Aye. The ayes are 17, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 040703. THE
An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed located at 2815 Ridge Avenue.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 17, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, this bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 040643. THE
An ordinance authorizing the paving of Capri Drive, DaVinci Drive, Verona Drive, all under certain terms and conditions.
This bill 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 17, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 040763. THE
An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 187 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a portion of Salmon Street from Castor Avenue and Butler street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 17, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 040766. THE
An ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia relating to sidewalk sales and vending in residential areas by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales and vending in the area bordered by and Chew Avenue and Mount Airy Avenue.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING THE
Aye. The ayes are 17, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called is Bill No. 040781. 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING THE
An ordinance authorizing the directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 146 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Morse Street from Beach Street to Allen Street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. Yes, sir?
I'll like to ask the sponsor of the bill a question or two and request if he's prepared to answer the questions. I wasn't able to get a satisfactory answer at the hearing.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm about as prepared today as I was at the hearing. I don't suspect that my answers will be any different than then, but I'm certainly willing to engage in a conversation.
All right. Do 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING you know who's going to be paying for the striking of the street? Does the City pay or does the person -- I understand it was a private person that seeks to closing the street, a business on the street.
The striking of the street is a technical procedure. Insofar as once that occurs, this legislation is passed hopefully, that street will no longer be the responsibility of the City of Philadelphia. I believe there may be an application fee that the property owner or owners in this case may have had to post. I'm not sure what the exact amount is. But there really is no cost to the City of Philadelphia.
Are there other owners of property street who might be affected?
Currently, this street runs pretty much down the middle of two properties owned by two separate entities, both of whom will have the ability to either develop or use for their business purposes. This is not a street that is thoroughfare for 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING vehicles. It is a dead-end street. The general public has no use for it because it ends nowhere but in the middle, almost in the middle of the two adjacent properties that surround this street.
Do you know has there been an appraisal of value for the street?
Do you know whether the proponents of the legislation are going to pay anything for the additional property they will now own?
That, I'm not sure of. The one thing I do know is that currently any maintenance of that street, be it paving, sewer systems, infrastructure, underground infrastructure, are at the expense of the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia. Once this striking occurs, the taxpayers will no lodger have the responsibility to maintain that street. The responsibility will be solely on the owner or owners of -- what is 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING typically a street will now become a part of their property line.
Do you we know whether the amount of the cost maintenance, what that cost has been to the City?
I don't know what it has been in the past. I don't think anyone can predict what it would be in the future. Depending on the needs. But, again, this is not a street where a typical operator of a vehicle would use. It goes nowhere.
Well, except property has value, and I don't see why the City of Philadelphia should turn over property of value to somebody. Its obviously going to be worth something to the people who are proposing this who believe it's worth something or they wouldn't be engaged in asking the City to give up its rights to the street.
I agree with that, and maybe in the future we might want to look at certain kinds of compensation. But the one thing is, once the striking occurs, it 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING now will become part of the footprint which will be recorded on deed and the taxes will reflect an additional portion of land that will subject to real estate taxes.
Yes, that's true. But the value of the property is being given away by the City. If the City had an appraisal made, there might be a value attributed to the land. And I think it behooves the City before it gives away land to which it is the owner, it behooves the City to go through certain procedures such as to find out what, if anything, the land is worth and then to levy a price on it. I agree you have to pay a tax once he acquires the property, but I think also there may well be a cost associated with acquisition of the property. Otherwise, I think we're open to suspicion that maybe somebody's getting something from the City unfairly compared to other citizens.
I look at these, Councilman, in my district on a case-by-case basis. There are properties that I would certainly agree that we should not 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING just give away, and then there are properties I have no problem of letting someone take the responsibility. I think this is a perfect case where we are relieving the City of a continual maintenance problem, giving it to someone who has a property to expand their business and put this on the tax rolls.
I understand your theory, and I hope you understand my vote will be no because I think whenever the City gives away land, whether it's useless or whether it's worth something, there ought to be evidence that supports the action of the City to insulate the City from later claims of it being an unfair give-away. It seems to me that in this situation there is no record which justifies the City giving the land away. It may well be a worthy purpose, but that does not excuse the absence of any records to support the give-away. Do you any information as to the cost of the City of maintenance, because maybe there has been no maintenance, in which case it would be no reason for the City to want to 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING dispose of the land because it's very difficult often times to predict forever what's going to be the use or value of a piece of property and that's the reason we have appraisal system. I think it's time for us to operate the City in every way in a very business-like manner. When I say business-like, I don't mean the business of Enron-like because that's no advertisement for operating like a business. But certainly, the City ought to have a record as to why it's doing something other than just the request of people and the support local Councilmembers or even City-wide Council. I think we ought to have a record on it. And if agreeable to you, if you would delay action on this to give the City an opportunity to get this information, it may well be it's something worth supporting because it would have documentary evidence to support it. If not, then there would be a reason to vote against it. So if you insist going through with it today, regretfully, I'll have to vote no 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING because I think it's a bad practice.
I appreciate your comments, Councilman. I think it may be something in the future that we might want to further discuss. Again, I look at these things case-by-case basis. As you know, in my district, there's lots of development that goes on almost on a daily basis. And in this case, I just don't see the value in keeping it.
All I can say is that in this case, I'll be asking for a vote of support and be willing to discuss in the future whether streets or other types of corridors, alleyways should be sold as opposed to just given to a particular property owner. I'm glad see that, sitting behind you over the years, the word business came out rather comfortably this time so maybe I'm getting my point across.
Well, I don't know whether you are or not. You're not if 10/14/04 - STATED - 2ND READING you're preventing the acquisition of data that will show worthwhileness or the lack of it.
I think for the record -- I may have mentioned this at the hearing. I want to mention it again. I do not know who the owners of this property or these properties are. I have no direct contact with them. This was a bill that came over to me from the Streets Department at the request of the owners of the property. So I saw no reason not to introduce this legislation and ask for support.
Well, that raises another issue. I think we ought to know that the person -