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.