Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members of Council having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 000319.
An ordinance amending an ordinance (approved September 16, 1999) which revised the prevailing-wage ordinance by extending the prevailing-wage requirements to include all building and construction work contracts, under certain terms and conditions.
This bill GREETING/INVOCATION having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally? The clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members of Council having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 0000164.
An ordinance amending Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," prohibiting concealed identities in certain instances.
This bill GREETING/INVOCATION having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally? Councilman Ortiz, do you wish to be recognized?
Thank you. Sometimes we legislators, especially those of us who reside in Philadelphia, seem to forget the basis upon which this country was founded. Political speech. Political speech comes in different ways and different manners. And, in essence, when those individuals sat down on Sixth and Chestnut, they were thinking about that, they were thinking in terms of the future, in terms of how legislators were going to be handling dissent. Thomas Jefferson even said it in the Declaration of Independence that when those who govern against those they are governing, the governed have a right to overthrow that government. It's part of the inherent heritage of this country. Thomas Payne, the pamphleteer, the GREETING/INVOCATION Federalist Papers, they were all written and they were all anonymous -- not because they were scared, but because the government and the police power had to be contained. When we say people cannot demonstrate, when we write a legislation that transfers the public policy position into the hands of the law enforcement officer, we're putting that law enforcement officer in a very difficult situation. When we say that intent to commit, you're trying to give that law enforcement officer, or you could give him, the ability to just arrest under supposition that something is going to happen. If somebody commits a criminal act in any demonstration, there are criminal statutes that take care of these issues and people are arrested. But when people come to a convention, it is a political convention. The Republicans is not a tourist attraction. The Republican Convention is not something for tourism to be attractive and to attract tourists to Philadelphia. It is a political convention. And political issues are going to be discussed both GREETING/INVOCATION inside the First Union Center and outside of the First Union Center. And those that have -- and those that are going to be outside have the same right, the same right, to be able to express their political opinion and their political speech in whatever mode they find best -- as long as they do not commit a criminal act. We cannot write legislation really that is vague, overbroad, and transfers public policy into the hands of the public enforcement officers. This is not about being pro-police; this is being about being pro-freedom. And even if we're afraid, even if we're apprehensive that something might occur, that is not any reason to curtail the freedom of anyone that comes to demonstrate in the City of Philadelphia. I wonder what those individuals at Sixth and Chestnut would say. They dressed up in Boston at the Boston Tea Party. We had the Swamp Fox, who had many disguises during the Revolutionary War. We had the Scarlet Pimpernel. You see him here, you see him there, you see him everywhere during the French Revolution. People who continuously fought for the right to be free. GREETING/INVOCATION You can wear a mask, you can burn a flag. In the United States, political speech is respected, whether it comes under the guise of masked individuals, speech in City Council and on corners -- and I don't think this Council at this time, at the beginning of the 21st century, would pass a law that I think, one, cannot be enforced, does not protect anything because a crime -- it supposes a crime is going to be committed. And as Jim Kenney said during the hearing, it actually encourages more people to bear the masks and come to the City of Philadelphia masked as they would be. No, I don't think in the City of the Revolution, I don't think in the city of the Declaration of Independence, I don't think in the city of the Constitution, this Council can pass legislation of this type. Ben Franklin said, when they asked what type of government we had, he said You have a republic if you can defend it.
Those individuals that are going to be protesting in front of the First Union Center are a part of the people and the individuals and the rights that we have to GREETING/INVOCATION protect as a City Council, and we should not try to curtail their freedom before they do anything just because we might be afraid or a little bit apprehensive or because masks scare us. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. Frankly, I haven't been involved in this debate but wanted to ask two questions, and maybe the bill's sponsor knows. When it takes effect, as someone asked me in the corridor, when this bill takes effect, it's not listed on it, and two; Section 2 says: "This section shall not be construed to punish constitutionally protected speech." It does list that in it. And what -- I heard very well Councilman Ortiz said, and he said very, very important things about protecting freedom of speech. And I wondered if the bill's sponsor could tell us how he sees this, if I'm not putting him on the spot. Is that all right? GREETING/INVOCATION
How could one be on the spot sitting in City Council in front of all the media. No one could ever be on the spot. Now, I'm proud of this bill, and Councilman Ortiz is totally right about everything he says, except for the reasoning for this bill, and the reasoning for this bill is to help the citizens of the City of Philadelphia. This is not an anti-mask bill you can wear Scarlet Pimpernel mask any night or time you want, Councilman. It doesn't matter. This is a bill that will punish people -- and, by the way, it's a summary offense, a $75 fine. Nobody's going to be arresting people for wearing masks. All it does is going to punish people for inappropriate behavior. If they're throwing bricks at police cars, with or without a mask, they're going to get arrested. If they're throwing bricks at police cars, concealing their identity, they're going to get arrested with another fine, is pretty much simply the bill. GREETING/INVOCATION And it will be taking effect immediately, Councilwoman.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. I, like Councilwoman Blackwell, have not really delved a lot into this bill, but -- and I am one who would like to protect the freedom of speech. All week, though, I have watched on national television the activities that took place in Central Park, where a number of young men attacked women, personally assaulted them, and the police apparently did absolutely nothing. But the important thing about that, through personal video tapes, the perpetrators, some of them, were able to be identified. GREETING/INVOCATION I believe this bill is intended to protect people from harm. It does not prevent, as I understand it, individuals from wearing a mask even during the course of the convention. It's when they move to harm an individual or others that it becomes a crime. And if in the future, activities that happen in other places, as happened in New York City, the perpetrators decide that they will wear masks, so they can't be identified. That has moved me to think more in favor of voting for this bill. Up until now, Councilman Mariano did not know how I was going to vote, and I probably would have voted against it, except every time I turn on every TV program, I'm confronted with the story of the assaults in New York by these men on women. And I do not want that to happen. It has happened here. We don't want people to say, Well, we'll put on a mask and nobody can identify us and we can do what we want to do. And so, therefore, I do believe that and I hope that our police department will understand the difference in wearing a mask and in GREETING/INVOCATION using a mask to harm someone. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilwoman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Well, I'm very distressed by the comments of Councilwoman Tasco. In New York, they didn't wear masks, the group of men that attacked women, and the police's attention ought to be directed to protect the women. I don't find it understandable at all that thousands of police were in the area, they were notified that women were being attacked, and they weren't paying any attention. And what are we doing here? Telling the police to pay attention to people who wear masks, who may be acting totally peacefully. And if they're not acting peacefully, then they ought to be arrested. Councilman Mariano made two statements. He said if they turn over a police car and they're wearing a mask, they'll be arrested; and if they turn over a police car and they're not wearing a mask, they'll be arrested. GREETING/INVOCATION What's the point of the bill? The point of the bill is to sanitize Philadelphia to make sure that we are all on nice behavior so that when the Republican Convention comes to town, all of the Philadelphians are going to be acting very nice. Demonstrators have a right to protest in the City of Philadelphia at anytime, anyplace anywhere. And the place they're going to want to protest is where the delegates to the Republican National Convention can see them. The delegates of any national convention are engaged in political activity. That's the reason -- and at a very important level. They're going to be discussing programs for the country for the next four years. They're going to be arguing about what ought to be the program of the Republican party, just as the next month in Los Angeles, they're going to be -- the Democratic National Convention is going to be formulating its program and developing who the candidate should be even, though the scripts have already been written in advance as to the who the presidential candidates are. GREETING/INVOCATION Political protest is aimed at influencing those delegates in the development of their programs. And what are we going to do? We're reducing in Philadelphia, the home of dissent, the home of the greatest country that was ever founded on democratic principles, we're trying to eliminate that. We're saying, protesters, go on a stage, go through a performance. That's sheer nonsense. That's saying don't have any dissent. Protesters don't go and perform on a platform in a specific place; they're giving vent to their feelings. And where are they doing it? They're doing it in the place that's most effective. If this ordinance passed and you look under the mask, you're going to find me. Because what you're trying to do, Councilman Mariano, even though you don't think you are, you are trying to destroy, as Councilman Ortiz said, the very essence of democracy, because people have a right to protest in any way. I have -- I regret deeply the action of Anti-Defamation League. They were responding, as I understand it, to a comment you made about me GREETING/INVOCATION one day, and so I have to hand it to you, you apparently convinced them that you were right, because suddenly, they authored, or coauthored, this bill, which flies in the face of everything the Anti-Defamation League ever stood for. The Anti-Defamation League has been the prime mover against the Ku Klux Klan, and they have confused the uniform of Ku Klux Klan which gives the message of hate and divisiveness with the context of a mask demonstrating political independence, indicating protest of ordinary people against either oppression of government or asking for the government to assist them in their problems. The aim of this bill is soley to attempt to reduce the number of protesters and to have them perform on a platform with a time limit. I think the agreement is 15 minutes, so you can protest for 15 minutes, and then for 23 hours and minutes of the rest of the day, you're a nice, peaceful person. We don't want that kind of sanitized activity. We've got to have the freedom to protest.
You've got to protect the rights of a GREETING/INVOCATION neighborhood to demonstrate at a street corner because the City bureaucracy won't put up a stop sign. You've got to protect those rights. And this bill moves in the opposite direction. I think this bill ought to be decisively defeated by City Council. It's about time we began acting on behalf of people instead of trying to repress people. That's what this bill is aimed at doing. They want us to present a nice appearance to the Republicans. I don't think it should be done for the Republicans, I don't think it ought to be done for Democrats. People ought to be encouraged to voice their views in whatever fashion they choose to before these two conventions, the one in our city and the one in Los Angeles. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
I wasn't going to speak again, but it distresses me that my colleague Marian Tasco is, on this, on the other side. In 1977, '78, the Iranian students at GREETING/INVOCATION the University of Texas were going to hold a demonstration. The University of Texas gave them a permit to hold a demonstration with the proviso that they do not wear masks. They said, You can hold that demonstration, but you cannot wear masks. It went to federal court. I'd just like to quote one small statement that they said. They said, "because the connection between the prohibition and the university's interest is merely speculative, the regulation cannot stand. For in our system, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom." And I think that is what we're talking about here. The people in Central Park did not wear masks, as Councilman Cohen said. Those things happened because of police neglect and police inattention. What we're saying here is, we're trying to prevent political speech, period. Simple. It's broad, it's vague. And when they came before City Council, if someone commits a crime, they can do it unmasked or masked. You commit a crime, GREETING/INVOCATION you'll be arrested. But we're trying to send -the message we're trying to send here is about political speech, it's about the dissent. Make no bones about it. It has nothing to do about protecting our citizens, but it has to do with chilling, chilling political dissent during the Republican Convention. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to point out that if we're using the incident in New York as an analogy that most demonstrations that are observed by law enforcement are, in many cases, videotaped not just by the police department but by the media, and I can think of countless, countless cases where, because of surveillance video and media tapes, that people were brought to justice that committed crimes against others. And if that incident in New York had masked individuals involved in it, the police would not have the ability to identify the perpetrators of those GREETING/INVOCATION very, very serious crime. So I'm speaking in favor of this bill.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Mariano asked me earlier this week how I was going to vote on this bill and wanted to come up and lobby me on this bill, and I told him I hadn't had a chance to look at it yet. He sent around a package to all of his colleagues. I was not someone who sat on the committee that reported this out, so I had not dug too deeply into it. I can say after reviewing the information from the ACLU, from the ADL, I changed my mind on my perception of this bill. I think this bill has been mischaracterized in the media, has been mischaracterized politically in a number of different ways, by members of this Council. The truth of the matter is, the bill says what it says. And it does not have anything to do with political speech. Political speech GREETING/INVOCATION will be allowed at the convention and otherwise. It has nothing to do with protests. And I don't know why -- and I see no need, as someone who considers themselves to be a former subversive, even bowing to the subversives of some of my colleagues now, I don't know what this has to do with protest and protesting with or without masks. As a former subversive, I'm someone who protests without a need. I don't see a need for someone to protest with a mask. But beyond that, this is not about protest. The bill says what it says. And I would ask my colleagues not to mask their protest. In some ways, their protest to this bill has nothing to do with the actual bill; it has to do with sensationalism around it. If there are philosophical things they believe in, that's true, but don't mask your protest of this bill. It has nothing to do with what is actually written in this bill. And I will be voting in favor of it.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman GREETING/INVOCATION Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. I -- he probably said most of what I was going to say is that, as I read the bill, it has nothing to do with the suppression of free speech, protest. It says you cannot wear a mask to do unlawful -- to commit a crime and during the commission of unlawful activity. So if nobody is doing anything unlawful, they can wear their masks. They didn't say you can't wear a mask, you can't speak out, you can't demonstrate. The whole process for the demonstrators has been set up prior to this bill even being introduced in this City Council. And I do not read the same message that my colleague Angel -- and he knows that I'm for free speech and I'm not for suppression and I'm not for any of that. But at the same time, it's not what this bill says. And I would hope and have confidence that our police department will not just arrest someone because they happen to have a mask on during a demonstration. If they are committing a crime, whether it's at the Republican Convention GREETING/INVOCATION or whether they're in the neighborhood attacking someone with a mask on, that is unlawful activity, and that's a crime. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I really regret that Councilmembers don't understand that there is no purpose other than to suppress dissent in this bill. This bill has been introduced, and everybody knows it, for the Republican Convention. It is talked about at the hearing to give the police another tool. What tool? Is somebody going to not commit a criminal act because of this bill? If they commit a criminal act, then they're subject to arrest. What we're doing is giving to every police officer around the convention area, around where any protest may take place, we're putting upon that police officer the extreme burden of trying to decide, does somebody wearing a mask have an intention to commit a crime? The bill on its face makes no sense whatever, it does nothing except to try to give a GREETING/INVOCATION basis for an arrest. How does a police officer know whether somebody intends to commit a crime? Look at me. Do I intend to commit a crime, do I intend to strike my colleague here and commit a crime? How does anybody know by looking at me? (Laughter.)
And if I put on a mask, does that make a difference, does the mask justify the arrest? Does that mean I have a criminal intent? They can't even look at my eyes, they can't see my face. We're saying a police officer has to decide, does that person have the secret intent to commit a crime? Stop talking nonsense. That's the one thing I don't like when we engage in. This bill was introduced to give the police an additional weapon to arrest people, and we're putting an impossible burden on every police officer in the City. Of course, if Commissioner Timoney were everywhere, he would not arrest anybody wearing a mask because he would understand, but the decision is made by a police officer who doesn't have the long training period of Commissioner Timoney. And this bill is useless for all GREETING/INVOCATION practical purposes; but at the same time, it is dangerous because it attempts to stifle dissent. And I'm just shocked at the thought that these knowledgeable people here are trying to kind of go along with the times and say, We'll put in the words. We're going to write that this must not be applied unconstitutionally. Well, what does that do to anybody? The fact that the words are in the bill means nothing. It's merely a cover-up for the rest of the bill. This bill ought to be defeated, and if it's passed, we ought to go home today in shame because we have disgraced everything that is historic down at Fifth and Chestnut Street. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. But of course he's going to say "with the intent." The point is, during the hearings, we asked the deputy police commissioner to define intent, how it is going to be measured? Of course, the bill seems innocuous and innocent. GREETING/INVOCATION And, of course, the ACLU said -- but the ACLU did not come in and say, "We support the bill." It did not come in and testify in support of the bill. It said that the amendment change and the wording made it so that it could be acceptable. But we're talking about political speech and prevention. We're talking about what happened not in Seattle or Central Park; we're talking about what happened in Washington, in Detroit, where similar laws were enacted to prevent dissent, where preemptive arrests were done of people that were wearing masks because they were going to demonstrate in the capital of this nation. The same legislation, same, it could pass constitutional muster. What cannot pass constitutional muster is when it is applied. And fine, we will vote, and 200 people get arrested unlawfully because they were wearing masks and the police went in and they said, Well, we thought they had the intent, but they did not commit any violence. We thought they had the intent and they were going to do it, but they didn't do it, and GREETING/INVOCATION they were arrested here. Then the ACLU says the law was used unconstitutionally, but the law gave the policeman a burden that he should not have been given. It gave the policeman that he had to begin making public policy because no crime was committed, but he doesn't know whether a guy wearing the mask and moves forward rapidly, what intent does he have? Is he going to attack me? If he moves rapidly towards the car, what intent does he have; is he going to destroy the car? Of course, it passes constitutional muster when it is written, but it does not pass constitutional muster when it is applied. And we're talking here of legislation that is written to be applied to the demonstrators that are coming here to protest the Republican Convention, and they have the same right that the people in First Union have to be here doing the same type of political speech. Of course, it passes. Laws usually pass constitutional muster until they are enforced. Until they are enforced. Then a court decides whether the application and the GREETING/INVOCATION enforcement by that policeman was constitutional enough or was an infringement on that person's First Amendment right under the Constitution. Once you begin trying to limit speech in whatever manner, in whatever manner, for whatever reason, you start infringing on freedom. And let us not take it lightly because what we do here, it might be a city council, but it has repercussions way beyond this. Let us not take it lightly. Yes, I was arrested. The other day, I was found innocent yesterday at trial. I demonstrated. I sat I did civil disobedience. There was a law that is constitutional, but that same law, under which I was arrested, said that I had a First Amendment right to violate it. It cannot be applied to my political speech. The law, as written, is harmless; the law, when enforced, becomes a tool of repression. The ACLU does not endorse this law. The ACLU just said, as written, it could pass constitutional muster. Enforcement, we will be there. Let us not fool ourselves. This is not GREETING/INVOCATION just a simple little law. Let us not end the first five months, first six months of the 21st century by passing a law that suppresses political speech in the City Council of Philadelphia. My God.
Thank you, Madam President. Let's set the record straight before I move for the previous question. With the specific intent to hide one's identity during the commission of a unlawful activity. Without that unlawful activity, Councilman, it's not a crime.
The police. Unlawful activity. And then the trier of fact, the trier of fact. Like they determine it everywhere, like they'll determine his skateboard bill when that happens. Okay, previous question, Madam President. I move for the previous question. We heard it two, three times. GREETING/INVOCATION
I think there are other people that want to be recognized. Yes, sir?
Madam Chair, when it goes to the trier of fact, it will cost us a lot of money, it will cost us a lot of money. The ACLU will get a lot of good attorneys' fees, all of the other attorneys that will defend the demonstrators in federal court for the violation of First Amendment rights will get a lot of attorneys. Yes, indeed.
I move for the previous question, it's a non-debateable fact, so we have to vote on that before he can speak again. I move for the previous question. That's a parliamentary point.
What was the previous question? What was the previous question?
We're not GREETING/INVOCATION suppressing anything, Councilman, come on. Let's vote. No, I'm not cutting off debate, let's just vote.
Every member of City Council, though I don't know whether everyone has read it, received a second message from the American Civil Liberties Union. Their first message was one of support for the bill. Under date -- our office received it on June 20, two days ago. It was addressed to members of Philadelphia City Council from both the Executive Director and the Litigation Director of the Civil Liberties Union, and it said -- let me read it briefly. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania believes that Bill 000164, "the anti-mask ordinance," does not on its face violate the First Amendment. The ordinance makes specific intent to engage in unlawful activity an essential element of the prohibited offense." The ordinance also states that it GREETING/INVOCATION "shall not be construed to punish constitutionally protected speech. "While we believe that Bill No. 000164 does not on its face violate the First Amendment, we are very concerned about the implementation of the ordinance if the bill is enacted by City Council. We have learned that on June 2, 2000, in Detroit, protesters who were wearing Lone Ranger type masks were arrested under a Michigan anti-mask law. "We are also troubled by the fact that this legislation, the one before us here, is not prompted by any incidents that have actually occurred here in Philadelphia; rather, it appears to be specifically targeting people who will be protesting in Philadelphia during the Republican National Convention. Our office is already receiving calls from people who are worried that they will be arrested merely for wearing a mask or a bandana during a demonstration. "if this law results in police officers arresting and removing anybody in a mask who looks suspicious and limits their exercise of free speech, as the Daily News editorial said on June GREETING/INVOCATION 14th, we will be prepared to file a challenge to this law as it is being applied." That ends the article. I predict that if this ordinance passes today, it will trigger the largest demonstration of protesters in the history of Philadelphia. It will make the threat of Councilman Rizzo's father many years ago about an invasion of protesters on Philadelphia on July 4th, it will make that threat seem like nothing. I think it is a terrible thing for Philadelphia to do, but if this Council is determined to do it, then let the Council be prepared to accept responsibility for what flows from this point on. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Councilman. The clerk please call roll.
Aye. The vote is 5 nays, 11 ayes, and the bill passes. The majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We can now go to Bill No. 000147. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Council President Verna, I had a group of young people visiting today. I'm not sure whether they're still here. Mr. Sam Porter -- okay, I think they've gone.
Okay, all right. We have visitors from the 8th Councilmatic District. Mr. Sam Porter, who's a project coordinator for the Boys and Girls Club of Philadelphia, he has a group of young people with him from the Teens Resources Against Crime group that meet at the Wissahickon Boys Club in GREETING/INVOCATION Germantown. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam President. I'm assuming we're going back to Bill 147.
I said we're back to Bill 147. I am recognizing you.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just you wanted to place on the record as a part of the earlier discussion. I think all of my colleagues by now have received a copy of a letter from our managing director, Joe Martz, who had testified at the public hearing but also today writes to us requesting our support for this bill, reiterating much of his testimony from the public hearing, but also laying out his continued commitment to work with Members of Council, the skateboard community, and the private sector on this particular issue. I think all of us have come to know our managing director in his previous capacity, and GREETING/INVOCATION now as Managing Director, certainly as a person of his word. He has put his word and his commitment in writing. And I think that if there was any concern about it before, certainly a letter from the managing director of this extraordinary type should address many of those concerns. I would also say, Madam President, from the newspaper story after the public hearing, we heard testimony from a Brian Lathrop, a 36-year-old skateboarding enthusiast who said, "I think kids are going to persist," he predicted. " And I think that points out very dramatically, Madam President, that while we want to believe and have good-faith understanding between and among all of the various parties, it has been clear over the years that some element of the skateboard community is very much determined to continue to do what they do. They testified in public that they think they have a right not only to skate on public facilities but also destroy them because they have a right to do it, and that's their mindset. GREETING/INVOCATION Lastly, let me put on the record some of the actions that have been taken by this Council on this particular issue. I would now make reference, Madam President, to Bill No. 959-A, which was passed by this Council on December 15, 1994. " Now, Madam President, that is a bill that was sponsored by former Council President Street, and what it did was prohibit skateboarding in the area bounded by Arch Street, 15th Street, Broad Street, and John F. Kennedy Boulevard, also known as the Municipal Services Plaza, and sidewalks. And what that bill said was that any parent of a child under the age 18 who violate subsection 10-610(1) shall also be in violation of this section. The much-discussed concern about the $300 fine, Madam President, is not new in the bill before us. That provision was in Bill 959-A, approved by this Council on 12/15/94. The vote was 16 to 0, and the only Member not voting was a Member who was not here. That bill created the GREETING/INVOCATION $300 fine provision if you contest the ticket, which is $25. The Members who are still in the body who voted for that bill at that time are: Councilwoman Blackwell, Councilman Cohen, Councilman Kenney, Councilman Krajewski, myself, Councilman O'Neill, Councilman Ortiz, Councilwoman Tasco, and you, now-Council President Verna, when you were Majority Leader. In 1998, this Council passed Bill 970817 after a great amount of debate and discussion. It prohibited a wide variety of activities, including riding a scooter, roller skates, or a skateboard on any public sidewalk. This Council passed that bill. There were exceptions made to that bill, one of which was, certain areas of the City. My colleague expressed concern about prohibiting skateboarding in certain places. That bill was subsequently amended by Bill 980641, which was introduced on September 17, 1998, which prohibited the same activities as were previously laid out in Bill 970817, but included the areas generally known as the "University City GREETING/INVOCATION area" and specifically the University of Pennsylvania. And so now we have a situation where skateboarding is prohibited on the public sidewalks abutting private property for the University of Pennsylvania, you cannot skate at the Municipal Services Building.
But now somehow, all of a sudden, we are creating hysteria in the skateboard by saying that we also would like you to not skate on public property and destroy it. Those are the actions by this body. We have done this before. There is not that much radical and new here. We are only trying to protect the public property of our city and make sure that we don't continue to spend unnecessarily capital dollars to fix property that was never intended for the type of use that people want to engage in. And so again I say, Madam President, I think we need to go forward. There is commitment all around the board to work with the skateboard community. I reaffirm my support to get necessary appropriate facilities in as short a period of time as possible. GREETING/INVOCATION Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to say that I think we have a great managing director. This has nothing to do with Joe Martz or with his efforts. He's a great managing director, he was great before, and he's an excellent managing director, and I applaud the Mayor's choice. Nor did we disagree with the fact that property has been destroyed from skateboarding. All we have merely said is that let's work out a way, let's find a way to work it out and take a few weeks over the summer to do that. All the talk about past legislation, all the -- even the return to the quality-of-life bill, which was one of most important battles I've had during my political career in the last administration, don't change the fact that let's give kids a chance. I stood by what I said for the quality-of-life bills because I believe in America GREETING/INVOCATION and I believe in its citizens and its children, who have rights to live and play wherever they want. Here, where we have property being destroyed, we have an opportunity to work it out so that everybody wins. Why fight our citizens when we don't have to. America's supposed to be the best country in the world. I believe it is. Give everybody a chance, let everybody have a right to the tree of life, have a right to enjoy their sports, have a right to enjoy every great thing that Center City and every other area has. That's all I've said. I'm proud of my record here, and I will stand by my stand on the quality of life, I have I always will. If you want to go back there, we can have that debate. I feel exactly now as I did then. And I still say that where we can work it out -- you fight when you have to. You don't fight because you have the authority, because we as elected officials have the right to have a hammer, we have a right to increase this. As the technical staff told me, short of $300 is in this bill, but now we amend this bill, and the diversion that my colleague has now put in gives GREETING/INVOCATION the police a right to take the skateboard. Please, that's ridiculous. Don't fight children, don't fight young people. If you have an opportunity to work it out, what is a few weeks? If we have over a $2 billion budget, do you really think so much property is going to be destroyed over the summer and the whole city will? Fall down. I don't think so. Let's just be fair. We can go back, you can point to how everybody voted when, and I can justify every vote I've made in this Council and tell anybody why I voted as I did on any legislation anywhere in the past. We can all do that. That is why we are here. All I'm saying is, let's give kids a chance. Having said that, I will now make a motion that we table this so that we can consider it in September. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the bill be tabled.
If we could just have a very quick explanation from the Chair as to what an aye vote is and what a nay vote is with regard to the motion to table.
If you're voting aye, you're voting to table; if you're voting nay, you're voting not to table the bill.
And, naturally, Madam President, I would ask that my colleagues vote not to table the matter.
Aye. The ayes are 9, the nays are 7. The motion carries. GREETING/INVOCATION This concludes our calendar.
And before I recognize Councilwoman Tasco, I just want to wish all of my colleagues and all of the members of the media and all of our staff a very pleasant summer. I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of each other. And at this time, I would like to recognize Councilwoman Tasco -- oh, I'm sorry. Are there any speeches on behalf of the Majority? (No speeches on behalf of the Majority.)
Are there any speeches on the part of the Minority? (No speeches on the part of the Minority.)
Madam President, I move that Council stand adjourned until Thursday, September 14, the year 2000. And wish my colleagues a great somewhere. GREETING/INVOCATION (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that we stand adjourned until Thursday, September 14, 2000. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and Council is adjourned. (Adjourned at 1:45 p.m.) ~ 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 Thursday, June 20 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: STATED MEETING __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter ~