Aye. The ayes are 17; the nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The Chief Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 080082.
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Delaware Avenue and the former Shackamaxon Street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 17; the nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING 080018.
An ordinance amending Chapter 10-800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Safety," by adding a new Section, entitled "Prohibited Possession, Sale and Transfer of Firearms by Persons Subject to Protection from Abuse Orders."
Thank you, Madam President. I am offering an amendment to this bill. The amendment has been circulated.
The amendment has been circulated to Bill No. 080018.
I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.) 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you. It's my understanding that all members have a copy of the amendment, and a motion has been made to adopt the amendment and seconded. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment has been adopted. I would ask the Chief Clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 080032.
An ordinance amending Chapter 10-800 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Failure to Report Lost or Stolen Firearm," by requiring prompt notification of lost or stolen firearms and imposing penalties.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller. 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, real briefly, if I can just explain what the amendments for Councilwoman Miller and myself are today. There are three bills that we will be amending today. In working with the Administration, because these bills do not require state authorization, we have had several discussions about the validity of the bills and the defensibility of the bills, and based on recommendations from the legal counsel representing Councilwoman Miller and myself and the Law Department, we will 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING introduce these amendments in the hopes that upon final passage and signing by the Mayor and then ultimately enforcement, that we will be in a much better legal position. So, therefore, I would like to offer Bill No -- I'm sorry, Madam President. I wrote over my agenda.
Yes. I'd like to make a motion for Bill No. 080032, an amendment to that bill. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING amendment be adopted that was circulated today on Bill No. 080032. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. I would ask the Chief Clerk at this time to please read Bill No. 080035.
An ordinance amending Chapter 10-800 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Safety," by adding a new Section 10-831, entitled "Straw and Multiple Handgun Purchase Reduction," to limit purchases of handguns by Philadelphia residents to one a month, and to prohibit straw purchases of handguns utilized by criminals for the purpose of evading the one handgun a month limitation.
The 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I move for a motion for the amendment to Bill No. 080035. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment circulated this morning be amended. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. And that concludes our Second Reading and Final Passage Calendar. Oh, I'm sorry. We do have Councilman Jones' resolution that has to be considered. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones for a motion on Resolution No. 080264. 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING
I move for the adoption of the resolution, Madam President. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that the resolution be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Would the Chief Clerk please read the resolution.
Resolution No. 080264, a resolution approving submission of a Sewage Facilities Planning Module to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection proposing a revision of the Official Sewage Facilities Plan of the City regarding disposal of sewage from properties located along River Road. 4/3/08 - STATED - 2ND READING
Councilman Jones, would you please make your motion again.
I move for the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that the resolution be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the resolution is adopted. Are there any speeches on the part of the minority? (No response.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. A number of people have been asking me what is my -- what do I propose to do about the recent Supreme Court decision, which basically is denying, in my opinion, the citizens of this City an opportunity to be heard. So while I was sitting here this morning, I've made some notes and I'd like to have a few moments to express my dissatisfaction and anger as to what the Supreme Court's decision means to us. So bear with me, please. These were quick notes I've been writing down.
That's fine. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think they're very important nonetheless. As I said, I'm angry and disappointed that the Supreme Court again has decided to silence the citizens of know for some it's been a very frustrating ordeal over these last couple of years, and you've heard me time and time again talk about the process and the fact that I think that something needs to be vetted, because when and if these casinos are built, they're going to be institutions that we are going to have to live with for the next two, three, four decades. And I've always said from day one that I always believed we would have casinos, and if we're going to have them, I wanted the casinos to be the best that we can build. I want them to be successful. Not for the purpose of the operators, but for the purpose of the City of Philadelphia and to realize revenues that we anticipate would be coming from these casinos. But the Supreme Court denied us that opportunity, in my opinion again, to at least be heard. They denied an opportunity and the right as citizens to question those who will create change, I believe, in a negative way the quality life of tens of thousands of people, particularly people who live in close proximity to the proposed two casino sites. In the Supreme Court filing, they have twice referred to me as an obstructionist, once in the SugarHouse filing of four, five months ago and again yesterday in their decision on the Foxwoods case. And they base that, that title on me, on the fact that I was the Councilperson who has been working tirelessly with a number of you and all of this body over the last couple of years to protect the port and the men and women whose jobs may be jeopardized as a result of the daily increase of 20 to 28 thousand additional cars on Columbus Boulevard. They refer to me as an obstructionist because I have been working to protect the thousands of in their homes and communities to make their neighborhoods a better place for them and future generations of Philadelphians. They have denied us the opportunity to conduct hearings in an attempt and effort to gather as much information that we could and identify those potential problems that will most certainly have a negative impact on their quality of life. I did all these things because I believe it's the responsibility of an elected official to do the things that he or she needs to do to protect the people who he or she represents. If that's what an obstructionist is, then I gladly accept the title. I will be glad to accept that title from here going forward. Today I do not have yet any information as to whether there are any remedies that we will be pursuing. I've been in conversations with Senator Fumo I first got this information late yesterday afternoon around 4:30. His legal team in Harrisburg is looking at potential, if any, legal remedies, and I will make an announcement hopefully by noon today as to whether or not we will move forward on tomorrow's hearing. But it's interesting also, when I mentioned the hearing, the two hearings that we had, that a second hearing which primarily dealt with traffic concerns, that the Foxwoods representatives admitted that their studies do not include Phases II and III of their project. Phases II and III is the development of the hotel and/or condos. They're not in their study. So the impact study is already flawed before it even got started. And the study that speaks just to the casino, it was pointed out in testimony, is significantly flawed. So here it is, we have some people thought this was just an exercise in political futility for myself. I've been elected. I've been sworn in. I'm here for four years. I don't know where I'm going to be in four years.
It's not for that reason. It's because I want these things to be done and done right, and I have that responsibility, as all of us do, to protect the people that we represent. So it's not grandstanding on my part. It's really something I believe in, because if I didn't believe in this thing, I would have folded my tent a long time ago. And I know some people in here would have probably had a great sigh of relief and said, finally, we're getting this thing done with. But it's just that important. And if you dealt with the folks, the hundreds and hundreds of people that I've been dealing with over the past three years, and listened to their pain and listened to their concerns at these meetings, more meetings than I care to even remember at this time, you would really have gotten an appreciation for this concern. And 99 percent of the folks, by the way, who I represent are not anti-casino. There is a Casino-Free Philadelphia group out there, which I respect. I don't think they're going anywhere with eliminating casinos. And most of the folks I represent were not NIMBYs. I mean, that's what normally happens in these cases, but they were not NIMBYs. They understood this issue, because I made it perfectly clear when my legislative assistant, Brian, and I began taking the show on the road, if you will, in January of 2006, we started meeting with community groups before, even before, the sites had been determined. So it wasn't as though I waited for an opportunity, political opportunity, jumped out, you know, started running around telling the people, Vote for me, I'll save the world. We put ourselves out on a limb very early on, and my remarks in '06 have always been consistent to the people I represent. Casinos will happen in Philadelphia. We may have to live with one or two in this district, the "district" meaning the district I represent, and we're going to have to figure out the best way we can to develop these sites, hopefully encourage the powers-to-be in Harrisburg to give us an opportunity to look at re-siting, which we have been trying to do and obviously have been failing, but it was all about allowing a public process to continue to allow the citizens of this City to be heard, and we have been denied that opportunity again, the same way we're denied to create laws that will protect our citizens from illegal guns. This is consistent. It all fits in. We don't matter in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We are city to generate revenue, and I don't know what else the other folks outside of the City limits care about. And we're in this pickle and we're in this pickle today because our local legislators; in particular, the legislators who were in office who represent the River Wards, were not thoughtful enough, were not looking at the big picture going forward when they enacted this legislation, and they voted four times, four times, to preempt the City of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia in which they represent the same people that we represent. If they would have stood their ground and they would have not voted to preempt, this all may have been a different story today. But they're all running around today because in 19 days they're up for reelection and they're arguing, This is unheard of, this is absurd. What about all the jobs at the port? Who is going them? Well, the legislators who voted for this and four times voted to preempt us, this is on their back now. We did our job. I want to thank everyone in this room for standing with me, for listening to my tirade sometimes and listening to the heartache stories that were coming into this Chambers for the last three years. I do really appreciate and respect the opportunity that you gave me. And, yes, it's this unheard of or curse word that's out there, councilmanic prerogative, but it wasn't about that.
It was a tool that we used obviously, but it really was about letting the citizens of this City; in particular, those who live in my district, be heard, and there's nothing wrong with it. There was nothing wrong with what we did, and I don't care who talks about it, who condemns it. I know we did the right thing. So, again, Madam President, I want to thank everyone. I'll let you know probably around noon today about tomorrow's hearing and what the next steps are. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. This is a test. What has more calories: A chocolate shake, hamburger, French tries or a Coke? Madam President, in 1970, 26 percent of Americans ate out. Today that number has nearly doubled, and more interestingly, two-thirds of us struggle with our weight, me included. But this is not a trivial issue at all, Madam President. In fact, 83 percent of Americans want restaurants to provide nutrition information. We have labels on clothes. We have labels on cleaning on packaged foods. And so I am hopeful over the next many weeks that my colleagues will consider San Francisco. New York City's menu labeling bill went into effect four days ago, and now Seattle has a menu labeling bill. So with that in mind, I am inviting all of my colleagues and/or their staff representatives to a 1 o'clock briefing wherein we will have a tasting of healthy food choices and a quiz to test how much we know or don't know about caloric intake. I invite all of my colleagues to join us at 1 o'clock for a briefing. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to make today, one with regard to the Supreme Court decision in the Foxwoods issue and the other with regard to a recent decision or award by the Procurement Department with respect to car-sharing. First, with respect to casinos. I think it is clear that the die was cast when the original legislation crafted by one of our representatives from the River Wards took away the City's powers, did in fact as originally crafted intentionally preempt the City's powers in this regard. A change of heart without changing legislation in Harrisburg has proven meaningless, as many people on this Council predicted it would. In my opinion, the ruling from the Supreme Court is sparse on legal reasoning. It reads more like an edict from a potentate than reasoning from the highest court in our state. It is without regard to the rights of the of Philadelphia. In one area, that is very clear, and, that is, the state legislation prohibits a taking in order to bring casinos to the City of Philadelphia. The Supreme Court did not address the issues raised by Council in the SugarHouse briefing and raised by the Law Department and Council with respect to the Foxwoods briefing; that is, the striking of streets that belong to the citizens of the City of Philadelphia. In my view, citizens, with respect to these takings, are entitled to just compensation under the Pennsylvania Constitution and under the United States Constitution, and the City of Philadelphia should pursue that. The end game, Madam President, would be that once the courts would find the taking from the citizens of the City of Philadelphia, looking back at the original legislation, they would see no taking was permitted to happen. Therefore, it calls into question the entirety of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in this regard. There are certain things within the control of the City of Philadelphia. The Supreme Court does not have traffic engineers that can say where curb cuts go and they, to my knowledge, haven't hired any. Also, in addition to not addressing the Council and the City's taking argument, this body has additional recourse. In my view, there is no controversy in play when the City Solicitor and the previous Administration signed tax settlement agreements. Without a controversy or a case in controversy, any agreement where the City grants a forbearance or loses rights that is longer than a year requires the approval of this body, City Council. These last-minute back-room deals should be undone by this body, by the Administration, and we should begin casinos in order to protect the citizens, get appropriate community benefits that involve Councilman DiCicco's office and the rest of this body, making sure that the citizens in these areas have appropriate protections from the nuisances that will obviously be brought upon them by these casinos. That is all I have to say on that matter. With respect to the awarding yesterday by the Procurement Department of a car-sharing service, I understand that has not yet been signed. I also understand that qualifications for these bidders were not considered, were not part of the competitive bidding process. For example, we did not require these bidders to state that they would have a minimum number of cars elsewhere in the City or in each councilmanic district. We did not look at financial qualifications. It is my understanding two competing bidders does not have any profits upon which to sustain their business in the long term. There are environmental considerations. We are a sustainable, green city. Both the Administration and Council has committed to these efforts.
We should be looking at qualifications of the fleets of these people that will be provided to the City, whether or not they will be hybrid or otherwise, and that should have been part of the competitive bidding process. So I am calling on the Procurement Department to do a new competitive bidding process that brings into play the interests of the City with respect to the qualifications that a winning bidder should have. Finally, I want to read one thing into the record in this regard, and, that is, that the venture capitalists that are supporting this, quote/unquote, for-profit enterprise that local non-profit have contributed more than $35 million while this company runs at a loss. The purpose of this, according to those venture capitalists, was enabling this business to run at a loss as it builds market share. In other words, their behavior is predatory. They intend to go into cities across this nation by operating these businesses at a loss, kill local businesses, and then they'll be a monopoly that can do whatever they want with pricing. And I also believe these issues should be taken into consideration as we look at the qualifications of people who may provide car-sharing service, which has been an extremely effective, important way to get cars off the road in the City of Philadelphia. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Are there any other speeches on majority? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion to öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööörelated benefits and issues surrounding the impact of the casinos and he didn't reference a specific casino site. He spoke of it in general terms, and I just wanted to clarify the Councilman did not mean when he used the term some "back-room discussions," it did not mean that the community, which had been deeply involved in discussions with both the City and the operators and both and myself, talking about a process that would lessen the negative impact of the SugarHouse casino on the adjacent communities and continued to have those discussions, that Councilman Green didn't mean that the community that is in that proximity to that site were involved in any back-room discussions or deals as it related to that very important issue and what benefits would be realized as a result of the siting of that particular site. Am I correct, Councilman?
Yes. I stand corrected. If I implied the community was involved in that, I was not implying that. I was talking about the back-room discussions not shared with anybody, signed three days prior to the end of the previous Administration; that is, the back-room discussions between the casino operators and owners and shareholders and the previous Administration.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. With that, I move that Council stand adjourned until -COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: One moment.
Just a moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Sorry to interrupt. I know you were on a roll there today.
I'm a roll, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just received information from the Administration. The Administration agrees that we should go on with the hearings tomorrow. If for any reason, at least to get some things on the record and get some definitive discussions going forward. So the hearings will be on for
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Council stand adjourned until Thursday, April the 10th, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Council stand adjourned until Thursday, April 10th. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. (Stated Meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.) CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on April 3, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)