (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.) 105 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Okay, we can talk, and now the lawyers are at it again, okay.
Excuse me, I just have a question about the poorest and most vulnerable of our population. The neighbors and other tenants who live in Coles House who have made an effort to either pay what they owe or to make other arrangements for payment at a lower amount or to work in some type of work-barter system where they wait tables or work in the property, does not the poorest and most vulnerable of our population who do their best to follow the rules, should they be held in some way responsible for the actions of the people who refuse to either pay or --
They -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
If I'm in this Council for 20 years, I would love to be able to 106 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 finish a question one time, one time. Do you mind? Can I finish my statement once? Can I --
You can correct it when it's over, but you will let me finish. The people who are living in that property who are following the rules, who are paying their rent, or who are making some other arrangements to work that rent off are in jeopardy, according to the testimony of the witnesses, in the past, because of the people who refuse to do it.
Can I finish my statement, please? I mean, what do I got to do to be able --
Because in the 107 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 event that --
Because I'm basing what they're saying on their testimony. Their testimony is that the money they lose, that the circumstances they have to pay for in order to effect an eviction, whether it's in Municipal Court or whether it's through this process that they've imposed, that they have put in place puts in jeopardy the other tenants in that property because if that institution goes down, there's going to be a lot more people on the street than just those five who refuse to follow the rules.
And if I were on the board of directors at Coles or if I were a neighbor, I'd say, Ms. Lewis, I admire your guts, I admire your courage, I admire you telling that officer, Come and get me 'cause I'm not changing that lock. 108 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 But I would say go to Municipal Court -- it's easier and it's faster. Throw 'em out if they're a bad apple, but do it by the book.
We would argue whether it's easier or faster, number one; and number two, whether it's fairer is totally in argument here, I think, 'cause it's not fair. It's not fair to those people who are struggling, who are the poorest and most vulnerable also in our society and who are doing what they have to do to follow the rules, with the exception of four or five a year who take advantage of everything in that house and jeopardize the continued existence of that house.
Well, we have a legitimate difference, you and I, as to what is easier and faster and in the way she should be proceeding.
You're welcome. Please identify yourself for the 109 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 record.
Sure. I'm Dennis Pollard, Director of Development for the Tenant Action Group. Prior to proceeding, I'd like at this point to move that the testimony which I previously submitted be made a permanent part of the record.
Thank you, Your Honor. I'm not going to recap everything in my seven pages of written commentary, but I do want to testify upon a couple of thing, the first of which is the Tenants Action Group does not have a personal dispute with the previous witnesses that appeared before the committee. The pure sense of contention is with the proposed bill itself. All of you know that TAG's mission is to equalize relationship between landlords and tenants throughout the County of Philadelphia. And one thing that this bill purports to do is to throw that relationship into a very skewed position. With respect to the requested exception 110 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 in the bill, legislatures grant exceptions to statutes, and courts grant exceptions to its rules from there is a burden or when the rule is contrary to good, sound public policy. There's nothing in the commentary of the bill that suggests that there is an undue burden for nonprofits throughout the county; or two, that this rule is contrary to good, sound policy. This two-pronged task has not been met. Next is the exception that's asked for within this bill. Whether or not some wish to agree with it, isn't it not written exclusively for the Coles House? And the exception disproportionately impacts poor tenants. First of all, nonprofit landlords do not need an exception to a law that has been used, and has been used well in the past couple of years. Nonprofit landlords can avail themselves of the opportunity to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction -- that court sitting as a third party neutral who will hear and a way both sides of any disputed landlord-tenant relationship. The problem presented by this bill, 111 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 which has not been addressed, is this particular scenario. Under the proposed bill before this committee, a for-profit landlord could restructure and create nonprofit subsidiaries which, in effect, could turn around and utilize this law in an extent not reasonably forecast by those before us. What does that mean? Simply put, those individuals who are for profit, those individuals who are not, like the witnesses that appeared before us, could use this bill for a purpose probably not intended by the Councilman who drafted the bill. Next, the bill takes quite an expansive view of boardinghouses. Look at the plain language of the rule and remember, those of you who are lawyers like myself and those of you who are not, that when a court does interpret a bill, a court must first look to the plain, simple meaning of the bill-- taking the language as a reasonable ordinary person would so do. Well, the bill seems to include apartments. Well, gee, one thing that counsel for the Law Department of the City of Philadelphia did not mention, and perhaps just overlooked, is 112 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 historically, when one looks at a boarder relationship, it does not touch upon apartments. This bill touches upon apartments. The other thing not mentioned by counsel for the City of Philadelphia -- and perhaps counsel overlooked this -- is that historically in the landlord-tenant relationship, we do not get into month-to-month tenancies. If one looks at the plain reading of the bill, at , at the last full line, it touches upon, and I quote -- it touches upon the possibility of month-to-month relationships. This is problematic. Next is, the implication for all of this is that it might impact senior citizens and poor families who do not come within the arguments presented by the previous witnesses, but who might be severely impacted by this bill. I give you the scenario, which is included in my written statement. Pick a senior citizen who is living in an apartment that is a part of a freestanding house, a freestanding dwelling, and picture that senior citizen as living on a month-to-month 113 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 tenancy.
It does not matter if the agreement is oral, it does not matter if the agreement is written, picture that scenario. A landlord then could use this law to evict a senior citizen without first having gone to court and having an independent fact-finder weigh both sides of the issue. Another short scenario. Picture a family, a couple of kids living in a house operated by a for-profit, which is uses a nonprofit as its sub, and evicting that family without first going to court. In my prepared statement, I mentioned that all tenants have a property interest in their dwelling, however small that property interest might be. And what you may think about my analogy to the British quartering of soldiers during the Revolutionary War, there's a historical basis in English law, in American law, in European-American common law that gives the property interest to those who are occupying a dwelling. Due process safeguards need to be upheld. And for this point, just look at procedural due process. Let's just for now not 114 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 get into substantive due process. Historically, since times immemorial, we need notice and an opportunity to be heard so that we may know as a society that all sides, all parties have in fact been presented an opportunity to present their grievances before an independent tribunal. We've created this. Every county of every state within the United States and in our sister countries have municipal courts or something analogous where a person can go in quickly, in a summary proceeding, and have the case be heard. The witnesses mentioned -- and I'm almost done. The witnesses mentioned previously that there might arise, there are situations that (unintelligible) where someone needs to take action quickly, and let's give it a very extreme example. A person is threatening the health, life, or safety of another. In those situations, the person can be restrained. In such situations, a person, like Coles House, can go into court under an even more quickly proceeding called "an equity proceeding," our courts sitting in law and equity, and ask the tribunal to issue an injunction. And during the pendency of the 115 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 injunction, the proceeding can go forward. So the problem is not with Coles House per se; the problem is with the possibility -- a very real possibility -- that this bill can be misused totally contrary to the intent of Councilman who drafted it, and that it will needlessly impact poor people, particularly senior citizens and poor families.
And their redress would be to go to court, should it be misused, as you suggested.
Should it be misused, as you suggest, the recourse is for the person who has been aggrieved to go to court.
I'm not "Your Honor," but thank you anyway. (Laughter.)
Actually, if the item is 116 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 misused, there might not be redress because the law would give the person misusing the law in the improper form a basis for doing so. You cannot -- you know, the only thing would be to challenge the law. And to challenge the law -- if a person were to challenge a law that a person believed is being misused, that person would not necessarily remain in the dwelling while the law's being challenged, unlike under the stats quo.
Certainly. My name is Robert Meek. I'm an attorney with the Disabilities Law Project here in the city.
Sorry. I'm an attorney with the Disabilities Law Project here in the city.
What is your name, 117 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 sir?
Robert Meek, M-E-E-K. And I apologize. I don't have any written testimony to present to Council, as I only heard of this hearing yesterday late. I just wanted to touch on a couple of things, and I promise not to be long. The first is that I think that Mr. Moss's description of the breadth of impact of this change of the ordinance 11 was minimized. He mentioned two other facilities that might have an interest in this kind of process of being eliminated -- in other words, the prohibition being eliminated. My understanding is that there are a large number of nonprofit personal-care homes who are not tied to the city in any way, who would be able to take advantage of self-help eviction should this ordinance be passed. And I think that's a lot of trouble for the tenants that live in those places, because if there's anyone who's vulnerable and unable to represent themselves, it would be the elderly and persons with disabilities that reside in such places. The reason they reside in them in the first place is because they 118 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 have determined by themselves or by other means that they're not capable of living independently. So when we talk about a class of persons that are distinctly vulnerable to abuse, by eliminating the protections of the law in its current state, those individuals that I just mentioned are particularly vulnerable. And a lot of those individuals also have inability to -- cognitive deficits as well, which makes their understanding of even the simplest procedures very difficult. And without any protection in the law and deterrence in the law to prevent landlords from taking advantage of them by simply taking changing the locks when they no longer like them there or because they didn't pay rent, or for whatever reason, because if they don't have a reason, it doesn't matter under the proposed ordinance; they can basically lock someone out for any reason or no reason at all. And also, I must relate back to Mr. Carroll's testimony that the landlord-tenants' courts are a model of efficiency from the landlord's perspective. I used to represent tenants twenty years ago in landlord-tenant court, 119 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 and perhaps, Councilman Kenney and Councilman DiCicco, you are right. Back then, it was easier to get an extension of time, but the law has changed, and changed drastically in the wrong direction, as far as I'm concerned, with regard to the protection of the rights of tenant. It is so easy and so fast to evict a tenant in landlord-tenant court now, it would make your head spin. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Appreciate the time.
Are there any other witnesses for this bill? (No response.)
Thank you, thank you. Seeing none, we will now move to Bill 19 No. 970590, which is an ordinance amending Section 20 12-2405 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Removal or Immobilization of Parked Vehicles Notice," by authorizing the towing or immobilization of any vehicle parked in violation of Section 12-901 (1)(a) of the Code, which prohibits the parking of a vehicle upon any roadway for the purpose of 120 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 displaying of such vehicle for sale. Is there someone from the Administration to testify on behalf of this bill? Please come forward. (Jeremiah Connors comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of Council. My name is Jeremiah J. Connors, Deputy Executive Director, Philadelphia Parking Authority.
Thank you. I believe there is written testimony that's been sent up. I will try to be brief, and then I think it would be my preference to answer questions, if there are any. It is with great reluctance that I testify in opposition of this amendment. It is a position that there is already provision of law that is adequate to deal with the offense, and that the proposed amendment to the ordinance would not only fail to accomplish what I believe is the intent, but it would also be highly problematic 121 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 and of a very tenuous constitutionality at the end of the day. It is my suggestion, as I've indicated, that most of the vehicles -- or certainly a large percentage of the vehicles -- that are causing problems of this nature are unregistered and can be dealt with under that ordinance right now to today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What about those vehicles that are properly registered that are sitting on the streets of Philadelphia, either by individuals or by people who have -- I guess the best way to describe it, have decided to set up a used-car lot business on the streets of Philadelphia? I can point to Frankford Avenue just above Shackamaxon Street where there's a used-car lot. But gentleman who operates that business has also decided to use the streets of Philadelphia, where he has at least on any given day 10 to 20 cars that are being sold on the street of the 122 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 city. What's the difference there? You're saying that there may be some constitutionality issues here and that there are already some laws on the books that would allow for the removal of those cars?
Let me start with the Frankford Avenue, for instance. If this individual has 10, 15, 20, whatever number of vehicles out on display for sale, and I believe your preface was that those were legally registered.
I'm assuming that they're legally registered because they're being sold by an individual who has a used-car lot, so I'm just under the assumption that he's properly licensed to sell cars.
He would be licensed to sell the cars, he may even be in possession of the title to those vehicles.
But he does not have them registered, they're not eligible to be on the 123 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 public roadway -- either moving or not.
So what I would suggest is that if he has a dealer plate or perhaps two, he can put those one or two vehicles on which that dealer plate is displayed on the roadway. The rest of them are illegal right now and could be impounded this afternoon, under existing code, number one. Number two is -- and I am not an attorney, and we've had some delightful presentations by attorneys, and I regret that I can't give you one of those this afternoon. There are two basic principles. I've been on the team that has defended a number of constitutional challenges to the seizure of motor vehicles in both this city and elsewhere. And the premise that has always carried the day in favor of or in support of the notion of immobilization has been notice and due process on the front end. There's been sufficient notice to the person whose property is about to be seized that they were acting in a way that was causing that jeopardy, 124 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 and that could likely be an outcome. In most cases, in the case of overdue parking tickets or overdue traffic tickets or things of that nature, it's because we've sent a notice that specifically says that these matters remain open and your failure to cure these matters will result in the seizure of the motor vehicle. You will probably -- I should have brought one, but there is a funny little sign that refers to the other section of the bill that's being amended that is posted around the city, and it's a violation of 1533 parked while vehicle license suspended. And through a series of negotiations with Council when that bill was enacted, those signs were erected to provide that notice. It is not illegal in a great number of cities in towns and Pennsylvania. It is also not illegal in a number of other jurisdictions for you to park a vehicle if the operator, the owner of the vehicle has had a suspended license. Because that was a unique provision of law to Philadelphia, that was the notice provision. That was how the notice provision was accomplished -- 125 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 by posting those little signs. If I -- and forgive me if I've got this wrong, but in the last hours just in 5 anticipation of my testimony here, I've asked sort 6 of a men-on-the-street type of thing. If your 7 vehicle is perfectly legally registered, insured, 8 inspected and parked legally on the curbside and 9 you have a for-sale sign on the window, is it 10 legal or illegal? And I got mixed responses. 11 Most people said it was legal, no problem. 12
What is your 15 position, sir? Who are you testifying in support 16 of? I mean, who do you represent? 17
I'm representing the 18 Administration, and I work for the Philadelphia 19 Parking Authority. We would be the agency that 20 would have to enforce this law were it to pass. 21
And when you say you represent the Administration, you mean the City of 126 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 Philadelphia or the Parking Authority or both?
The City of Philadelphia in that this particular aspect of enforcement has been charged by the City for the Parking Authority to perform on behalf of the City.
'Cause you're raising legal arguments, and I would really like to hear the City Solicitor's Office make the legal arguments. They're interesting. This bill does aim at what is a very serious problem in the minds of many people, and I think that if there are legal arguments against it, I think the City Solicitor's Office ought to be here to make those arguments so that we know, you know, that they bear the approval of the City's Law Department. 'Cause if the City's Law Department says it's illegal, they will veto the bill and we're going through a lot of unnecessary waste of time. Why aren't they -- were they asked to come and they didn't come or --
I didn't ask them to come and didn't think it was necessarily my place to do so. I apologize for not having done so, and I apologize for characterizing things in a way that 127 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 would lead you to believe that I think this is not a problem. That is not my commentary at all, that parking a vehicle with a for-sale sign is not a problem. It's illegal. And I understand it's an issue, and my only point, very simply, is that there are provisions of existing law that allow proper enforcement of that to take place. That's not to say that it's necessarily taking place.
What is your interpretation of the laws that allow for that to happen? You said "to take place." I don't understand. Is it illegal to sell a car on the street?
A $20 parking ticket. I thought we did a legislation about a year ago that increased that to $300, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm unaware if that's the case. 128 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590
Well, it doesn't mean it's happening but I think I did a legislation. Regardless of whether it's $20 or $300. But that's the extent of what we can do, is issue a parking violation. And in many cases -- not using the example on Frankford Avenue -- where you have an individual who either decides to sell a car that they did have a title for at one time and may have bought a new car and let the registration expire, or for someone who decided to buy a car at an auction house and then put it back on the streets of Philadelphia and decide to sell it. I mean that's what I think Councilman Cohen said. We want to remove that blight from the streets.
And I fully support that, but every scenario that you have thus described could be removed right now, because none of those have a current registration certificate on display on the vehicle. 129 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590
But if it does? And if it does and a car sits on the street for 4 hours, weeks, week, I see cars when we send the police out to either ticket the car, and in many cases, I think the police notify the owner and say, Look, you're not allowed to sell your car on the street. They'll take it off for a week or so, and then it gets back on. Now, we want to be able to remove that. I mean, that's the intent of this bill is to remove that car and to put some teeth into this to let people understand that you're just not going to be able to move cars from one place to another to get around the system. It is illegal, and we're going to remove that car if you continue to decide to sell that car. There's a process. I mean --
I agree with you, if the 20 person, the individual that is the owner of that 21 vehicle has the vehicle legally, registered 22 inspected and insured. 23
And you would 24 support the immobilization and/or towing of that? 25
At the end of the day, 130 1 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 the Philadelphia Parking Authority will support whatever legislation gets passed. That's our job. I'm advocating against it because I think it's dangerous. I think it's not going to accomplish what you'd like it to accomplish. For instance, we do not boot in every geographical area of the city, we do not immobilize everywhere. We mobilize in Center City and in University City and in the business district.
That's it. We're not going to go into -- as far as I know, this is not a matter of law but a matter of a vehicle being --
Not according to my experience 'cause I've seen cars immobilized in my area where I happen to live, in the residential area where there are no businesses.
I don't know quite how to 131 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 respond to that because it's my understanding that you have called, Councilman, to object to that in the event that someone has done it.
And we have responded by taking action against the boot crew member who has done -- wandered off the registration in that regard. So all I'm trying to establish is that there is a geographical area where we're allowed to do it and where we're not. And the area where we're allowed to do it in is probably no more a Fifth of the City on a geographic basis. So to allow the booting of vehicles for the displaying of a for-sale sign is going to accomplish it, as such, in a Fifth of the City, rough numbers. That was the only point of that.
The only other aspect that I would ask you to consider is that there are -- I've run a -- and I apologize 'cause I haven't had the time to do a full analysis of it. I 132 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 picked it up literally on my way over here at noontime. The analysis that I have looked at of the 604 citations that were issued in the period ending 9/30/99, 233 of them are in the 2nd Police District. The rest of the City comprises the rest of them. The numbers in the 3rd District and the 4th District, which would be -- theoretically would certainly have a good number, you would think of these instances are at least as many as the 2nd Police District, had respectively numbers in the teens.
So that could be because of -- the police may not be issuing the tickets.
Precisely my point, sir. What I am suggesting is that with a more -- we could increase the profile of the enforcement activity in the areas where this is a problem, and we could conduct coordinated enforcement efforts to get this done within the existing law. And I think those might bear fruit beyond what is intended by this legislation.
Councilman Cohen? 133 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590
Are you working also with the group working on the abandoned-car issue?
Does that group have any conclusion about this bill? Are you speaking for them? Would this interfere, would this assist? This is a companion problem with the abandoned cars. It creates -- we get complaints all over about people -- they resent the fact that somebody is using, you know, the street space for the purpose of selling a car.
And my concern is, in following Councilman Cohen, if someone has an abandoned car and someone decides maybe to put a for-sale sign on it now, are they getting around this by saying, Oh, it's no longer abandoned, but it's for sale?
I think the only thing I would say in response to that is that the same resources are available for all of these things. 134 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 And whether they're out dealing with cars with for-sale signs on them or they're dealing with abandoned vehicles, potentially, they're all the same resources so. . .
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest that I think we ought to consider this bill a little bit further in view of the statements by the witness. And I'd like to hear the view of the City's attorneys. We don't want to get into legal complexities if we don't have to.
Again, picking up on what you said earlier, Councilman Cohen, this is a serious problem in the City of Philadelphia.
As it relates to abandoned vehicle. In my opinion, people who leave cars out on the street, and there are many people who do this basically as a business, and you will see a phone number on the windshield of the back window, and in 90 percent of the cases, when I've called that number, it's a pager 135 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 number. You can't get someone's house or place of business. So these are people who have decided to literally take the streets of Philadelphia and create a used-car lot.
One of the things I suggest is perhaps, if the committee so desires, is to report it out of committee without a suspension of the rules, with the agreement that we would hold in on the calendar until the Law Department responds one way or another.
Yeah, 'cause I just think the seriousness is something we should be addressing now as opposed to later.
Connors. In the 136 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 example that you gave earlier, you said you had done, I think, a kind of person-on-the-street survey about vehicles registered properly and kind of all the stuff in order, sale sign in the window, and you said that somebody people were of the opinion that it was legal and some people were not. Was that your testimony earlier?
Okay. Now, I thought it was my understanding and recollection from reading the Philadelphia Code on a couple of occasions that it was illegal in Philadelphia to sell cars on the street; isn't that right?
Well, what I was trying to impart, and apparently didn't do it very well, is that most people, or a significant number of people, who are average motorists in this city and average motorists from surrounding suburbs of New Jersey, would not necessarily be aware of the fact that the for-sale sign in their window, the minute the vehicle that was otherwise legally registered 137 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 and otherwise legally parked, would be in jeopardy of violating the law when they parked it there.
And so then does that go to your notion that the way you do the rest of the booting operation is that you provide some notice or some due process. What about slapping a notice on the vehicle that provides some amount of time to cure that problem, but it is a notice directly and it gives them -- I don't know -- or 48 hours to get you either the sign 12 out of the car or the vehicle off the street. And 13 if you don't, we're going to boot it. 14
And so, I mean, I 16 guess what I would ask, at least on behalf of the 17 sponsors, because this is clearly a problem. And 18 whether people know it or not, and I'm not sure 19 that folks don't know it. I think there are a lot 20 of things that people do in Philadelphia that they 21 acknowledge may possibly be wrong but since no 22 one's every really done anything about it -- I 23 don't know how many people have ever been fined 24 for it. And so --
It was 604 last year. 138 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590
Okay. How many cars were out on the street with for-sale signs on them?
That wasn't my question. How many cars were out on the street with for-sale signs on them.
Okay. So I think what happens a lot in Philadelphia is, with sparse enforcement, people assume that it's either worth the risk - which is, in many instances, how you guys generate the revenues you do because people are willing to take the risk on a parking meter or do a whole host of things. I mean, should I put a dollar's worth of quarters in or am I hoping that a PEO doesn't come by. So it's a dollar versus 15 or 20 or 25. I mean, it happens every day, people take the chance. They get the ticket and they bought the space for the day. That's okay. The lack of any serious enforcement effort tells people that basically it is okay. 139 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 So what I would at least ask is, rather than a kind of an immediate we don't think this is a good thing to do or we're opposed to it, give us some of your suggestions and ideas based on your experience and what your protocols are for how you might make something like this work.
I mean, if we had our druthers, I'm sure we'd just rather have the sign out of the car or the vehicle moved, as opposed to immobilization. Some people are hard- headed and they only learn when they get the big enforcement. So, I mean, that's what I would ask for. Aren't we going to some new -- slapping some new notice on cars with the proposed changes to the abandoned car provisions, the big story that was in the paper the other day? I think they're talking about cutting down the notice time period by actually putting the notice on the vehicle.
You know, with certified mail and chasing around people who have 140 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 no interest in coming after this piece of crap they left on the street. You put a notice on it, it explains what the law is, Section whatever of the Philadelphia Code says that you can't sell cars on the street. From the time of this notice going on the car, which, hopefully, the person puts the time down that they slapped the notice on, and you have 48 hours from this moment to either get that sign out of that car or move this vehicle, or it will be immobilized.
But it could also be, the ticket that is issued for the sale is sufficient notice in itself. And if you had to put a sticker on it, okay, but the ticket would indicate the time that the ticket was issued so it's hours after the issuance of the ticket. 18
Yeah. I mean, 19 there are a lot of -- I mean, you know, you guys 20 are in this business. All we're suggesting is 21 that there could be some ways to actually make it 22 work. 23
I absolutely agree, and I 24 please don't want you to think that I'm coming here to say, No, this can't work. 141 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 But what I'm suggesting, for instance, is an excellent way to provide the very kind of notification that you're talking about is to issue some of the tickets under the present regulations that we could be issuing and are not, and would very much like to do that as a way of both public education and as acting as a deterrent to the problem.
Well, I'm not sure what you're now saying. How does it help us to get rid of these cars with better enforcement? Say a ticket is issued, then what under current law?
There are two aspects. Some people will actually change their behavior based on the first citation, some will change it on the second or the third, some will not, and they will eventually become seizure-eligible by failure to respond to those citations.
But that would take care of -- 142 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590
Three, and then another notice and so on. And then we're in a position where we impound that vehicle. And I just think that's a much safer way to proceed.
Well, I would like to hear -- I think the Chairman expressed the notion of our reporting the bill out but having it -- but not waiving the Council rules so that there's a period of time. I think we would all like to get a proposal from the Administration of a quick way to effectuate notice that would prepare the car for immediate immobilization and removal. That's what we're aiming at. We'd like to get rid of the cars more than the immobilization, 'cause the immobilization is further blight. You know, you now have that yellow boot. We'd like to get rid of the car. We'd like to have everybody comfortable about the notice requirements -- certainly the group that's working on this problem.
Would that be agreeable? Do you think that could be done? Will 143 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 970590 you take the message back to the Parking Authority?
That we would like to have a specific proposal so that we could amend the bill when it comes up on second reading, two weeks from, I guess, from the 4th.
Are there any other questions for Mr. Connors? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, that will conclude the hearing of the Rules Committee. - - - 144 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene the public hearing of the Rules Committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 990601.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 990601 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 990601 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for suspension of the rules to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. Let the record indicate that Councilmember Ortiz, who was assigned to the committee for purposes of a quorum, was voting yes on Bill No. 990601. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco to approve the amendment to Bill No. 145 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING 980550.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 5 980550, as amended, be --
To adopt the amendment for Bill No. 980550. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. The amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on the amended bill.
I move that Bill 21 No. 980550, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. 146 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 7 990550, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a suspension of the rules to allow for first reading at our next session. For the record, Councilmember Ortiz is voting aye. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 980684.
I move that Bill 15 No. 980864 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 24 980684 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a 147 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING suspension of the rules to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. And Council Councilmember Ortiz is voting aye. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco again for a motion on Bill No. 990425.
Thank you. I move that Bill No. 990425 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 18 990425 will be reported out of this Committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco to for a motion approve the amendment offered by Mr. Nardone to Bill No. 980048.
Thank you, Mr. 148 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING Chairman. I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 980048. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? Are there any opposed to the amendment? There are none opposed. The amendment is approved to Bill No. 980048. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on the amended bill.
I move that Bill 14 No. 980048, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? Those opposed? Councilmember Cohen is opposed and Councilmember Ortiz has left his vote as being a opposed. Bill 980048, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably, and there is no request for a rules suspension. You didn't make a request, did you? 149 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING
Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on Bill 5 No. 970590.
I move that Bill 7 No. 970590 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
In the hearing, Mr. Chairman, I know that Councilman Cohen and possibly other members raised issues with regard to the Law Department about this particular bill. I may have missed some of the colloquy back and forth. What exactly are we asking the Law Department for? What are we awaiting before --
My expectation is that the request -- that the primary sponsor of the bill will be making a request to the Law 150 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - PUBLIC MEETING Department for guidance on procedural and constitutional issues relative to the final passage of the bill.
And for that purpose, I didn't ask for the suspension.
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 12 970590 will be reported out of this committee favorably. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your attendance. By the way, I'm sorry. Just so the record's clear, Bills No. 980274 and 980275 will be held to the call of the sponsor. Thank you. (Adjourned at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 151 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, October 26, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 970590, 980048, 980724, 980725, 980550, 980684, 990425, 990601 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter