Councilman Cohen, I think Councilman DiCicco is speaking, and there is a point of order. And the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I recall vividly that I Chaired a hearing of the Rules Committee that went on for quite sometime. There was a lot of testimony for and against. The Committee made a decision. And to re-debate this again our Session, I think, is not going to solve anything. There's been -Councilman Cohen certainly has a right to express his opinion, as does Councilman DiCicco, but at some point in time I think the votes are there to move this. And I would like to move forward if possible. (Applause.)
Thank you. It has been moved and seconded that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading this day of Bill No. 030740. All of those in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The record will indicate that all Members voted in favor. There was one descending vote passed by Councilman Cohen. (Applause.)
Madam Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations reports out two bills and one resolution with a favorable recommendation.
I'm sorry. Councilman, I don't believe your microphone is on and the stenographer cannot hear a word you're saying. I cannot hear you. So please put your microphone on, please.
The microphone is on and I'm yelling at the top of my voice "point of order" -
You have a point of order and the Chair is now recognizing you.
Let today, December the 4th be recognized as the day in which the City Council of Philadelphia turned its back on the communities of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
Let it be recognized that the day on which the most predatory employer comes to Philadelphia and is welcomed against the wishes of the overwhelming feeling of the community of Port Richmond. Let those who are leaving, by their leaving they're showing they're not part of Port Richmond because they're not concerned about it.
I want to congratulate the people of Port Richmond for coming out today and for waging the beginning fight. We're going to win. Wal-Mart will not be coming to this site on Allegheny Avenue. (Audience reacts.)
To the citizens of Port Richmond, keep up your fight. You're going to win. You're going to win against the likes of DiCicco and Kenney and anybody else who says, "Let's destroy our communities at the behest of predatory employers." We're not going to do that in Philadelphia because Philadelphia's going to remain a solid labor city. This is only Step 1 in the fight. Before it's over, Port Richmond will prevail.
When this Council the citizens of Philadelphia, there's no time to finish. We've got to keep working until we restore Philadelphia to its good standing as a city. And new generation is going to be fighting as hard as the old generation for Port Richmond.
At this time, again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski for a report from the Committee on Appropriations.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the Rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading this day of Bills No. 030656 and 030771. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chief Clerk will please read the report. THE
To the President and Members of the Council of the City of Philadelphia, the Committee on Appropriations to which was referred Bill No. 030656 entitled an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004 within the of administering funds to distressed businesses affected by the Market Street Elevated Reconstruction Project; And Bill No. 030771, entitled an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; And Resolution No. 030575 entitled a resolution authorizing the Committee on Appropriations to hold hearings to determine whether an additional appropriation is necessary to fund the expansion of the Police Department's Neighborhood Services Unit; Respectfully reports it has considered the same and returns the attached bills and resolution to Council with a favorable recommendation.
Thank you. The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the Rules of so as to permit first reading of Bills No. 030656 and 030771. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading this day of the two bills just read. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the bills will be placed on today's First Reading Calendar. Resolution No. 030575 will also be placed at the end of today's Calendar. Council will now proceed under a special order of business to the reconsideration of Bill No. 030657. This bill was passed by the Council at its November 13, 2003 Session and was returned disapproved by today's Session of Council. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the Council reconsider Bill No. 030657, which was approved by City Council on November 13, 2003, and I wish to be heard for a very brief remark. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved seconded. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. Councilman DiCicco. I'm sorry, I think at this time I think what we should do is have the Clerk read the letter. THE
To the President and Members of the Council of the City of Philadelphia, I am herewith returning to you as disapproved Bill No. 030657, which would amend the Passyunk Avenue Special District Control section of the Zoning Code. Notably, the legislation prohibits a number of new uses in commercially zoned properties fronting Passyunk Avenue between Washington Avenue and 25th Street, including the operation of any establishment with a license from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for the after hour sale of alcoholic beverages.
I believe you have to read the title of the ordinance, please. THE
Bill No. 030657, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1621 entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls," by revising the prohibited uses and regulations regarding signs within the district.
Thank you. This bill having been read on two different days, was duly approved by City Council on November 13, 2003, and was returned to Council by the Mayor as disapproved at today's session. The question is, shall Bill No. 030657 pass, notwithstanding the Mayor's disapproval. Please note that a vote of aye is to override the Mayor's veto, and a vote of no is a vote to sustain the Mayor's veto. Councilman DiCicco, I think you wanted to be recognized?
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. This bill was a direct result of a request from the property owners in the newly formed Passyunk Avenue Special Services District. It is not unlike some of the prohibited uses in the South Street Special Services District and I also believe in the Manayunk Special Services District. I'm not absolutely certain of that, but I believe they have similar prohibited uses. And if we fail to override this veto, my other concern is that a bill that just came out of the Rules days ago that was introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell that would put certain restrictions on the stop-and-goes throughout the City that a number of district Council individuals had placed in the bill, my concern is it would cancel that bill out. So that what we did the other day, which I think is a good thing, controlling the stop-and-goes, could possibly be canceled out as a result of this bill if this Mayor's veto is upheld.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. To the sponsor of the bill, Councilman, could you explain this a little? Is it as clear as it looks, just to prohibit t the after hour sale of alcohol in this certain area? Is that it in a nutshell.
Well, there are other issues in there, types of businesses. I don't recall all of them off the top of my restricted use is no take-out windows for fast food eateries. I'm trying to remember. There are a number of them. But the other issues that are involved in the bill are very similar to what all of the special service districts throughout the City have. This one is a little bit different in the sense that it would prohibit after-hour sales. We don't want any after-hour clubs opening up. It is a traditionally a neighborhood/commercial residential corridor, and we have gone a long way in trying to revitalize that and we think that the sale of alcoholic beverages after the hours would impede that effort to revitalize the Passyunk Avenue corridor.
Thank you. I would reiterate, an aye vote is a vote to override the Mayor's veto and a vote of no is a vote to sustain the Mayor's veto the. time, I would ask the Clerk to please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 14, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the Mayor's veto is overridden. Our next order of business is the consideration of the Calendar. The Clerk will please read the bills on the First Reading Calendar. THE
Bill No. 030670, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Second Street, Turner Street, Hancock Street and Oxford Street.
And bill No. 030709, an ordinance approving the Fourth Amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area.
And Bill No. 030721, an ordinance approving the Second Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area.
And Bill No. 030730, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Section 14-1628, entitled "District Special Controls," prohibiting certain uses in relation to the and brewed beverages, under certain terms and conditions.
And Bill No. 030656, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004 within the General Fund to distressed businesses affected by the Market Street Elevated Construction Project, all under certain terms and conditions.
And Bill 030771, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions.
And Bill No. 030740, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning areas of land located within an area bounded by Allegheny Avenue, Collins Street, Westmoreland Street, and Tulip Street.
The Chair agrees. The bills read on the First Reading Calendar today will be placed on the Second Reading and Final Passage Calendar next week. That concludes the First Reading Calendar. The Chair now recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell for the purpose of calling up bills to be considered today on the Second Reading and Final Passage Calendar.
Thank you, Madam President. Today, Bill No. 010368A is being called for another amendment. The other bills to be called up for second reading and final passage are: Bill No. 010509A, 030686, 030716, 030719, 030660, 030562, 030642, 030662, 030684, 030689, 030711.
Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I will be offering an amendment on Bill No. 662.
It's a technical amendment. I've circulated the amendment.
030711, 030713, 030671, 030672, 030681, 030683, 030685, 030687, 030688, 030691, 030692, 030693, 030694, 030696, 030697, 030712, 030714, 030715 and 030720. Thank you, Madam President.
I'm sorry, whose point of information? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I heard nothing 010509A. Isn't that on the schedule for today?
You're welcome. The Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 010368A. THE
An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-306.2 entitled "C-7 Commercial District," by deleting certain uses from the list of uses that are permitted in C-7 Commercial District, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I move to offer an amendment to this bill, and I'd like to have the opportunity to speak on it briefly.
Thank you. And it is my understanding, Councilman, that the copy of the amendments have been circulated.
The amendment changes a date at the very end of the bill from November 1, 2001, to today, December 4, 2003. This bill was introduced quite a while ago, passed Council, was on the Mayor's desk. I brought it back for an amendment at that time back in September of 2001 to grandfather in under a non-conforming status all new car dealers existing at that time. There was a particular car dealer who was in litigation at that time with me and eventually just with the City. That case has been settled. The new car dealer is up and running, and I'd like to that car dealer is included in the grandfathering. This C-7 bill basically takes car dealers in C-7 -- C-7 is usually a single use neighborhood zoning with off-street parking, whether it be a Wawa, a 7-Eleven, a gas station, Rite Aid. Those are usually the C-7 uses. As of now, if this bill does not change it, a used car dealer could open overnight without anyone having anything to say about it. And Council passed this unanimously. There was quite a wrench thrown into it, and I've held off until all the litigation and legal matters were finished. And I think this is the last piece is to make sure that that particular car dealer is given the same status as all other new car dealers in the City. So I would bring it up at the next Session for final vote, but I wanted to make it clear on what this particular amendment does, and would call for approval. (Duly seconded.)
It has seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have, it and the amendment has been adopted. The Chief Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 010509A. THE
An ordinance amending Section 20-101 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residents Requirements," by providing that active law enforcement officers from elsewhere in the United States entering into civil service positions in the Philadelphia Police Department need not be boni fide residents of the City when appointed, but must establish and maintain bona fide residents in the City within six months after appointment.
Thank you, Madam President. I request to be -- I'd like to speak on this bill. I'm calling this bill up today after a lot of consideration. And some of the questions that were asked of me prior to November 4, I believe Councilman Goode in the Caucus Room last week in October when I was then prepared to call the bill up for final passage, asked me if I had heard from Commissioner Johnson because previously I had stated that I would be contact with the Commissioner to find out what the Police Department's position on this bill would be. And at Councilman Goode's request, I held the bill until today because, as I reported two weeks or so ago via a phone conversation Police Commissioner Johnson. He indicated to did not have a problem with this bill band he was in support of it. It wasn't until 10 o'clock or so this morning that I now find a letter that has been circulated to all Members of Council that the Police Commissioner has since apparently changed his mind and is no longer supporting the bill. I'm totally confused as to why that letter was not -- a communication, either a letter, a phone call, an e-mail had not been forwarded to me prior to today or at least in the two-week period that has passed since my last conversation with Commissioner Johnson. My staff attempted up until about 6 o'clock yesterday last evening to contact Commissioner Johnson, seeking a letter expressing his support for the bill. So, again, up until this morning, I had no knowledge, I had no reason to believe that the Commissioner was not supportive. So I want it at least on the record to be understood that when I made that statement in the Caucus Room two weeks or so ago that it was in fact Commissioner told me. I have the highest respect for Commissioner Johnson. I don't what is influencing him to change his mind. We do have a letter, as I think all Councilmembers have in front of them, a letter from the FOP strongly endorsing this bill as well. Again, I just wanted to put that on the record that for some reason or other, the Commissioner has now changed his position, but unbeknownst to me until 10 o'clock this morning. I had no reason to understand that he would be changing his position.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I certainly heard on two occasions Councilman DiCicco's explanation in the Caucus Room about his conversations. Now, obviously, none of us were participants in those conversations. At the same time, I respect both integrity of their conversations and their statements to any of us. It is, at the same time a bit confusing as to what is reported to us as being said in a conversation; and then subsequently, as the Councilman points out, the morning of the bill possibly running, a letter comes in. The Commissioner Johnson is traveling and unavailable. I have had some conversation with Councilman DiCicco. And to be honest, I would like to try to get to the bottom of this particular episode of this situation. I mean, it's either being supported or it's not. And I don't know whether the Councilman is of a mind at the moment because he's obviously been very accommodating to a variety of requests to try to get to the bottom of this with no expectation to hold the bill, obviously, for eve. But I don't know whether in the course of the next week we could get any clarity so the Members know one way or the other what the true position is. Second, Councilman, if you would not mind, it might be helpful for anyone who is session, either in person or electronic means, if you could very briefly, I guess, explain what the bill is, what the bill is not, what your view is who may be affected or not affected by something like this. There seems to be a significant amount of growing concern. But I am lastly, again, perplexed myself as to the nature of your private conversations and now this morning a letter coming in with no ability to contact the Police Commissioner because of his own professional traveling schedule. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Nutter. We all understand that in order for an individual who is seeking a position, a civil service position in the that individual must at the time that they make application and take the test must in fact be a resident of the City of Philadelphia. attempt a few years ago to -- I think we a actually introduced an ordinance, if I'm not mistaken, a couple of years ago that would remove that as a requirement for all Civil Service positions. That ordinance failed and was not approved. Since then on June 14 of 2001, I re-introduced a bill that was cosponsored by my colleague Councilman Kenney that would separate the Police Department from those requirements whereby basically what it says is if you're not a resident, you are entitled to take an examination for a position in the Police Department. If you are hired, subsequent to hiring, you would then have to be a bona fide resident of the City of Philadelphia. So what it says basically is that you don't need to be a resident of the City of Philadelphia in order to make an application and take a test for a position in the Philadelphia Police Department. I think it's an opportunity for us to open our doors, if you will, as a City to -
I'm sorry to interrupt. I thought the other issue was not only do you have to be a resident but you had to have been a resident a year before you can even take the test.
Thank you. Thank you for correcting that. Yes, you have to be a resident for a year. And in many cases, people are discouraged from even considering a position in the City of Philadelphia. I mean, it's difficult for someone, especially a married individual, to move himself or herself and their family from where they live to the City of Philadelphia, wait a year to take a test for a position and then maybe find out that they don't either pass the test or they're not being accepted. I think that puts a burden on individuals. I think it limits our ability to test and hire the best at whatever position that they're looking for. But again, we're only talking about the Police Department. We're talking about people who are now active in law enforcement in other country. So I thought this was a great opportunity to open our doors and welcome individuals to come to Philadelphia who may be considering joining our Philadelphia Police Department. I have all the respect and I do believe that the high-ranking officials at the Police Department, if there's any concern that the diversity of the Police Department as it is today will somehow be adversely affected if we open the opportunity for non-Philadelphia residents to come in and apply, I certainly have all the faith in our high-ranking officials and the people who are in charge of the hiring at the Philadelphia Police Department that they will make sure that the diversity that is in our Department today will be maintained. And if anything, if someone decides that they wants to take the test if this bill passes and they pass and they're accepted, we now start to repopulate the neighborhood. We're inviting people now to become residents of the City. All too often people leave the City because they're looking aren't in the City and they follow their jobs elsewhere. And it wasn't too long ago, which prompted me again to want to call this bill up for a final vote, is the City of New York came to Philadelphia and they were soliciting applications from our residents to become police officers in New York City. Now, how many of them took advantage of it, how many of those folks applied and passed and eventually moved, I don't know. But it's kind of the reverse of that is what I am proposing in this ordinance. Thank you, Madam President.
I'd just like to ask Councilman DiCicco for a clarification. Would this bill apply to individuals who are seeking entry level positions and not for promotional positions within the Department?
To the best of my knowledge, and I will be honest with you, I don't see it in the language of the bill. I entry level only. I mean, it would obviously exclude commissioners. We have in the past hired police commissioners who were non-Philadelphia residents, more recently Commissioner Timoney. Would it apply to a sergeant, lieutenant, corporal, a captain, I honestly don't know. That was not my intention. My intention was to open up at entry level positions only.
Did Commissioner Timoney have to move into the City first?
Yes, but he was not a resident at the time he was hired. He was hired and then became a resident.
As did Commissioner Tucker. And I'm not sure if there are any others before Tucker.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be very brief. My recollection is, although it's fading, I thought that Council approved some number years ago a specific exemption to the one-year residency before he could take the police test, specifically for military personnel, a number of years ago. I think we all finally came to the conclusion that it would be virtually impossible for a highly trained military person to ever meet the one-year residency requirement in Philadelphia before they could take the test to become a police officer because there's so many of those military personnel who are stationed all across the country, and we did not want to deny ourselves the opportunity to access again those highly trained military personnel. So there is some amount of precedent to this particular issue. To the other point, I believe that most of our promotional opportunities within you to already be a Philadelphia Police Officer to promote into those particular positions. That is at least my current belief. So that's just the additional information, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I probably can't get this answer today, but there apparently was a letter -- I actually don't have a copy of the letter that was sent by the Commissioner, but I got wind of it. My understanding is that there was some reference to recent applicants, 2600 potential employees applied and passed the test and those particular applicants would be valid up until the year 2005. And I'm wondering if the sponsor or any other Member of Council can confirm?
Councilman Clarke, again, quarter after 10:00 this first time I saw this letter. I did not have an opportunity to discuss any of these issues that are in this letter with the Commissioner. Again, I can only repeat, at the request of Councilman Goode back in late October, I made certain that I placed a call in to Commissioner Johnson. We discussed it very briefly on the phone. And he said, "Councilman, I don't have a problem with the bill. I support it." That was the extent of the conversation. I don't know what, if any, impact it would have on the 2600 applicants.
So I guess my question is, at the time -- and I know you've been working on this for some time. Would the 2600 alleged applicants -- I'll say "alleged" because we haven't been able to confirm this, although I'd have to believe that the Commissioner wouldn't fake the number. Would that have any impact on your need to do a particular bill to solicit applicants from outside of the City of Philadelphia if we had we believe potentially qualified pool of individuals who are City of Philadelphia residents?
No. What it would say is going forward that non-Philadelphia residents would have the same opportunity as Philadelphia residents to make application and take a test for the position of a police officer. It would not preclude anyone from doing the same. Would it have an effect on the 2600 applicants with someone who applies, say, next -
I was talking more with respect to your feeling that there was a need to solicit additional applicants if we already have 2600 applicants.
There was at one point in time my concern that because of the DROP Program and we understood that there was going to be about 800 positions that would be vacant that the Commissioner at that time back in June of 2001 or October, I think, of 2001, indicated that he thought that he would have enough applicants to cover those 800 occurring as a result of DROP Program. And that's when he had asked me if I would be willing to hold off and let's see how this played out. Obviously -- and I take the Commissioner at his word that there are 2600 applicants. Obviously, that doesn't impact the 800; that's covered. But I still don't think that we should limit the folks who are interested in obtaining a position in the Philadelphia Police Department for people who only live in the City of Philadelphia. Why not be more welcome? Welcome other folks to come in. Give them an opportunity. And if they decide that they want to be a police officer, they would now have to become residents. This bill came to me as a result of an individual who was a police officer in a very small township in south Jersey who wanted to become a big city police cop, is what he said. But for the fact that he would have to sell his home, move his wife and his family to the City of Philadelphia, establish residency for one year before he can take the test, he even attempt to do that because he had no guarantees that at the end of that year of establishing residency that he would be hired.
So I guess my question then is, why would we not open up all ranks of categories of municipal employees?
We attempted to do that, but that was -- I don't know if that vote vetoed or we never can get the votes to get out of Committee. Councilman Kenney, can you help me on that? We lost, but where was it lost? I forget
The Chair Councilwoman Tasco for a point of order.
I believe that Civil Service positions are open, tests can be taken, you do not have to be a resident and you have at least six months to move into the City. That's true.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a point of
Just a point of information. And thanks, Councilman Goode, for clearing my memory because my memory is getting worse than Nutter.
Councilman Goode informs me that we did pass the bill. The Mayor vetoed it and we failed to override the veto. A bill that would remove the pre-residency requirement from all positions in civil service in the City. And at the time, when I did that bill with Councilman DiCicco, that was my intention. My intention was to use our human resource opportunities as a way to bring people into the City to have them come in and establish residences and live. As you know, over the last 20, 30 years, we've been losing people -- we've been hemorrhaging people out of the City. And if we could use our -- at the time I believed and I still believe now that if we could use our as another hook to bring people to come to live in our City that we should do not that. There's no private company in the country that limits themselves, their pool of applicants to people who live in one city or one state on one street. And I believe that -- I still believe that we could go across this country in military institutions and universities and other police departments and other offices and bring in qualified, diverse people who could come in and live in our neighborhoods and repopulate our City. Especially since the fact we're losing so many people, I thought that that was a great opportunity. If you had a law firm in Philadelphia or an accounting firm, they would never limit themselves to hiring only people in Philadelphia, they go and get the best and brightest form colleges and universities throughout the country. And I think we should be doing that. To kind of continue this parochial attitude that Philadelphia jobs are only for Philadelphians, well, we want to make non-Philadelphians have them come in and want to stay and live in our City. Teachers, you know, whatever, any position. We should never limit our pool of applicants to people who just live in the City. Although there's many qualified people living in the City, I would like to bring along -- and I'm voting for this bill. I would like to bring people into the City to live and use our employment opportunities to do so. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Sooner or later in a discussion on residence requirements, I think we get to the bottom and I thank Councilman Clarke's questions for revealing the real purpose of this bill is to break down the residency rules for Philadelphia. That's what happens whenever City develops a large number of minority population. Then certainly residence rules which have been good as long the minority population was small suddenly seem that. I think that's bad policy. I think if the City of Philadelphia really made a determined effort they'd find many, many more people eligible to do a first class job than appear on the rolls. And I'm against this. I think the purpose of this bill is to eliminate residency rules step by step. I think the discussions made it clear that that's the real purpose of the sponsors. I will be voting no on this bill and urge my colleagues to vote no. I think Philadelphia has many very worthwhile applicants if only given the opportunity to perform for the City.
Thank you. I'm sorry, Councilman Clarke. I was distracted. Were you quite finished?
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to talk about the fact that not only in the police ranks where we're now being told we have 2600 ready made applicants, and I believe that in the other ranks in laborers and other categories of municipal employment a substantial amount of individuals. While I support Councilman Kenney's need to encourage individuals to move into the City, and I think there are a number of ways we can do that, I'm just concerned that somehow a non-resident would receive the same status of a resident, a person who's been paying taxes who's living in the City for whatever period of time. That concerns me. I think that a person who has lived in the City, has paid wage and resident and real estate taxes and lived and contributed to the City should not be put on par with an individual who may live in another state, let alone another municipality. That really concerns me that that in fact will be a case, particularly given the fact that we do have a substantial unemployment rate in the City of Philadelphia and we are talking about a set number of jobs. And we believe that somewhere down the line that those job opportunities will potentially decrease based on our need to shrink the municipal workforce. So that is my concern about this particular bill.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I will agree and support the position of Commissioner Sylvester Johnson. I would say that in this instance where we have a waiting list of people who are already on the rolls, who indicate they may be qualified, I believe that our first obligation is to those who live and reside in our City. That has to be our first consideration. I do not believe, as my colleague Councilman Nutter mentioned, we've already made allowances for those in the military. I support that. But I believe that this is not the instance as has been mentioned with Philadelphia teachers where we have applicants. We have people who are already in the rolls who are waiting to be considered and hired for the police force. It's not like public teachers. If you can't find them, that's one thing. But if we have over 20,000 people who are on the list who want to be considered, then our first be to those people in our City who can meet the qualifications and who can be trained to be on the police force. Therefore, I would support Commissioner Johnson, and I'll be opposing this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I would have to say bravo to the remarks made by my colleague Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. As much as I appreciate and certainly accept the argument that we as public policymakers do need to be concerned about moving measures that bring more residents into our City, I'm of the belief that my first loyalty goes to those current Philadelphia residents who are already on the rolls at the Philadelphia Police Department. And yes, diversity may be a consideration for this bill, but the greater issue for me is opportunity for those who are already on the rolls, so I will not be supporting this bill.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be voting to oppose this bill. I think it's our priority and our obligation to keep Philadelphians working. It sounds like -- at one point I know that we were talking a few years ago that there was not an adequate pool of applicants available to the Police Department. But according to the information we received this morning, there are a number of people, 2600 I believe I read for the 2002 waiting list, and I'm not sure what it said for the 2003. But my priority is to keep Philadelphians working, and I will be opposing this bill.
Thank you very much. The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Madam President, I do appreciate the conversation that has taken place this morning. And I made a valid point. So I'm not belabor this proceeding. I'm just going to call for the question.
Thank you. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The vote is 7-7 . The motion fails. The next bill to be call up for consideration is Bill No. 030686. THE
An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by on land sought by acquisition by the City, 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. THE