Aye. The ayes are 15, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. Bill No. 000413 is the next bill to be GREETING/INVOCATION called for consideration.
An ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the area served by Wills Eye Hospital to have a project for Wills Eye Hospital financed through the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia.
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.
Councilwoman Blackwell? (Councilwoman Blackwell absent from chamber at this time.).
Aye. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. GREETING/INVOCATION
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to be recorded as voting aye on all bills or resolutions that I may have missed when I stepped out of the room.
The record will reflect that Councilwoman Blackwell has voted in the affirmative on Bill No.'s 000346, 000395, and she is voting aye on Bill No. 000413, which indicates that the ayes on that bill 16, the nays or 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. 000088.
An ordinance amending Title 17 of the Philadelphia Code relating to contracts and procurement by amending Chapter 17-500 to extend the life of the Minority Business Enterprise Council, all under certain terms and conditions.
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.
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. 000109.
An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed located in the area to 325 Race Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
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. GREETING/INVOCATION
Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members of City Council having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to go called for consideration is Bill No. 000137.
An ordinance amending Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code relating to regulation of individual conduct and activity by amending Section 10-601, entitled "Skateboarding on Public Property," by prohibiting skateboarding on all public property, unless otherwise authorized, and by creating additional penalties, all 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 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. This morning I rise to ask my colleague and sponsor and all sponsors of the bill if they would hold this bill off until September. This bill, called "The Skateboarding Bill," deals with young people and others who are interested in skateboarding around our city, and this would prohibit their conduct on public property. Certainly, as we know, we have many debates about stadiums that deal sports. In this city and in this country, we have basketball, we have baseball, we have football, and we even have skateboarding. We have a lot of young people who are doing positive activities. They're skateboarding, they're not attacking people, they're not robbing people, they're not disturbing the peace, but they're enjoying themselves as they skateboard. This legislation that would fine them GREETING/INVOCATION $300, children under 18, if they don't have the money, their parents can be fined. And it also authorizes the Police Department or the officer who stops them to confiscate a skateboarding, and I think it's a bit much to fine a kid $300, take their skateboard because they're skateboarding in an area that you don't deem successful. I think it's a bit much, given the fact that they are willing and trying to work out places that the City finds acceptable. Certainly as a legislator, I do not support skateboarders causing -- defaming property or hurting properties so that we have to pay fines to fix it, but we're at the tail-end of this. The skateboarders are already out with representatives of the City to find acceptable places, and I think we need time to work that out. Some of my colleagues have asked me about Love Park, if they could agree not to skate on Love Park this summer as a compromised position. But certainly, after last week, when a resolution was introduced calling for all sides to meet and to go out and find sites, I assumed that this bill would not be on the calendar because we GREETING/INVOCATION passed that resolution unanimously; therefore, we do not have a representative enough group. There's only one or two people here today, so I can't assure you that they won't be skateboarding this summer because I didn't know this was on the calendar and, therefore, we did not ask a group of them and their representatives to be here to request that. We're glad to make that request but we can't assure that that will happen. I will also say that one of the skateboarders told me that they have tried and have gone into other neighborhoods and, in fact, were almost attacked when they went into an unwelcome neighborhood. And so I think that it is only fair that we don't really take such an extreme form of exaggerated justice to protect the City when a matter of weeks, from now until September isn't going to certainly wipe the City out if we have people skateboarding. And in the spirit of cooperating, I would ask again my colleague if he would consider just holding off the bill. We're not saying wipe it off the calendar but we're asking if he would consider holding up until GREETING/INVOCATION September so that we could work out a compromised position. I do not feel comfortable being in a position of fighting the young people in our city. This city is big and great enough to accommodate everyone. Maybe I like to jump rope and somebody else likes to skateboard and somebody else likes to play chess and somebody else like to play basketball. Certainly, everyone has the right to enjoy the City to the utmost. And I think that our challenge, as elected officials, is to find a way to work things out. We should be consensus-builders, we should find a way to work it out so that everybody gets a chance to enjoy our city, and not use the hammer that we have legislatively to certainly say you can't and I'm going to fine you $300 and I'm going to take your skateboard; but rather, we want to hold up, we want to work it out want, and we want our young people to love and enjoy the City as much as we do.
I don't think a young person should be intimidated by a police officer coming up to them and fining them and taking their skateboard and GREETING/INVOCATION giving them a $300 fine. This legislation calls for a $300 fine. I think it's a bit much. And I would only ask again if my colleague would consider holding this bill until September. Certainly I'll be glad to make a request that Love Park be considered. I understand that is of issue to the many people here, and we'll be glad to ask them to consider that over the summer months.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity. First let me say I respect and appreciate my colleague's concern. I do want to try to clear the record. First of all, the penalty is a $25 ticket, if the person does not contest their violation of the law. It is not an automatic $300 fine, it is $25. Pay it within 8 days, it's $25, end of discussion. Secondly, I don't know what, if any, confusion there could have possibly been. This bill came out of committee last week, it was on GREETING/INVOCATION the calendar for first reading. The resolution was introduced as a result of discussions in the public hearing by my colleagues Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and Councilman Kenney as a further sign of interest by the body in trying to explore this particular topic. The mere introduction of a resolution does not interrupt the normal flow of a bill coming out of committee, getting a first reading one week, and bills automatically get a reading -or are up on the second-reading and final-passage calendar the next week. There's been no public discussion, no one ever made a statement to anybody anywhere that this bill wasn't going to go on the calendar. And, quite, honestly Madam President, as we all know, there is nothing to stop a bill, once it's had a first reading, from getting its second reading and being ready for a vote the following week. I mean, those are our rules and those have been our rules, I think, for some extended period of time. So no one told the skateboarders or anyone else that this bill was not going to be on the calendar. It has always GREETING/INVOCATION been programmed to be on the calendar and so I don't know where the confusion may be. It is clear also, and I'm not sure who the Councilwoman has talked to, but it was clear at the public hearing that there was no commitment by the skateboarders not to use Love Park or the City Hall apron or any other piece of property under any circumstances. Their clear position is, We'll do whatever we want to do, wherever we want to do it, whenever we want to do it, and if you happen to build another facility, if it's okay with us, we'll use that one, but if we want to use some other facility, we're going to do that too. And so I don't know where the good faith is other than on the City's side between the resolution introduced by my colleague, certainly a continued by myself and anyone else here to find additional locations, whether a stand-alone park, or even as Councilman Clarke suggested, expansion at present recreation facilities for this kind of activity. It's very interesting that there's, you know, no other group of people that seem to feel that they have some God-given inalienable right to GREETING/INVOCATION do whatever they want to do over in some parts of our public property. I don't see anybody playing basketball out on the City Hall apron, 'cause they have places to go, or football or baseball or any other particular sport, and we've tried to address those issues. The most recent phenomenon or more recent phenomenon in the City has been roller hockey. And I know that many of my colleagues have expanded or added on or changed facilities at current recreation facilities to accommodate that new sport. Or we have soccer, and there have been conversions of open to address that. And I am sure that we will address skateboard situation. This is, as I said in the caucus room, this has been the song of the skateboarders for the last four our five years. Give us something; otherwise, we'll continue to destroy public property. Those places were not built for this purpose under any circumstance or condition, in addition to the fact that it completely ignores the outcry and response from many members of the business community who have large open plazas here primarily in Center City, who are also facing the GREETING/INVOCATION same level of damage.
And whether it's 1717 Arch building, owned by Bell Atlantic, with $50,000 of annual damage to their facility, they're also trying to protect their property. Now, I don't know why the skateboarders think that they have the right to use their property as well. But, you know, I just find that the message potentially very interesting that says to our young people, you know, don't care about other people's property, don't care about the City's property, damage it, and then when it's destroyed, you can demand and possibly get something new. Now, I have said many, many times the facility down at FDR -- you know, I'm not a skateboard expert, but I think you don't have to be an engineer to figure out that that's probably not the prettiest-looking place that anybody could have built. I wasn't around for its design and, you know, it is what it is. The City has committed to upgrade it, and I think that we do we need a new facility, and I've said to some of my colleagues that the to the extent that I can support it through the capital budget and capital program, I think that we can have a better and GREETING/INVOCATION newer facility, to the extent that we can find one here in Center City, to the extent that it could be modeled on Love Park. I think all of that is very interesting. That is to the side of the public property damage issue and the interest of people who also want to enjoy these areas and find themselves at times accosted by these individuals. The police testimony was that 70 percent of whom do not live in Philadelphia in the first place. You can usually see them streaming out of Suburban Station to come here. You cannot engage in these activities, I know, at the Lower Merion administration building on Lancaster Avenue or the Montgomery County courthouse. They would not think of letting somebody skate up and down their steps or on their railing or anything else and destroying their property. And so the message here is, just come to Philadelphia and you can do whatever you want to do, wherever you want to do it. So, I mean, I don't know what another couple months gets us. I think my colleagues know I'm a pretty reasonable person, always willing to GREETING/INVOCATION listen to a new idea. And if there is, you know, something out on the floor that's going to ensure that after this couple-month period of time goes by that something different is going to happen, or Councilwoman Blackwell, who's raised this issue primarily, would be prepared to vote for the matter then and is, you know, prepared to commit that people won't destroy the property during the course of the summer and will make sure that these meetings and discussions take place, I mean, I'm intrigued by the idea, but I don't know really know what it means. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. I don't think it's the role of the City Council or any legislative body to take on a disciplinarian context and to say we're going to punish people, because if you're going to do that to a whole group of people, you are going to arouse the wrong kind of feeling in a city. It's the role of City Council to seek to establish, GREETING/INVOCATION where possible, a consensus, and then if it has to act, it will take the appropriate action. But whenever there is an opportunity to bring out agreement, I think every advantage should be made of that possibility. I don't -- the skateboarders create problems for people; we're not used to that kind of activity. And on behalf of the elder citizenry, of which I am a part, I have to confess that I feel uncomfortable when suddenly I see skateboarders coming, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be punished and eliminated and threatened by City government. That is not the way a city government ought to operate, and I strongly oppose that. And I don't understand why, in context of all the problems the city has, that suddenly today, everything's got to be settled today, and there's got to be a stern hammer, and the skateboarders got to be warned that if they continue to do whatever they're doing that we think is wrong, they're going to be severely punished -- not just by the $25 fine, but by the fact that police are going to be involved in this GREETING/INVOCATION situation. The skateboarders, during the caucus, Councilman Nutter referred to the same issues having been raised five years ago. I don't recollect them, so I don't know how seriously they were raised. But even assuming that that were the case, there's a new generation out of skateboarders, and they are indicating some willingness to come to an agreement as to give us a facility and we will begin using that facility. As Councilwoman Blackwell says, we don't know whether they're going to do it or not; skateboarders are not a monolithic community, they're individuals. Different people have different ideas, but I think we've got to work to get their cooperation and their agreement, and I don't think the way to do it is to hit them over the head and threaten them with police action and with fines. I, therefore, think that the suggestion by Councilwoman Blackwell that we take a deep breath and wait over the summertime and let the City Administration and the skateboarders and Councilman Nutter and all others that may be GREETING/INVOCATION interested work together to try to get an agreement, because this bill -- this bill will not end skateboarding. What it will do is bring out many, many times the numbers of current skateboarders who are going to act against what they will clearly regard -- because that's what it is -- a repressive act by this body. And I, therefore, urge Councilman Nutter to reconsider and to say, let's see what we can work out during the summertime. I think the resolution expressed the view of Councilmembers, and I think we ought to go along with that and put this on the first calendar in September. It gives everybody notice -- the City and the skateboarders -- that we've got to get a the resolution to this problem, but we don't really have to do it and we -- of all the problems in this city, I cannot say that the skateboarding problem is so urgent that today, we must finally decide it. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. GREETING/INVOCATION
Thank you, Madam President. While I am supporting the bill, I do admire and appreciate the sincere civil libertarian fervor expressed by both Councilman Cohen and Councilmember Blackwell. I think they've been consistent in their approach towards people's rights and sensitivity to people's rights than probably anybody else -- or as much as anybody else in this body. I am supporting the bill, and I do think it's important for the record to reflect that as the police testified at the hearing, 80 percent of the citations issued on Love Park and other public property areas are issued to young men and women, or young men generally, who live in our surrounding suburbs and not in Philadelphia. I think it's somewhat ironic that we're here debating this issue of public policy, public investment, public resources for City dollars, which will ultimately go or determine what suburban young people from the suburbs will do. I can assure you, and I'm not suggesting that the City be as restrictive as our GREETING/INVOCATION suburban communities, but I can assure you that if myself or my 11-year-old son or my 6-year-old daughter took their skateboard and tried it out in either Lower Merion or Bensalem, Media, or West Chester, those municipal or county or local governments would be taking strict and severe measures to probably take my skateboard and take my liberty. Part of why I raise this is I think the problems that we face in Philadelphia on a number of quality of life and/or behavioral issues, whether it's drinking and rowdiness at Vets Stadium, which we find is also a large number of suburbanites that engage in that activity, whether it's drunkenness or disorderly conduct on Christopher Columbus in our nightclub district, or whether it's this type of activity at special events on South Street and other places, many, many of these individual young people who decide -- and I'm not saying that skateboarders are that kind of element, but they're younger people right now. There seems to be this attitude that it's okay to do this in Philly. We wouldn't GREETING/INVOCATION drink, get disorderly, damage or vandalize public property in our community in Montgomery County or in Delaware County or in Bucks County where many of our parents moved to get away from the ills of the inner-city, but we can go back to Philadelphia at our leisure and decide that we can have a little more freedom to do these kinds of things. And I think as time goes on -- and skateboarding is a small example. As time goes on and people get older, they come to believe that what you can do in Philadelphia and get away with in Philadelphia is different than what they can get away with in their own community. And I think some of the problems that have exacerbated and progressed and evolved at Vets Stadium, on Columbus Boulevard, on South Street, in Manayunk, and in other places where our own residents complain about this behavior, I think is a result of our allowing different levels and standards of behavior in a city than they do in the suburban. You know, again, I want to make sure I -- I don't want to criticize these young men who are skateboarding as somehow ultimate, you know, rowdy drunks at the Vet, but I think there is some GREETING/INVOCATION correlation between what we allow people to get away with in our city and what they're not allowed to get away with in the suburbs. I think there's correlation to that. And its one of the reasons, in addition to the million dollars a year or so that Joe Martz, our managing director, estimates we spend to repair these facilities. That reason, and the reasons I suggested, are talked about now and are the reasons why I'm supporting this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The facts for me are very, very compelling. To underscore what Councilman Kenney has said, the fact is that 60 percent of these young people don't live in Philadelphia. The fact is that given the reverse, that kind of conduct would not be tolerated in the suburban areas. The fact is that this Council has looked at the issue for the past four or five years. The fact is that approximately $1 million has been invested by the GREETING/INVOCATION City, which conceivably could go towards public education. So given that and given that an attempt has been made by Councilman Kenney and myself to -- as we're taking away, we're also going to look at giving back an area that's acceptable to the skateboarding community so that they can condition continue to enjoy the entertainment they enjoy on Love Park. So given those reasons -- and, yes, I will say again, the challenge for us as public policy makers is to find and strike a balance. While we're taking away, it's incumbent upon us to give back. And in the resolution that Kenney and I have sponsored, it is our attempt to give back. For that, I am voting in favor of this bill.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, during the course of the discussion over the summer, regardless as to whether or not we pass this bill now, I want to GREETING/INVOCATION again, for the record, impress upon you the importance of dealing with these skateboarders in some of our surrounding neighborhoods. In my particular neighborhood, there are a number of youth who currently use the streetway, which is relatively dangerous, and I wanted to make sure that they, during the course of this discussion of any potential expenditures of capital funds to create these venues to skateboard, that they also look at some of the surrounding recreation centers within our many neighborhoods as a part of this discussion.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. Let me just mention a few things, and then I will talk about what Councilman Nutter and I talked about privately. And that is, number one, when we had hearings the other day, this chamber was filled with people from Philadelphia. Those testified were local, so I can't speak for people in the suburbans, nor do I represent them, GREETING/INVOCATION but the people who were in these chambers and spoke at our hearing were Philadelphians. And, number two, I have a copy of the bill before me. And under Section 2, under Section 3, Penalty, it mentions $300 and also mentions, number 4, enforcement, that an officer may seize the skateboard. And the new section added talks about $300. "Further, the total amount of any penalty assessed for each violation, taking into account the value of both fine and forfeiture, shall not exceed $300." And that is new and being directed to the bill. Having said that nonetheless, I have conferred with Councilman Nutter, and we certainly are willing to talk with the skateboarders over the summer. Councilman Nutter seems to be agreeable to, if nothing is worked out, we come back here in September and we have a bill before us. Certainly, I agree to support a bill if we can't work something out. And I'm happy to put that on the record, that I will support legislation if we can't work out a compromise that I hope we can work out over the summer. And I would ask the Chair if she would GREETING/INVOCATION ask Councilman Nutter if that is acceptable.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll try to respond to the questions in a few minutes. With regard to the public hearing, it's my recollection that there were probably about 60 or so in the crowd, only 4 of whom actually testified. So I'm not sure how we're accounting for who is in the City, who was not in the City. I don't necessarily know that people had any identification on their T-shirts or on their heads that necessarily designated where they were from. Secondly, the $300 fine that's been referred to on a number of occasions, Madam President, is already in the Philadelphia Code. It is a reprint of language from the Code. And as I said before, if you get a violation notice and pay it within]8 days, it's $25. Third, it is already illegal by Fairmount Park regulations to skateboard at Love Park. It is already illegal by City Council ordinance that was passed by this body some years GREETING/INVOCATION ago to skateboard at the Municipal Services Building. So, I mean, to some extent, we have dealt with these issues and we have not seen a complete abandonment of the sport of skateboarding throughout the City. With regard to the issue of a potential compromise or work it out or any of that language, I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding, quite honestly, Madam President, of what that exactly means and whether my colleague, Councilwoman Blackwell or whether my other colleague Councilman Cohen or anyone else is prepared to make a commitment that whatever these discussions are over the summer, they are what they are, and that a period gets put at the end of the sentence, that it's not some long, drawn-out, endless series of meetings about something that needs to take place. It is not prohibiting people from enjoying their particular sport. This is a very narrow issue of where you do what you do and are you responsible for the damage that you make. So I would like to get a much clearer -
I'm sorry. GREETING/INVOCATION Can you just clarify something for me, please. You did indicate that there are existing ordinances which would prohibit such activity in Love Park and around the MSB building?
The MSB building was prohibited by ordinance of this Council a few years ago.
So the question is enforcement; is it not? I mean, if we already have existing legislation -
Thee are a number of questions, Madam President. Thank you. There is an enforcement issue. The police have testified that by having this particular bill in place, with the confiscation provision, it gives them additional support to do what they need to do. There is also a provision in the bill that allows private property owners to post their properties to prevent this activity on their properties presently. They cannot do that right now, and that's why you had the Building Owners and Managers Association request City Council to add that provision to the bill. It was added at their request at the hearing, based on GREETING/INVOCATION their testimony and a laundry list of problems that they have at their own private facilities. As I mentioned earlier, the Bell Atlantic Tower suffers $15,000 annually in damage; 1600 Market Street, $8,000; 1601 Market, $8,000; 1700 Market, $10,000. (These are figures provided by the BOMA Association.) One and Two Commerce Square, 2001 and 2005 Market Street, $20,000 annually; and the Wanamaker building across the street is a couple thousand dollars annually. There were a number of other people testified at the hearing about this particular issue. So it's not just public property; it also has a benefit to private property owners who have open plazas that are open to the general public -- they are not private, secure areas -where they are experiencing, whether on granite or stone or their railings and the line, the same kind of activity going on, and that provision was put in the bill at the request of the Building Owners and Managers Association. So it is not just public property in question. So, I mean, the issue arises that the discussion has been, can we work it out? Again, GREETING/INVOCATION Madam President, I would say I'm not exactly clear what that means. And if my colleagues are saying that through the Managing Director's office and through the Recreation Department, if there are a series of hearings and they're prepared at this City Council session to commit to supporting the bill when we return on September 14th, I'd be interested in that kind of a discussion.
Councilwoman Blackwell, would you please respond to Councilman Nutter's question?
Thank you. As they say, the bottom line is, we're prepared to work with certainly the business community who is affected by this, the skateboarders and representatives from the City to work it out over the summer. If it is not worked out, then we have committed ourselves to voting for the bill. I think that's as clear as I can make it.
Well, the "we" can be whomever you choose. GREETING/INVOCATION
No, I know about the people who are going to be working it out. I'm saying that if there are Councilmembers who are concerned at the moment, are those Councilmembers prepared to commit to voting for the bill September 14th upon our return based on this discussion period that has been the work-out period? That's what I'm trying to understand. I want to know when there's going to be an end to this.
For the third time, I will vote for the bill if we don't work it out. I can't be any clearer than that. If we work it out, then apparently we don't need a bill, or maybe we don't need a bill and we don't know what happens. If we do not work it out, then I've said I'm committed to voting for the bill.
"Work it out" means that everybody is satisfied from the business community to the City to representatives from Council and skateboarders that these are the mutually agreeable sites and/or set of GREETING/INVOCATION circumstances under which they can operate. I don't know what else you want.
I understand. I guess what I'm struggling with a little bit is that we have to engage in a process. I mean, your suggestion is that we engage in a process to try to work something out with people to stop them from destroying public property. I mean, is that what we're talking about?
Sure, that's fine. Any way you want to interpret it is fine. But if we -- let's work it out.
Councilwoman Tasco, do you wish to be recognized?
So much for trying to work it out here. This discussion raises a question for me. One of the questions I have, though, if we were to find a facility for the skateboarders to skate in and that is what we do, how do we -- how do we commit? As someone said, the skateboarding community is not monolithic. Those who agree to using these facilities don't necessary bind those individuals who may come from other surrounding GREETING/INVOCATION areas. And so I think we need to look at what we do to protect the property of the private owner as well as the City.
Absolutely, we will absolutely do that. So we begin a process, they've already started looking for sites, per my colleague Councilman Kenney, who said that at caucus. So let's start it, try to work it out and see where we end up. The worst-case scenario is, we end up back here, our first session of Council and we vote for it if nothing else happens. So we lose a matter of weeks. Let's see what we can work out and have a positive attitude and see what we can work out. If we fail, we have the bill here and we vote for in September and then vote for -- it does say $300 in this legislation. And we vote for it and we fine kids and their parents $300 and take their skateboards. That's the worst-case scenario. So can't we then agree just to hold up?
You want me to GREETING/INVOCATION commit to a process that we have just started.
I'm willing, Councilwoman Blackwell, to hold off, but the question becomes, how do we bind all skateboarders to prevent them from skating on public property or private property, even when we work out the issue? And that's what we have to look at also.
Well, we look at all of it as we go through the summer. We can't answer all of the questions now and work in a vacuum, with just us having this discussion. You have to try to work it out with everybody at the table. Let's try to work it out. We can't answer all of the questions now. Obviously, I'm not a skateboarder. I mean, let's give it a chance and to try to work it out and think positively and proceed with good intentions and see where we go. I'm getting suggested sites, like Eighth and Market. And Councilman Cohen says he'd love to believe to say he's a skateboarder. (Laughter.)
Oh, I thought he was. GREETING/INVOCATION Councilman Nutter? Councilman Nutter, are you. . . Councilman Nutter, Councilman Nutter?
If we're finished caucusing, could we move on, please.
Madam President, I think what I would like to suggest, as we do have a very long calendar, and I deeply apologize that such a weighty matter would hold up a calendar. What I would like to suggest is if we could go beyond, go to the next bill and keep running the calendar.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved November 13, 1997, which authorized the Commissioner of Public Property to execute a deed located in the Northeast corner of Seventh Street and Patterson Avenue, of the 39th GREETING/INVOCATION Ward of the City of Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions.
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.
Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members of having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 000219.
An ordinance amending Chapter 16-400 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Vacant and Surplus Properties," by adding a GREETING/INVOCATION subsection on the Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation.
This bill having been read two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally? The clerk will please call the roll.