10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 5, 2005 10:25 a.m. - - - Bill 050742 PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 050742. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 9 amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by adding a new chapter setting forth rules and regulations governing Council's consideration of requests for approval of permits to sell malt or brewed beverages for consumption off premises in Philadelphia; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you very much. Our first witness? MR. McPHERSON: Our first witness is Walter Tieczynski.
Walter, would you please take the witness stand, identify yourself for the record. 3 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
I came here just because it was Council as a whole, and then what I want to speak about is concerning Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the entire country, in a sense.
You're not interested in testifying on the bill?
All 4 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 right. At a later date, we'll be more than happy to hear from you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Tracey Gordon.
Is Tracey Gordon here? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: David Thomsen.
Good morning, sir. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. My name is David Thomsen, T-H-O-M-S-E-N. I live in the Fairmount section of Philadelphia. Some of the Councilpeople may recognize me as an officer of the Civic Association there, but I want to make clear that I am speaking on my own behalf, not of the Civic Association or any other group. And I'm not speaking for or against the bill, but I do have some questions about the bill, which I think will be helpful for Council to perhaps clarify, and 5 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 whether there should be a change in the bill, I don't know. First of all, there's a Section 5 2908(2) which says something about electronic search of the docket. Does that mean that it's going to be on the web, or what does that mean?
We will certainly have Mr. Auerbach respond. He is our attorney on staff.
The docket is electronically available. It should be on the Internet. That's being repaired at the moment, but it is available for e-mail, if anyone wants to be on an e-mail distribution list. Hopefully it will be on the Internet in the next day or so.
Secondly, for community groups that wish to be represented, do they have to prove that they have 15 members within 500 feet when they file a protest? At the hearing, can the applicant try to prove that they 6 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 don't have those members? How strict is that rule about Civic Associations having members, 5 businesses or members, within 500 feet, 6 and is it only up to the Clerk or is it 7 also a question for the Hearing Examiner, 8 if there is a hearing? 9
If a community 10 group is not located within 500 feet of 11 the establishment, then it must have 15 12 members who do live within 500 feet of 13 the establishment. That information has 14 to be on the protest forms. 15 We've received a lot of petitions so far. We do review to see if the 15 people are within 500 feet, and accept the protest if there are 15 people within 500 feet and we reject the protest if there are not.
I see. Is the registered address with the state the address of the Civic Association within 500 feet or not? I'm a little curious as to how you know where 7 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 the Civic Association is, because with my group, the President and the officers are neighbors who move around and the officers change periodically.
Well, it can meet the standards either way. If there's a non-profit, a school or other non-profit organization that has an office located within 500 feet, they have standing to protest. They can also qualify to file a protest if they have 13 members who live within 500 feet. You 14 can qualify under either standard. 15
I see. This is encouragement to us to get more members, I can tell that.
And the permits only last one year and then they're up for renewal? Same thing all over again one year later? This is as I understand the case.
That's our understanding from the LCB. Again, the 8 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 permit that we're talking about is not a City Council permit. It's an LCB permit, and it is renewed by the LCB.
You didn't say whether the applicant could challenge the standing of the Civic Association at the hearing. Can they do that?
Okay. These conditions, this is something that comes up in Zoning Board hearings and I think something similar may be here. For example, when Live 8 was held, which was very close to our neighborhood and affected us, some of the take-out bar people had trucks full of beer, signs spread across the street and made a great effort to sell take-out beer, when they knew the City had prohibited the consumption of the beer at the event. I'm wondering if we could impose a condition, for example, not to do that. That's the kind of condition we 9 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 could ask for, or we could ask for conditions that they not sell before a certain hour, those kind of things, conditions that could be set. At least this would be a matter of negotiation between Civic Associations and the applicant before the hearing. That's the kind of thing you envision?
Correct. That was the intent of that provision of the bill, that the applicant and the protesters might reach some accommodation which would be reflected as conditions in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation.
I have one more question. The bill mentioned appeals. I imagine the underlying statute is talking about appeals to court. Both the applicant and the protesters have the right to go to court to appeal the application? In the meantime, it's in effect. The City Council approves it. Is that the way it works?
I believe Act 39 10 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 expressly says that an applicant who is disapproved has the right to appeal to Common Pleas Court. Other appeal rights may be granted under the law, but Act 39 doesn't mention that.
I see. Well, thank you very much. I'm sure that this is going to be a matter of concern to many Civic Associations, and I'm glad for the clarifications we received. Perhaps some of the applicants here will be interested in the same things. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, sir. If you don't mind waiting, please. Councilman Clarke, did you want to be recognized?
Yes, Madam President. I just wanted to follow up on that. I think what I heard Mr. Auerbach said in response to one of the questions that was raised by Mr. Thomsen as it 11 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 relates to the hearing process, I think I heard you say that there could be some accommodations made as a result of the protestants as it related to the ultimate approval?
Correct. The bill and the rules that Council adopted by resolution also provide that an application can be approved with conditions with the applicant's approval. The applicant would have to agree to the conditions, but then it would be reflected in the resolution of Council.
My follow-up question is, ultimately that applicant must come to the Council for a vote?
And there is a provision, a proviso put in place, similar to the Zoning Board. Does that 12 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 particular applicant's application then come to the Council for approval?
Correct. Council would have to, by resolution, approve with conditions. The fact that the conditions were in the Hearing Examiner's report doesn't have any effect until they're included in a resolution 10 that Council would adopt.
At the time that it comes to Council prior to the passage, can there be additional provisions put in or provisions taken out by the Council prior to the passage of the resolution?
Yes. The only condition is the applicant has to agree to whatever conditions Council includes in the resolution.
That stirred my thinking. Can I ask one more question, please? 13 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 There are quite a number of people that apparently are applicants here. How long do applicants who have existing take-out licenses have to go through this process? Everyone that has a take-out license now has to come through this process, I understand. How long do they have before their existing permit from the LCB expires and they have to be going through this process?
Act 39 provides that after October 31st, no one can sell take-out beer in Philadelphia without the new license. So after October 31st, if you don't have the new permit from the LCB, you can't sell take-out. The Act also put a 45-day clock on Council that once an application is filed with Council, Council has 45 days to approve or disapprove. If Council takes no action within 45 days, it's deemed approved.
I see. Does that mean Council will 14 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 have to meet in the summertime to vote on these things or they just by inaction will be approved?
Well, if there's an application, Council must act within 45 days.
Thank you very much, sir. Do we have any other questions? Excuse me, sir. Mr. Thomsen. Do you have questions for the witness?
All right. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Auerbach, as a follow-up to your response to Councilman Clarke, this issue, which I assume is being covered in Section 9-2907(2), this issue of 15 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 conditions with regard to a permit.
My only question is, other than taking into consideration whether or not the applicant adhered to the conditions as were previously agreed to and possibly approved by resolution, is there any agency within the government that has any responsibility to enforce those conditions notwithstanding the applicant's agreement that they will adhere to those conditions on their own?
Again, the license in question is an LCB license, so the conditions are not conditions of the licenses issued by the LCB. So our only hook, so to speak, in terms of enforcing the conditions was to, as it says in the bill, to take that into consideration at renewal time.
Thank you. Is there any provision or is Act 39 silent with regard to -- let's 16 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 just play this out. Let's say a person gets a permit that has conditions as approved by City Council. They grossly, blatantly violate those conditions. Is there any provision that allows the Council to then revoke the permit as granted by the Council that was only granted with conditions in the first place?
Well, that's a novel question. Again, the permit issued by the LCB does not have conditions attached to it. The conditions are conditioned --
The LCB only granted it because the Council approved it in the first place with conditions.
Correct. I'm really not sure what the answer to your question is. In theory, Council could revoke an approval and request the LCB to revoke the permit. I just cannot say with any certainty that 17 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 the LCB would follow the City's action.
I understand. I mean, this literally just came as a part of the thought process this morning based on the Q&A. I mean, it seems to me that if we're in a position to approve with conditions and the PLCB is going to take whatever Council sends up and stamp it as approved, that there has to be some recourse for violation. Otherwise, people will agree to virtually anything to get the approval and then subsequently do whatever they want, knowing that they may not have to face this process for up to a year.
Thank you, Madam President. 18 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 I think it will be important if either Mr. Auerbach or Mr. McPherson would explain to the folks that are here today why we are here. I mean, we understand as individual Councilmembers that we do have problems with stop-and-go's and other kinds of liquor establishments and other businesses, but I look around at the signs and they're asking us to stop Act 39, Philadelphia is a dictatorship, and I think that, and I could be wrong, but I think the majority of the people who are here today are under the impression that this bill was a bill that was initiated by this City Council and fail to realize that the Act was as a result of the state legislature and we are mandated to follow that Act. So, again, maybe they do understand, maybe they don't, but I think it would be wise if we can at least just give an overview of why we as a city, as a City Council, are holding hearings and 19 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 doing what we are mandated to do in the first place.
I think you summarized it very well, Councilman. Act 39 is not a City Council bill. Act 39 is a state law. It was initiated in Harrisburg, signed by the Governor in July. It requires the LCB to issue a new permit for take-out beer on and after October 31, 2005, and then it says that the LCB may not issue the license without City Council's approval. So that was a process that was put on the City of Philadelphia by the General Assembly, and the rules that we adopted, that Council adopted by resolution and that are set forth in the bill, are the way we've decided to implement that process that the General Assembly created.
Thank you. And if there is an issue with what Council ultimately decided by way of the resolution, obviously we're here to hear 20 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 that, but as far as the Act, this is for the people in the audience, the argument where you protest really should be in Harrisburg and not in this chamber as far as the Act is concerned, because I see "Philadelphia is anti-business," we're now targeting minority delis. This is all a result of the Act, and the protest, as I said, or the argument should be made, if it hasn't already, at the state legislature. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Would any other Councilperson like to be recognized? (No response.)
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call up the next witness. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Adam Xu on behalf of the Asian-American Licensed Beverage Association. 21 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilmembers. My name is Adam Xu, A-D-A-M, last name X-U. I'm the Chairman of Asian-American Licensed Beverage Association. So I'm here on behalf of approximately over 180 licensees in the City of Philadelphia who officially protest against Act 39 2005. Now, I understand, Your Honor, this Act is at a state level and all the protests should be up there, but we are here to thank you for giving us the opportunity to have our voice, let you know how do we feel about this Act, about this unfair law. Well, this Act clearly targets Asian-American business owners. Under this new law, there are so far over 600 applicants who have applied for take-out permits, and about 200 applicants are 22 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 Asian-Americans, most of them sitting here. However, 90 out of the 200 Asian-American applicants received protest letters. Only out of the 400 6 non-Asian-American applicants received 7 protest letters. Folks, it is clearly 8 discriminating. 9 Under City Ordinance Bill No. 10 9502121, effective May 5, 1995, all 11 licensees in the City of Philadelphia who 12 wants to sell beer off premises need to 13 apply for a take-out permit from the 14 Zoning Board of Adjustment. And so most 15 of us here did so. But this Act 39 16 deprives us of our permits, which is the 17 right to sell take-out beers, which is 18 our livelihood, we all know, and it 19 forces us to go through the entire new 20 zoning procedure like any other licensees in the City of Philadelphia. It clearly intrudes our personal property and violates our Constitutional right. Now, the purpose behind this Act 39 is to more effectively regulate 23 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 take-out beer business and have better control over the expanding of the take-out beer business in the City of Philadelphia. However, ladies and gentlemen, this law, Act 39, just created over 400 additional stop-and-go's, so-called, quotation mark, take-out beer establishments over night in a very short period of time, that's a few weeks only, without going through regular zoning procedure. Is that what the City wants? Well, we need your help. Ladies and gentlemen, Councilmembers, please help us to stop this Act 39, stop discriminating and stop any unfair law. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to respectfully disagree with the premise of the gentleman's statement, with every respect 24 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 to him and the information that he shared on the record. My only real response is that I have lodged protests with regard to applicants in my district. There is not one shred of information or evidence that you can provide that would indicate in any way, shape or form whether or not I took those actions involving any of those businesses in consideration of race, ethnic background, color or anything else. I participated this morning in the first protest hearing. The applicant was not Asian. I have any number of businesses in my district that have made application, many of which I've objected to based on the business. I didn't ask, I do not care in any way, shape or form who the applicant is, where they're from or what their ethnic background is. And so I cannot, under any set of circumstances, allow this record to be created in such a way that either individually or as a part of 25 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 this body that we would somehow in some way, shape or form be accused of being against any group of people based on their business activity or where they're from or any other basis. The General Assembly passed a bill, the Governor signed it, which is Act 39. We have an obligation to our constituents, regardless of where they live or their race or their concerns or anything else, to take action that is available to us. And so I would only encourage you in the course of your rightful protest about this to be respectful to the members and to this body about what we are trying to do and what we are not doing. There is no issue of discrimination. There is an issue of establishing a process and responding to concerns, and I don't really care where someone is from or what their background is. What I care about is what's going on 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 in the neighborhoods that I represent and whether or not utilization or having a take-out beer permit in any way, shape or form negatively affects the health, safety, welfare, peace and morals in those particular neighborhoods. Some will go through the process, some will be protested, but to make that broad and sweeping charge, I cannot sit and listen to that and have no 12 response. And I'm going to be respectful to you and you are respectful to this body, but I would ask you to reconsider those kinds of comments knowing, if you do, the quality of the members in this City Council, the actions that have been taken by this body in the past. And this is a body that has stood for rights, has been in the forefront of rights. And so if there is a protest about Act 39, I would only respectfully say that that protest is more properly lodged in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. We have a bill and we're going 27 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 to follow it, and I'm going to continue to protest, and in no way, shape or form am I going to take into consideration what you have lodged as a wrongful charge against either myself or any other member of this body. So we can have a respectful disagreement about it, but I'm going to do my job and represent my constituents, and I do not care and will not take into consideration issues of race or ethnic background in making my decision, and I would respectfully ask you to reconsider the comments that you made in alleging that somehow this body was anti-Asian-American. We are pro community and everyone in this community. Thank you.
I don't believe it was a question, but you can certainly be recognized at this time.
Is it true, because 28 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 it's all public records, there are over 600 applicants in the City of Philadelphia? MR. McPHERSON: As of this morning when we checked, there have been 637 applications filed.
Thank you. Very good. And is it true that so far, about 115, somewhere there, applicants received protesting letters?
Thank you. So the 116 protesting list, 90 of them happen to be the applicants sitting here. Most of the applicants sitting here are Asians. Now, I understand. I respect Honorable Councilman Michael Nutter's 29 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 comments that this City is well known for fighting against race discrimination. We will respect all that, and we respect any effort to control the illegal or those nuisance bars, any effort. We're supporting that. And I'm sure that Honorable Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell knows last year we were here. It was November 26th, somewhere there. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding, and this association again did anything we can to work with the City. Now, again, the number will not lie. I'm not talking about race discrimination, please. I am just asking the Councilmembers here, the City of Philadelphia, please take a look at the number and let us know what we did wrong and help us to correct it. And, you know, for God's sake, that Memorandum of Understanding is so beautiful. I just checked with Honorable Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell that we so 30 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 proud posted a sign saying Member or Partner with the City Legislature. What we are doing is trying to cooperate with the City government, but what we deserve, all the sudden, it's only six months later, this law coming down. Now, it could be incidental. Let's say it's incidental, but we need some kind of explanation why the 115 protesting named list, among them is 90 of us. And I think with ten percent extra tax revenue on top of any other tax we have to pay, liquor tax we pay and at the first class City of Philadelphia, all the licensees, all the licensees in the City of Philadelphia deserve more respect than this Act 39. Am I right or wrong? (Applause.)
Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 31 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. Madam President, I can only speak about the Fifth Council District, because I'm not privy to what protests were lodged in various districts, but first if I can talk about what the gentleman is obviously concerned about, and I actually have some concerns about what people may think we're attempting to do, not only in this particular bill but in a prior bill that we in City Council passed that talked about hours of operations of take-out stores in residential areas. We fortunately passed that bill 18 and I was accused informally of being anti-Asian, although that particular bill 20 had no reference to any particular racial group. I had a meeting with representatives from the Asian community and talked about the specifics of the bill, and at the end of that meeting, it was kind of understood, in my estimation, 32 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 that the bill clearly wasn't targeting any particular ethnic group. It simply talked about certain quality of life in certain residential neighborhoods, and I hope that that was cleared up, but, again, we find ourselves responding to legislation, as Councilman DiCicco indicated, that was passed on to us from Harrisburg in a very short time frame, and that put us -- and I can speak again about myself -- put me as a Councilperson who represents the Fifth Council District and large portions of North Philadelphia in somewhat of a dilemma. It was clear to me based on conversations with people in the communities, once they ultimately found out that, A, in some instances the time frame for protests had passed; B, there was a substantial amount of confusion about the bill and what the bill stood for -- and we made a decision in the Fifth Council District to protest a substantial amount of the applications 33 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 that came in, which I think attributed to a large number of protests that we have before us today. The reality is, for some reason, the disproportionate number of those protests happen to be individuals of Asian descent. I had nothing to do with that. We just simply protested those applicants that were in the Fifth Councilmanic District. So apparently there was a substantial number of individuals who applied that were of Asian descent in the Fifth Council District. I'm glad that Mr. Auerbach talked about the fact that there are opportunities to have provisions both at the hearing level and also subsequently at Council resolution. I anticipate in a number of instances, based on the number of protests that we have lodged, there will be situations where there will not be any opposition from this Councilperson or that particular community, but we 34 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 simply weren't in a position because of the time imposed on us to go out and talk to every community and have a community meeting in every particular community to find out if there's a problem with that establishment. We are more than willing to have discussions with anyone who has some concerns about a particular location, but my protests were driven by years and years of concern that were raised to me as a District Councilperson about a lot of establishments in North Philadelphia that are problematic. We had our first hearing today, and I think the community representatives put on a good case to deny these applications for those particular establishments that were placed today. But saying that, I believe that myself, and in some degree speaking for some of the community residents, are more than willing to sit down and talk about some of the problems, some which actually 35 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 technically have nothing to do with take-out beer but other quality of life issues that arise as a result of that establishment being there.
So I just wanted to say all that to say that probably a substantial number of that 116 can be attributed to the Fifth Council District, but the Fifth Council District Councilperson is willing to have discussion about any and all of those applications.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. I have to say that I pretty much agree with Councilman Nutter on the whole issue here of race. We all have through the years, as we represent our community, have had to go to numerous community meetings and respond to community concern about 36 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 take-out in the community. We have been somewhat successful in my district to protest at the zoning or protest on the state level what the Liquor Control Board to even prevent some of the stop-and-go's coming in. For us, it's not a matter of race. It's a matter of the operation of the facility in terms of activity that goes on at the stop-and-go. I have, I think, four protests that are coming from the community that I'm not personally involved because I intend to vote in Council on that, but the community -- I did not have to get involved in the protest because the complaints have been constant about the facilities that are being protested. Now, the fact that it may be owned by an Asian, that's not an issue for us. The issue for us is that we, in these instances, have met with the owners of these establishments, tried to work out some way to cut down on the issues that are raised by the neighbors and have 37 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 not been successful. So the neighbors, the community, not I, will be protesting, the people who live around these facilities who live daily with the noise, the drug activity, the constant calls to the Police Department, and that is why we are protesting and they are protesting. And for me, not all of them are Asian in my district, but that is not an issue for me. We are protesting, as Marian Johnson says, the land use issue of the facility and not the personality of the owner. We don't know them, don't know their background, and sometimes you don't even know who the owner really is. There may be a manager at the facility. So you can't get into the ownership of it. You have to research the ownership of it. So I, too, would not like to be labeled that this Council is being racist, because the Councilmembers themselves are not raising the issues. 38 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 We have to respond to the people that we represent in our district. I have a number of stop-and-go's or facilities for take-out who have filed applications that we've received no protest from the community. I don't know who they are, whether they're black, white, Asian, Dominican, Indian, whatever, but no one has protested. But we do know the ones that are being protested, because we have worked with the Police Department in many efforts to try and close them down. The fact that they happen to be owned by Asian just happens to be that fact. It doesn't mean that we targeted them because they were Asian. Because there are Asians that can be on the same block and are on the same block, where we have one that we really want to get rid of and one we have no problem with, and they are Asian owners. So to say that we are being racist, the fact that we might look at 39 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 the number of take-outs -- and I don't know if we've done this in response to this to see how many of them are actually Asian owned in the total 600. The fact is that race is not a consideration in this issue, and I would hope that again, like Councilman Nutter said, you respect the fact that we have responsibility to our constituents and to those people who are on the same strip as those businesses. People will not shop on those strips because they can't get past the negative activity going on at the stop-and-go.
Thank you very much. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. Certainly we want to thank the Chairman of the Asian-American Licensed Beverage Association and all those who are members of the organization for 40 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 coming. I've asked my staff to show you a community partnership store sign for those who were not here when we signed a Memorandum of Agreement. We have over 300 businesses who are part of the Asian-American Licensed Beverage Association and others who have signed up who have made an agreement not to sell loose cigarettes and cigar paper and blunts and many other items that we find of particular problem to communities. They also agreed in that Memorandum to meet with the community, as Councilman Clarke has asked for. They've also agreed to meet with the community if there are any special problems and to make sure that they interact with the community. They also give out scholarships every year to our districts. And so they have shown that they are partners in our community, they want to work with us and that they're trying to do a very, very good job. 41 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 The Chairman has done a fine job. We work very, very well together. They do their best to work well with us. This is a very unfortunate situation. Council knows how I feel about this legislation, but I do want to say again to the Chairman and to all the members of the Asian-American Licensed Beverage Association that we thank you for your support and for being here.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning and thank you for your testimony. I am never going to be one to shy away from a discussion of racial discrimination or easily dismiss it. I came into this Council talking about 42 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 racial discrimination. A big part of my fall legislative agenda will deal with racial discrimination. So I'd like to take this time to be helpful and actually explore this issue with you. I want to start with the issue of where you think the racial discrimination originated. What is the origin of that discrimination as it relates to the issue before us?
What is the origin of the racial discrimination in the matter that is before us? Where did it start? Where did it start? When did it start? With whom did it start?
We've dealt with that, sir. I'm asking, what is the origin of it? Where did it start? Did it start at the state level with the legislators? Are you in fact accusing the legislators of racial discrimination? 43 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
It started at the state level. You believe that there is discrimination at the state level?
And you believe that the intent of this Act was what? You said in your testimony that it is to regulate take-out beer, but why is there a need to regulate take-out beer sales?
There is always a need to regulate some trouble business, if that is what we call it, and that's what we've been told. So if there is any need, the state legislature feels there was a need to regulate the take-out business, that's their job.
And what do you view as the particular trouble with the sale of take-out beer that the legislature was trying to tackle?
The view I have -- 44 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 last year, November the 26th, we've been discussing all this problem already. Yes, indeed like any other business, take-out beer business have their own trouble, sell to minors, rolling papers or whatever the problem is, but any other business, they have their own problem.
I'm asking you specifically about the issue before us. I'm asking you specifically about the action taken by the legislature in terms of Act 39. I'm asking you specifically, what do you think they have identified as being the trouble in that business?
Well, that is their consideration. I will have no knowledge how do they and why they passed this law.
How can you not know what their legislative intent was at all, but then again call it 45 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 racist?
We call it racist, yes, indeed, because we know the result. The numbers won't lie.
Sir, I started this line of questioning by talking about the origin of racial discrimination in this matter. I take this very seriously, and I want to explore where the racial discrimination started and where it exists, because I want to deal with this issue of racial discrimination.
What was their intent in passing Act 39? What were they targeting in terms of any troubles related to take-out beer sales?
Good. And that will be in the state court, not a City Council level right here. So I don't think that 46 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 we are here to argue about this.
The question was, what do you believe the state legislature was targeting as a problem with take-out beer sales in Philadelphia? Why did they do Act 39?
Oh, that's nice. Let's deal with the next level of discrimination. You have tried to prove that there is racial discrimination based upon the number of applications that were protested.
So you're accusing the people who protested of being racist?
Then who is racist? If you're saying that -- 47 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
Excuse me, sir. If you're saying that there were X amount of applications --
Excuse me. -- (continued) and X amount were protested and, therefore, the number of Asians that were protested shows racial discrimination, my question is, do you know who protested those applications and are you in fact calling them racist?
Your Honor, I never used the word "race." All I need is one explanation, please, some explanation. That's what I started at the beginning.
I'm trying to help you deal with this issue, whatever you want to call it.
-- that there's discrimination against Asian-Americans in this process?
Okay. Let's call it Asian-American discrimination, then.
In the amount of applications that were protested, you are alleging that there was Asian-American discrimination. Are you alleging that that discrimination took place by the protesters and are you in fact saying that the people who protested those applications discriminated against Asian-Americans?
You now are not saying that the people who filed those protests discriminate against Asian-Americans?
I have no 49 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 understanding of your testimony whatsoever, then. You completely contradicted yourself on record. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Councilman. Councilwoman Krajewski, your light was on. Did you want to be recognized?
Well, first of all, I don't think it's discrimination. I just think it's discrimination against the bars that have no violations. I just don't think that it's fair. I think we should work on a merit system. The ones that have the violations or what-have-you are the ones that should be paying, not the bars that have no violations at all. It's not fair.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney. (Applause.) 50 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
Thank you, Madam President. It's really a shame we're having this conversation today in the way we're having it, because over the 7 years I've been here, and probably before 8 I got here, this issue of deli licenses 9 and take-out beer deli license, the 10 stop-and-go's, whatever you want to call 11 them, has been going on, and even though 12 we're forced by the legislature to deal 13 with this now and they're forced, many of 14 them, I'm sure most of them, good, decent 15 business owners in the City, are forced to deal with it. As Councilwoman Krajewski said, the neighborhood corner family-owned tap rooms and bars are forced to deal with it. There's a lot of blame to go around, and although the blame game won't fix anything and we have to deal with what we deal with now, it's important for the record to understand that the state of Pennsylvania and the Liquor Control 51 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 Board created this problem for us in many ways by creating the deli license in the first place and not enforcing the regulations of deli licenses on renewals. Because when we had these fights years ago, and as all the District Councilpeople know, when you go to the LCB and you try to get a hearing and you fight this and they go to court, it never ends. A deli license was originally intended for a place that was more like a restaurant or a delicatessen that we traditionally know than what it's become today, and, that is, a glass enclosed facility where there's potato chips, Tastykakes, cigarettes, blunts, rolling papers and malt liquor. And that's not what the deli license was intended to do. The state has never, has never enforced the law properly and allowed these businesses to flourish. People get into a business, they're making a living, and no one is telling them they can't do 52 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 it. A delicatessen is a delicatessen of what we're used to. You go in, you sit down, you have a corned beef sandwich and if you want a beer, you should be able to have one. This is not what this is. This is more like a beer distributor. The state has responsibility to enforce that. I'll tell you the truth, I think the police -- and I love our Police Department and I love our Commissioner and the Commissioners that I've worked with in the past. How do they allow this activity to go on on the street outside any business, not just take-out beer delis? How do they allow the drug dealing and public urination and drunkenness? And if any of this activity was going on outside any other business in the City, they'd stop it. And for years, we can't do anything about it. Well, why not? They're breaking the law outside by drinking out of open 53 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 containers. They're breaking the law by selling drugs outside these facilities. They're breaking the law -- (Applause.)
And a lot of times the people who are really suffering are the good people in the community who live there, the residents who have to deal with this stuff, the other merchants around these facilities that are acting badly that can't conduct business because people don't want to come there. And a lot of times the customers of these stores are also to blame for this situation, and they seem to have somehow escaped any blame in this stuff. I mean, you normally don't go into a store, buy a product, come outside and do crime. I mean, you don't normally go into a corner bar, come out and drink on the sidewalk. I mean, you don't normally urinate in public. You don't 54 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 normally sell drugs. So the customers in this situation are also to blame in this case. Store owners, some of them, I've seen operations that are just downright bad actors, don't care, don't want to talk to anybody about fixing the problem. But there are also other store owners in this situation who are afraid. I mean, how do you expect a store owner and their family to police a business where the police are afraid to do anything about it? How do you expect them to go out and get in physical altercations with customers because they won't leave the front of the store or because they're urinating in public or because they're doing things when you allow them the bathroom, they're doing things they shouldn't be doing? How do you expect them to physically deal with that problem when the police won't deal with it? So we're in a situation now 55 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 where we have to deal with the problem. I don't know whether or not Act 39 is even going to hold up as time goes on on the state legislative level, whether they're going to change it, amend it or throw it out altogether. I don't know whether Act 39 is going to exist as a result of any court action that's taken from an applicant that's turned down, because we've been to federal court before on this situation where the federal courts reversed everything the City was trying to do to control it. We have to deal with it. It's our problem. The legislature put it on our lap and we're going to have to deal with it. But in the end, the Liquor Control Board and the state of Pennsylvania are the ones ultimately responsible for allowing this situation to fester and not change it. They need to change the beer deli or eLicense, whatever it is. They need to change the standards. They need to get the state 56 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 police to enforce the standards. That's their responsibility. And we need to get the Philadelphia Police more involved in enforcing liquor laws in the City, because I think they're allowed to do it. (Applause.)
Along with the other colleagues that have spoken, I don't believe this is an issue of discrimination. I don't believe this is an issue of racism. It's an issue of some bad business people who have not done what they're supposed to do and some bad customers who don't act properly in the neighborhood. Again, Councilmembers, especially District Councilmembers, are responsible and required to address the concerns of their constituents. These are people who are living in the community for many, many generations, paying their taxes, going to work, and they're dealing with this problem on a daily basis. 57 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 So I don't know where we go with this, and I do not believe that it's racial discrimination or ethnic discrimination. I know that Councilmembers that have opposed some of these applicants that are going on now have fought for years against discrimination and this sort, and I don't know of any member in this Council that harbors any of those feelings. So it's a shame we're here today. I think we have to get through it in some way or another, but I just wanted the record to reflect that there's a lot of blame to go around, and while we're dealing with it here, I just think it's sad that we have to have this discourse.
Thank you very much, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. I, too, agree with my 58 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 colleagues that this is not a matter of discrimination. In most cases, you don't even know who the actual owner is of some of the establishments. This is a quality of life issue. This is nuisance activity, loitering inside and outside, irregardless to who operates or owns the business. As a District Councilmember over the years, certainly we've gotten many complaints. There are some places we've been able to work with and come up with a set of conditions and people work hard to keep those conditions and some of the other provisions, and there's other places, no matter what you do, nothing changes. And Councilman Kenney raised a legitimate point regarding the customers and their behavior. So I just, too, want to go on record as making sure that I say that I don't believe it's discrimination. It's the acts. There's also the issue that we have to recognize of intimidation. And I 59 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 believe that most all the owners want to be good owners and want to be good operators and do the right things, but I guess it's that our communities are overflowed with people with take-out beer licenses, whether it's a stop-and-go. Every time a bar closes doesn't mean we have to replace it with a take-out beer or every time somebody opens up a deli doesn't mean we need beer. So I just wanted to make sure that I put my comments on record also. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, sir. We really appreciate your coming in to testify.
Thank you, President Council, for giving us an opportunity. May I finish my last statement here?
Thank you. Again, the number may be incidental, and I'm not saying it is racial discriminating. It happened to be 90 of us has been receiving this protesting letters out of the 115, and I think that number will bring your attention. That's all I want to say. We want fair treatment and we don't want any discriminating. That's all I want to say. Thank you.
Our next witness is Eleanor Driscoll. Is Ms. Driscoll here? Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Eleanor Driscoll. I'm President of the Licensed 61 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 Beverage Association of Philadelphia. I'd like to thank you for having me here this morning. I'd like to point out, Act 39 as much as it's discriminating, and we're talking about the take-out beer, there's a lot of other issues that need to be addressed. It's discriminating in the sense that things are just for Philadelphia, they're not for other counties. We have to have a 30 percent sales tax -- (Applause.)
We have to have a 30 percent food requirement in order to be open on Sunday. Distributors don't need to have that. We have to pay 10 percent on our liquor tax. Distributors don't have to do that. And now they're able to be open on Sundays. So we seem to only be talking about the take-out beer. I find it very frustrating to have to pay $600 for a license I've 62 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 already paid almost $1,200 for that allows me to do this exact same thing. The Sunday sales, we have the food, and the distributors don't have to have that. Take-out beer. And I think that's it. And now we're also fighting the no smoking. I think there's a lot of discrimination going against taverns. And I do agree there needs to be a separation of licenses that are restaurants. The Prime Rib, Le Bec-Fin has the same license as I do and, believe me, it's not the same kind of business. They don't have any take-out. And a deli has different issues. There should be a separation of the different licenses. And I understand that's a state issue, but I just wanted to mention that there are other things in Act 39. And I don't think it's discriminatory against the Asians. I think it's discriminatory against the licensees that are doing the right thing, 63 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 following the rules. And these are just more rules for the people that are following the rules. This originally was started -- I was here at a public hearing with the Liquor Review Board and there was a group of people very unhappy with the stop-and-go's and the speak-easies. No 10 one wants to deal with them if they're doing the wrong thing. They're giving a bad name to all our licenses. So this is much more a matter of enforcement. Close the places down that aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, and now instead we're penalizing the people that are following the rules. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you. I don't believe any of the Councilpeople have any questions for you. Thank you for coming in.
Can I 64 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 just make a statement? The next thing that's going to happen for the poor bar owners and tavern owners is, if they want to go outside to smoke a cigarette, now they're going to have all the neighbors on that block complaining it's a nuisance bar because they're hanging out, having a cigarette. (Applause.)
Thank you very much, Ms. Driscoll. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Bonita Cummings.
Hello, Council President, Mr. Auerbach and Mr. McPherson. My name is Bonita Cummings and I am an elected Committee Person, the 28th Ward, 13th Division, and I'm also the President of the Rhina (ph) Branch Friends Group. I first would like to say thank you to Councilman Clarke for preserving the human rights and the civil rights of 65 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 his constituency and the ancestors, their civil rights and human rights. Well, I had a meeting last night in Strawberry Mansion regarding State Act No. 39. It was a very well-attended meeting, and the community is better informed about what State Act 39 does for us, what our rights are. The issues that are relevant are the issues of the quality of life for our communities. We've asked for years -- this is not a new issue for residents of many communities. We've asked for years for help. We've screamed out and asked for help in our communities regarding these dehumanizing conditions that we have to live with in our neighborhoods. I feel discriminated against, and I feel discriminated against because I'm supposed to be a ghetto bunny. The only thing I'm supposed to want to do is drink 40's. I'm supposed to wake up every morning and just hang out on street 66 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 corners in front of businesses that do not obey the law. We've worked or tried to work in communities with these establishments, business establishments in and around Strawberry Mansion, and none of them will comply. So we've asked time and time again, only to not be respected in any way humanely. So I think if we really took a look at State Act 39, I think we will understand that it helps us to bring businesses into compliance. I think a lot of people are jumping the gun. And the 115 or so protests indicates again that the African-American community in particular has been generous, and that is 600 applications -- 600 plus applications that have been filed and less than 50 percent of them have been protested. So, again, I think that it shows that the communities take a lot more suffering and they feel that they don't really have an outlet. I think 67 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 this is an opportunity for everybody to look at how we can come into compliance with the conditions surrounding our neighborhoods. So I just wanted to talk to that effect today and hope that we can come to a good solution regarding what's really happening to us, because we see -- in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, I have a Memorandum of Understanding location here that I'm going to court with today. These are the conditions that we look at every day in our community (indicating). We walk into a location, the chairs are broken down. In this location in that facility, the chairs are chained up, and they're chained up so that you're forced back onto the street so there is no 21 opportunity for socialization. So these establishments dehumanize people in their neighborhoods. It takes away -- taverns and bars allow you to socialize. You go to a bar, you 68 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 meet your friends, and it's a quality of life condition that allows you to be humane. Stop-and-go's and businesses that don't comply with quality of life conditions dehumanize us, and we've been degraded to a level almost animalistic in our neighborhoods. So I'm hoping that we're not going to be pitted against our Councilpeople and that the real issues of why we're here today are not really being addressed. We don't want to continue to live in our communities -- these pictures on this wall, this is a naked woman (indicating). This is what our children see every morning when they go to school. The advertisements are plastered. You can't see in the stores, you can't see out. The glass partitions make it unsafe for all of our residents, because they can't -- if I fell down and had a 69 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 heart attack on one of their floors, they couldn't dial 9-1-1 for me because they can't see me.
So these are conditions that are real. These are not for play. And as a responsible adult, I cannot say to children, I want you to be somebody and, on the same hand, promote conditions that dehumanize them. So either we want to raise productive children in our neighborhoods or we want them all to be addicted to malt liquor, 40-ounce bottles. So I'm asking that we really take a look as those hearings go on and we come into City Council to ask that some of these conditions definitely be corrected. Thank you. )
Thank you very much. I really want to thank you for your involvement in your community and certainly for your coming 70 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 in to testify. Thank you so much. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Tracey Gordon.
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Good morning. My name is Tracey Gordon. I live in Southwest Philly, in your district, Madam President.
Good morning, Councilpeople. Before I make my speech, I just wanted to say thank you all who supported Act 39. I just wish you all would have did a little bit more due diligence in disseminating the information to the communities, because a few of us have been running around like a chicken without a head after work, before work to let the community know that they have 71 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 options now. And I know that whenever we have like community picnics or parties, I know for a fact that we take out big ads in the community newspapers, and I felt that there should have been some funding set aside and put big ads. I seen an ad in the Southwest Globe Times in which you placed in there, Madam President, but that was basically almost after the 14th day deadline. Most people didn't know about the green signs. I had to learn about them. We need for you all to disseminate the information for the community so they know what their options are instead of just a few of us who try to make time to run around and have meetings, because basically the community don't even know. Now, the testimony that I wanted to read, if you look at the date, it happened September the 14th, 2004. I read this same speech in front of the state legislature, I believe which 72 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 prompted Act 39, and I think it's still applicable right now. I would like to say thank you to Councilman Kenney, because I think he hit it on the nose, and this is where I want to take my testimony for the record in front of City Council today. We demand immediate action. To the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, you say you have a program that reviews each liquor license business in order to prevent abuse of the license period. You go on to state that if these establishments demonstrate a pattern of activities which is in conflict with the health and safety of the local community during license term, the PLCB will refuse to renew that license. We, the community, have evidence that the nuisance establishments, better known in our neighborhoods as stop-and-go's, are performing the following illegal, unethical and irresponsible activities in 73 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 our neighborhoods: One, the selling of loose cigarettes for cents -- since 4 then, they cost 50 cents now -- which 5 enables our minors to purchase. 6 Two, the selling of an 7 overabundance of blunt tobacco cigars 8 that we know are only used for smoking 9 marijuana. 10 Three, the selling of straight 11 shooters or roses, or they have them in 12 straws, which are used for smoking crack 13 cocaine. 14 When I addressed these stores 15 about those, they said, We are not 16 concerned about what they use the product 17 for afterwards. So, therefore, the 18 community has to put up with -- when they 19 sold those little glass roses, knowing 20 that they were smoking crack cocaine, 21 they made their dollar times how many 22 they sold, but the community had to bear 23 this burden of the crack addicts in our 24 community, but they wasn't concerned and 25 they didn't know what those roses 74 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 represented. Four, allowing them to continue to operate despite the unclean, dirty and unsanitary conditions in areas where food is prepared and in the waiting area. Five, allowing them to continue to operate without providing customers running water, drinking water, unless for sale. Illegal when you're selling hot food. Six, allowing them to operate without providing a clean bathroom where hot and cold water is served. I purposely go in there and ask to use their bathroom, and they continually tell us, Oh, they're broke. All of them are broke? Seven, allowing them to operate without providing proper seating. I just learned they're supposed to have seats and stuff when they're selling the take-out beer. Some of them don't even have a seat for you to sit in.
Allowing them to operate while 75 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 they permit drug dealers to sell drugs and addicts to purchase drugs on and around their premises. I have eye-witnessed this myself. This is not just throwing this out in the wind. The drug boys know that they can hang in these establishments and sell these drugs. And they're probably honestly saying they don't see it. Why? Because they're behind Plexiglass that is barricaded with blunts all over to block them. The only thing they can see is our cash money, and you got to bend your head down to send your cash money. So they're probably honestly telling you they don't see the drug deals, because they don't see what's going on outside. We do. Nine, allowing them to operate while they permit drug dealers, drunks and other suspicious behavior to dwell and linger around their properties. Ten, allowing them to operate without providing trash cans around their premises, which resorts in them trashing 76 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 our neighborhoods. The average stop-and-go, if you go on any of them, look on that block and you will see just garbage all over the place. Why? Because people shouldn't litter, but they're part of the problem if they don't provide the trash cans. They're letting them hang out there. Eleven, allowing them to operate under dirty conditions, windows dirty, counters soiled. If you go in the front, like I said, when our kids come to school, you got to see buck naked women with cigarettes, like that's healthy. I thought we was trying to get the kids -- to prevent them from smoking. Every brand of 40 liquor is sitting in there. We know beer is in there, but ya'll want our kids to know the beer is in there. Twelve -- is SEPTA here? Because they sell SEPTA tokens. That's illegal, loose tokens. Thirteen, allowing them to 77 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 operate without providing proper heat in the winter months and air conditioning in the summer. You go in there in the winter, it's freezing on the outside. Summer it's burning hot. You say the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board holds sessions with these liquor-licensed establishments that create a team atmosphere which focuses on a group approach to effectively deal with those establishments that degrade communities and harm their citizens. I put this in quotes because I went on the website on the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and they have rules that they are allowing to be abused. Have you visited the stop-and-go's in our neighborhoods in West, Southwest, Northwest, Germantown and South Philly? They are filthy and disgusting, and every neighborhood in our community are eyesores, and they're allowed to operate this criminal activity and behavior around their establishment 78 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 from as early as 7:00 in the morning and stay open as late as 3:00. One lady that just dropped a petition off said they stay open until 4:00. Where are these stores you always ask? Take a visit down to 52nd Street, south and north corridor, corner of 60th and Upland, corner of 60th and Chester, 62nd and Woodland Avenue, 60th and Haverford and almost the corner of 55th and Larchwood if it wasn't for the brave neighbors who dare -- and there was 688 days. They still out there three years boycotting the opening up of a stop-and-go in their neighborhood, and they're still open for business despite the protests. This is disrespectful to our communities, blatant disrespect. Who is protecting these nuisance establishments? Who is funding their operation? How does the City of Philadelphia allow this type of business to be conducted in our neighborhoods 79 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 without penalty? Where is the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board? Quote, they say, The legislature has generally limited the number of licenses for retail sale of malt liquor and brewed beverages and liquor to one license for each 3,000 inhabitants in the county. Does that include kids?
Because you can go in some neighborhoods, it's like nine on one block. It's unbelievable. We ask today that you do not approve or grant licenses to any more stop-and-go's. We don't need no more in our communities. Enough beer. No more. " We know those stop-and-go's are selling way more beer than food. Therefore, technically, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board should ban a minor under the age of from 7 going in that premises. 8 Because when our kids go in 9 there and they ask for a hub, they see 10 40's next to the hub. When they ask for 11 a bag of sunflower seeds, they see 900 12 different flavors of blunts. That's 13 subliminal seduction. That's like when a 14 bar -- if they're not allowed to go into 15 a bar, why should they be allowed to go 16 into a bar-like establishment? We need 17 to research that. 18 According to their website, they state delivering a no alcohol or zero tolerance message to all citizens under the age of 21, promoting responsible alcohol beverage services and practices among licensees and persons that serve alcohol beverages in Pennsylvania. 81 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 Then if this is responsible, then why is the entire window on the outside of their establishment got big 40 bottles with the muscle man and the woman? You ain't going to look that beautiful drinking that much 40's. Why are the Pennsylvania Liquor Control and our City allowing them to come in our communities and just kill a wall? That's not a deli. Why do they allow these establishments to advertise huge posters with scantily clad men and women holding beer and smoking cigarettes if you are concerned and responsible for our youth not being subliminally seduced by these ads? If you claim you have support services that work with the community, where are the investigators, enforcement officials and public relations outreach? We need for you to do the job that you are being paid for via our taxpayer dollars and stop the way these nuisance establishments do business in 82 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 our community. Stop allowing them to profit off illegal, unethical and irresponsible practices in our community. Our quality of life is being jeopardized.
Thank you very much for coming in to testify. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Lorraine Taylor.
Is Lorraine Taylor here? I believe she's here. I'm being told she's here. Then we have one last witness after Lorraine Taylor and that's Greg Spearman. Good morning, Ms. Taylor. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Lorraine Taylor. I'm the Vice-President of the Philadelphia License and Merchant Association. 83 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 I'm here today not because this bill has passed but because it has affected our businesses. My bar is in the heart of North Philadelphia. I don't do that much take-out business, but just the idea of somebody coming in my establishment asking me for a take-out, I don't feel as though that I can afford $600 to pay three to the City, three to the state. It wouldn't pay me to do it, because I'm not making that kind of money for take-out, but I do have a business, and I'm thinking about other people. It's not so much the effect of the Asians. It has affected everybody that's in the bar business. (Applause.)
And I feel as though it's an unfair bill. We're being overtaxed as it is. We're paying a 10 percent across the bar tax. (Applause.)
We're paying taxes already. It seems as though this is 84 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 being double dipped. How can you just keep on charging people? We got a liquor license. Now it's percent. Now it's 6 another bill. I mean, how much can we 7 pay? We'll be out of business. We'll be 8 out of business. 9 (Applause.) 10
Greg Spearman. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Greg Spearman, Committeeman, 60th Ward, 11th Division, President of the 18th District Community Town Watch that has an act of protests. This coming November it will be three 85 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 years at 55th and Larchwood protesting an establishment that we wish not to have in our community. I'd like to say from the beginning, I'm against Act 39 for various reasons also, and especially with what the last young lady just said, based upon that there, how it put an unfair charge on responsible businesses, because I believe that the Act was put into place to have some enforcement over these ill-responsible businesses. The young lady that had talked previously, she was really targeting ill-responsible businesses. Most of the Asian businesses in our community are responsible, by far. Most of the Asian businesses in our community do not have Plexiglas up. Most of the delis do, by far. And they're not really delis as I grew up to know delis. I came from South Philly to West Philly. My father had a store at 1119 South Street. That's back before 86 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 the big bang came in and moved all of us out. He had a delicatessen down there. And delicatessens were focused on providing fresh and good food to the community, with a nice atmosphere to sit down and have a cold beer. I guess during the middle of the day, you could go up to the deli and get something to eat, have something to eat, chat and chew with your friends during the lunch breaks. But with the influx of these take-out-style delis, from my understanding and the state of Pennsylvania, the only take-out liquor establishments are beer distributors. And they actually created a culture or a subculture in our community, because we can go back 30 years ago, we had none of this. My biggest thing with the stop-and-go's are the way that they conduct their businesses with the store configurations that promote the illegal 87 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 activities that are associated with their businesses. They're alive and well in our community. Most of them you don't have to get out of your car to see the violations. We went on a tour from City Council -- and really I'm not up for all of this here speech, because it's pretty much double talk to me. When you go out and you walk the streets, we took a tour with Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell and Councilman Rick Mariano from one of the hearings down here and showed the different ranges of these here type of establishments, because as we in the community went on, the City put it on the state, and this is as far as enforcement, and the state put it on the City. So we kept on going back and forth. When this here Act was introduced, I stopped Steve Masters at the end of the introduction of Act 39 and I asked him, Who is going to do the 88 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 enforcement? Steve replied, Good question. And that's the basic necessity that we need in our community. We need enforcement. We don't need any more laws for real, for real, because there are laws on the books that talk about seating, there are laws on the books that talk about restrooms, there are laws on the books that talk about drug paraphernalia, and all of these laws are being ignored by whoever. There's enough blame to go around, because we seen in the tour that we went on obvious L&I violations, obvious health violations, obvious state Liquor Control violations, LCB violations, and to my knowledge, none of them have been shut down yet, not none. We took them on a gambit showing old stop-and-go's and new stop-and-go's, because the state was saying that they would allow them to operate their businesses and then once 89 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 they leave the premises, that they would reconfigure the place. And we took them to a brand new place that it was not such as. It was like that when the LCB gave them their license.
And there's a new thing coming up that these stop-and-go's are trying to put into effect, too, is, they're trying to run bars right behind the delis. And they also use Plexiglas up to the bars and they serve their drinks through a little hole. I find that disrespectful to our communities, to my people in particular. We know that there are always going to be a segment or a core of people that's going to buy anything, just like we know there's always going to be a core of people that's going to sign anything, sign any petition you put before them. All you got to say is two words. So us, in the positions of responsibility, we need to be true to the positions that we hold and have the 90 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 willpower to enforce the laws. If the state do not enforce their laws, then enforce our laws. Pull L&I out, make them go in there and make them do their job. Pull the health department out. We're going on 20-something years of beating these streets. I've been out there three years, and I'm not out here -- and on the tour, I did not take -- we did not take them to 55th and Larchwood. Let me say it like that. We did not take them to 55th and Larchwood on the tour. We went straight up Lancaster Avenue, for time's sake. Most businesses, as I said, most of these Asian businesses in our communities, are responsible business owners, but when it comes down to -- I see quite a few of Asians in here now, and if any of these Asians think they should be selling these crack pipes, these roses, stems, straight shooters, and I know most of them, if not all of them, know what they are, stand up and 91 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 think that they should have the right to sell them in my community. If you think you had a right to sell loose cigarettes in my community, I ask you to stand up, be man or woman enough to stand up, because you do not have the right. I have been to numerous stores. We have Dominican stores, an influx of them in our community. I'm not knocking anybody for making money in our community. You have that right. But then at the same time, you have a right to be responsible, a responsible business owner in our community, and that's what the government is here for. The government is here to protect us. And as the position that our legislators, the City Council holds, it states that that is your responsibility, and we ask you to pull out everything in reference to these ill-responsible businesses and charge them. I think in reference to the bar owners, we know what the targeted 92 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 businesses was in reference to Act 39. If they would have just gave a nominal fee, let's say a $50 registration, $25, and if you get enough complaints, if you get the complaints, the whole process 7 that we got to go through as far as a 8 complainant, then I can see you tacking 9 on some more money. But just to take and 10 charge everybody I think is 11 ill-responsible. 12
Thank 13 you very much, sir. 14 I think, Councilman Kelly, you 15 would like to be recognized?
Well, this might seem lengthy, but to come out of your door every day and see these businesses operate with their customers urinating in public, with their customers sitting on their steps, with their customers loitering in front of their businesses, with drugs being sold in front of their business, and I differ with the young lady who said before -- they know they're selling drugs out there. It's impossible for you not to know somebody is standing out in front of your business eight, ten hours a day, the same people, selling drugs. 52nd and Spruce on the corner there, there's public urination every day, all day long. My mother, my sons, my family members have to cross that corner, and it is their right to be able to cross that corner without people walking out of their businesses and 94 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 walking over to the side of a dumpster and urinating. It's getting so bad now that young ladies are urinating outside. I mean, this is ridiculous. How can you go in 90-something percent of these establishments and they do not allow you to use the restrooms? They always say the restrooms are broke. We are only asking for businesses that will be reflective of the same type of community that they will want or that we all will want, responsible people. And I think if these businesses will target us, the working class people, as far as their market, that they will find that we are alive and well in our community and that we will patronize them, but people, the working class, we're not really up for the Plexiglas. We're not really up for that unsanitary look that a lot of these businesses have. 41st and Lancaster, that's one of the businesses that we went to. 95 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 Preston and Lancaster -- and, please, I hope you write it down, because these businesses have obvious violations. You need not go in the back to see them. When you walk in, no chairs, dirty. These places are dirty. I mean, legitimately dirty. And I think they need to be recognized. Somebody needs to say, Yeah, enough is enough, and just do the right thing. I think basically it comes down to the will, and so that's why my community -- and we're a town watch organization. We're 18th District Community Town Watch. We've been organized now close to 15 years. This is nothing new for us. We stood out on the corner with the drug dealers, and that was one of the corners, for two years straight. We only did that Fridays and Saturday nights, though. That's the difference between this one. The first year and a half, close to two years, close to the first 96 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 two years we were out on 55th and Larchwood, we manned that corner from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. We got the owners over there. They can verify that. 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., with at least four people around the clock, and these were all volunteers. That's the will of the people. And we ask you to tap into that will and just take and make things happen for our community, because actually at the same time as they changed the economics of our community, it changed the genetics of our community, because the substandard food that they sell is actually not productive or progressive for our community. It all lies within the City Council hands, and I hope before we finish that we have enforcement intact so that we can make something happen or else, like I said, this just begins to be double talk. Thank you.
Thank 97 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 you very much. Just a moment, sir. Mr. Spearman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. I just made some observations while listening to the testimony of everyone who has appeared here this morning, and my observation is that the state, that the state authorities, whether it be the Liquor Control Board, the state police or whatever, they didn't do their job to begin with. I think they've given out licenses to a lot of different people. There's no 18 enforcement. There's no restrictions in operating these businesses. Now they have flourished and there's so many of them that they're creating disturbances. They have affected the quality of life in many of our communities in our districts, and I think that now that there's so many problems, they don't know what to do with 98 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 it. They kick it to the Philadelphia City Council. We're supposed to deal with it now. And to me, we're trying not to discriminate against anyone, so, therefore, we're looking at this like anyone who sells take-out beer should come under the new Act 39. To me, I think it's wrong. I think what we're doing is penalizing everyone for the few people -- or maybe it's not few. I'll leave that up to the District Councilpeople. They seem to have more of a handle on it than many others. I just want to say that to me, penalizing everyone, all of the good tavern owners, the bar owners, the restaurants and everyone else who has no 21 problem in dealing with take-out beer or beverages, we're labeling them under this thing. In my opinion, there should be a separate license for stop-and-go's. 99 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 That should be a different type of license. That should be regulated differently. And maybe some more stringent regulations should be placed on the operation of those stop-and-go's. But to me, to penalize everyone for that is just wrong. That's the observations I've made today, Madam President, and I just want to go on record as saying that there should be something done about these stop-and-go's, because listening to the people today, I think they do have problems, but let's not penalize everyone for the sake of a few. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We are led to believe that the State Senators will be looking at this legislation and certainly trying to make whatever improvements are possible. Thank you very much. That concludes the list that we have of 100 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 witnesses. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050742 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 050742 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 101 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742
The record will reflect that Councilmembers Blackwell and Ramos voted nay. All other -- I'm sorry. Your light is not on and I'm having difficulty hearing you.
I think we need a roll call. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Councilman Kenney is not here. Councilwoman Krajewski.
Councilwoman Tasco is not here. 103 10/5/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050742 Councilwoman Verna is an aye. The bill passes six to five, so the motion carries six to five and the bill will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Thank you all very much for your attendance. We appreciate your being here and your testimony. Thank you. Excuse me. The record will also reflect that Councilwoman Tasco has voted aye. So the vote will be seven to five. (Committee of the Whole concluded at 12:15 p.m.) - - - 104 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 October 5, 2005, 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.)