COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, February 12, 2007, 10:45 a.m. - - - BILL 060576 - Ordinance calling on citizens to urge BRT to retain current method of real-estate tax assessment... RES. 060590 - Proposing amendment to Charter calling on citizens to urge BRT to retain current method of real-estate tax assessment... BILL 060849 - Providing that citizens urge U.S. to make year '07 the time to redeploy troops out of harm's way in Iraq... RES. 060861 - Proposing amendment to Charter Providing that citizens urge U.S. to make year '07 the time to redeploy troops out of harm's way in Iraq... COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: William K. Greenlee, Chairman Carol Ann Campbell Jack Kelly Frank Rizzo Daniel J. Savage V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2/12/07 LAW AND GOVERNMENT WITNESS Bill 060576 , Resolution 060590 David Glancey, Chairman, BRT............ 15 Alan Butkovitz, City Controller......... 57 Sean McNeeley, Director of Policy....... 82 Alisa Orduna-Sneed, Partnership CDC..... 111 B. Reavis, Walnut Hill Community Assoc. 115 Ann Agee, Private Citizen............... 121 Mary Jenkins, Mantua Community Planners 126 Ruth Adams, West Powelton CCC........... 130 Bill 060849, Resolution 060861 Granny Peace Brigade - Marlena Santoya....................... 137 - Nina Huizinga......................... 139 Bill Perry, Veterans for America........ 143 C. Santos, National Alliance, Women Vets 145 Iraq Veterans Against the War - Kelly Dougherty....................... 158 - Mark LaChance......................... 165 Mike Felker, Veterans for Peace......... 167 Eugene Miller, Philadelphia Citizen..... 168 Libby Schwartz.......................... 171 Northeast Philly for Peace and Justice 3 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
Good morning, everybody. Will you all settle down, please. I'm sorry for the delay. We got started a little late. The Committee on Law and Government is now in session. For those of you in attendance -- and I think pretty much there's a split room here. We're going to deal with the bill and resolution dealing with the Board of Revision of Taxes first and then with the Iraq question. We'll try to move as quickly as possible. Just for the record, we have a quorum here consisting of Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Kelly, myself, and Councilman Savage. If I could ask Bill Boyle, the clerk of the committee, to please read Bill No. 060576 and Resolution 060590, please.
Ordinance 060576, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of 4 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section calling on the citizens of Philadelphia to urge the Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) to retain its current method of real-estate tax assessment and not change the method as proposed under the BRT's Full Valuation Initiative; fixing the date of a special election for such purposes; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution No. 060590, a resolution proposing an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section calling on the citizens of Philadelphia to urge the 5 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) to retain its current method of real-estate tax assessment and not change the method as proposed under the BRT's Full Valuation Initiative.
Thank you very much. Both these bill and the resolution were introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell. Councilwoman, would you like to make a statement?
Thank you. I would like to thank you as chair and this committee for considering both these resolutions today -- or all four. And with regard to this issue of full tax valuation, let me say that, having been around here longer than I will admit, I've been here for equalization of taxes twice. I've been here a long time, and every time we deal with taxes, John and Jane Q. Public. 6 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 I've read through old information, whether it be Penn or no 4 matter who. I read through old testimony to try to be fair to this committee 'cause I know some of you are concerned, as is the Administration, who support full tax valuation, but I believe that given the fact that we're going to have hearings on the gas rate increase, the Governor's talked about a state tax increase, and given the time -- you know, I just had a fire in my district last night, a few blocks away, at 59th and Walnut, and more and more are having fires because people can't afford to live with heat and pay their other bills. So given the fact that I do believe that this legislation is not tight -- we're talking about lowering the millage rate, and none of that is specific. A lot of questions are raised. We talked about homesteading, 7 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 deferments, all kinds of things, but nobody's talked about specific answers to what we do to help seniors and people in need and people who work every day; those answers aren't very specific, but the specific interest is that we raise these taxes. So, you know, if they want us to consider this issue, then we should have specific information available on how we help other people. There's not even legislation afoot on what the millage rate would be, so I don't think that we are prepared at this time to consider this legislation. Once everything is organized -- when we had hearings before, they mentioned all these different freezes and caps and homesteading and deferments, all of these things, and we're no further along in that area than we were before. So that is why I'm asking this committee to consider this bill, 8 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 consider the populace that elect us, and the fact that they really will not stand for an increase in their taxes, and I think that we should listen to them and realize that at this time that they don't. And I am certain that I'm -- just as sure as I am sitting here that if we put it on the ballot, you will see overwhelmingly that the citizens of this city do not want full tax valuation. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't agree with Councilwoman Blackwell more so. I think that -- I think we have the right to listen to all of the testimony, Mr. Chairman, this morning, and I don't 9 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 think we should be making any rash judgments or decisions on this bill; it's too important. I think we ought to -- we should listen to the -- of course, the Board of Revision of Taxes as well as the people, the citizens of Philadelphia. But I think Councilwoman Blackwell has a good point, that this is going to be so important that I think that right now, I would suggest that we withhold any vote on this legislation until we hear from everyone and everyone has an opportunity to give their opinions on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I agree with my colleague Councilman Kelly that this is something that needs to be further evaluated. And I had a 10 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 conversation with my colleague before the Council session. I think there are some things that we can do before getting to the point where we want to go to full value. Other municipalities bill constituents, taxpayers each quarter; we get a tax bill at the end of the year. I know we have a payment process, a partial payment process, but I think it would be easier for people to be able to pay quarterly their tax bill. I think it would be also -- and I can't understand. The Revenue Department wants to collect revenue. If people are stuck and they want to put their tax payment on a credit card, if they're fortunate enough to have a credit card, that they charge them a premium to do that. So there's a lot of things I think we can do to help our taxpayers get more revenue into the City before we take this -- take this next step. 11 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 So I'm suggesting likewise that we hold on to this.
Okay. Thank you, Councilman. I'm going to recognize Councilman DiCicco in just a second, but our first witness is going to be Mr. David Glancey, Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. Maybe you could come up to the witness table. Excuse me, Councilman. Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everybody's agreeing with everybody this morning, which is unusual here. (Laughter.)
I guess my concern is, I'm a bit confused. A year 12 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 or two ago -- I lose track of time, as most of us do in this business -- I conducted, I think, three days worth of hearings with the Board of Revision of Taxes to talk about this proposal to do full-value reassessments. I've conducted probably a dozen or so meetings during the course of the last year, year and a half, throughout my entire district, meeting with various community associations and residents, to talk about what the plan of full valuation means to them -- would have meant to them. I thought -- and this is where I'm confused, and Mr. Glancey can probably straighten this out for us this morning -- it was agreed that because there are so many other factors that need to be addressed before we can move forward with full-value reassessment, notwithstanding the state legislation that we would need to enact those safeguards that would protect senior 13 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 citizens, people on fixed incomes, folks who have been longtime residents from being taxed out of their homes because the neighborhood has now been gentrified. And as a result of all of those discussions, the hearings in this council, it was my understanding that the Board of Revision of Taxes was going to forgo any attempt to do full-value reassessment for at least a year or two, which, in my opinion, was probably the best thing we can do because we will have possibly a new City Council or some new members of City Council, and we certainly will have a new Mayor, and we need to be able to address that not only in a political year, when we're running all for reelection, because a lot of the decisions may be made based on our political salvation over the next three months. So Mr. Glancey maybe can straighten -- can answer that question 14 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 because I'm kind of confused as to why we're back at the same spot that we originally thought was being tabled for about a year or two.
Thank you, Councilman. Before I recognize Mr. Glancey, if I could just say to all witnesses, especially if you have written testimony: If you could be as brief as possible, if you could paraphrase your written statement. All written statement will be a made a part of the record. And please be aware, those of you who are testifying on the Board of Revision of Taxes issue, we have half a room here that's here on a whole different issue. So if you could, again, be as brief as possible so that these -- so that we can try to get through these hearings as quickly as possible. End of speech. 15 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Mr. Glancey, welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name is David Glancey and I'm Chairman of the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes. Just let me say something in response to Councilman DiCicco's query, and also, it goes directly to what Councilwoman Blackwell stated earlier. If -- I couldn't agree more than what -- than what she just said about having deliberate and significant hearings about all of the things that would surround full-value taxation. There would have to be, I would say, legislative discussions here and in Harrisburg, discussions of not only the current bills that are before you and before the state legislature, but those hearings, as we have said, I guess, basically as much as a year ago, that we need to have those kinds of hearings 16 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 before we can go forward with anything. And just so that you know, the timeline -- and I think this would answer Councilman DiCicco's query specifically -- is that the delay in this project is for two reasons: One, we want to make sure that we have the best quality product that we could possibly put out. But even more so, we wanted also to make sure that in this kind of super-heated session that we have now in 2007, we did not want something this serious to get in the way of what is taking place in 2007 by way of mayoral elections, by way of Councilmen elections. And as the Councilman said, and both Councilmen said, it's very important that any new members, along with all of the other members who have to deliberate on this, have the time, have what I would say the quiet time in order to do that as opposed to any super-heated campaign. 17 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 So Councilwoman Blackwell, I agree with everything that you said, with the exception that I don't think that this particular resolution does that. It seems to me that this resolution, in a sense, cuts off debate as opposed to allows for debate. And my -- and respectfully, I think what we need to do is to continue this debate. For sure we need to know what property tax buffers we're talking about. And I've been to maybe 45 community meetings over the last year or so, and at every one of those meetings, I've stated to those in the community that we at the BRT will not go forward -- will not go forward -- fully with this project until there are property tax relief measures for all of our citizens, including our senior citizens. So all of those things have to be shaped yet. Obviously, a millage 18 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 rate has to be shaped, and that's going to come when we produce taxable assessments under this new system. And for a timeline, the taxable assessments for the Administration and for City Council -- and remember that this is -- this is always going to be flexible because we need to have these other pieces of the puzzle together. But currently, we're not talking about even producing those taxable market value/assessments until the end of 2007, beginning of 2008. And this program, as -- and if everything went right, as of today, you're not looking at anything -- any new tax bill 18 sent out until 2009. So this is really -- we're about a year and a half, almost two years away, and we need that time to do just what you said, to have those kinds of really hard conversations, very slow and methodical deliberations, and bringing all the pieces of the puzzle 19 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 together. Mr. Chairman, I'll try to summarize this testimony. It's -- it might be somewhat difficult, so if I sound like I'm jumping around --
We understand you're an attorney Mr. Glancey, so we'll take that into consideration.
Right. The full-value program really puts values on property, not taxes. We never -- we are not the taxing body in the City of Philadelphia. And putting accurate and current market values on our properties are mandated by state statute. We are driven by the state law. Administration. And the tough job here is really for the Administration for City Council and, to a certain degree, our state legislators to set whatever the tax rates are and to set whatever the tax relief measures 20 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 might be. Let me just give you a really quick and dirty example. If the value of my house is a thousand dollars and the tax rate is zero, my tax rate -- my taxes are zero. If the value of Councilman DiCicco's home is $100,000 and the tax rate is zero, the taxes are zero. If, Mr. Chairman, the value of your home is $5 million and the tax rate is zero, then the taxes are zero. The point I'm making is that it's not -- the value of property does not drive this; the causal connection between taxes is the tax rate, not the value of the property. The current system, quite frankly, I believe, can be fairly characterized as having back door increases for property owners. The tax rate in Philadelphia has not changed in 17 years, almost a generation. On our website, we show pictures of Mayor Goode, Charles 21 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Barkley, and Jim McMahon to show you when the last real-property tax rate was changed. It was almost a generation ago. And I say that because the value -- the property values have gone up over those years, and the tax rate 9 has stayed the same. Well, effectively, 10 that is a property tax increase for a 11 homeowner. 12 If the property tax rate had 13 dropped, then you could -- you could 14 somehow get a property -- kind of a 15 neutral -- a revenue-neutral kind of 16 system. That doesn't exist today. 17 And it is not the fault -- and I really want to emphasize this. It is not the fault of this council or this mayor, nor any previous councils nor any previous mayors; it's not the fault of the governing bodies. It is a systemic problem, and that systemic problem should be corrected, and I think it must be corrected. 22 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Finally, we must follow state law, and we can't be divested of our statutory responsibility by a referendum conducted pursuant to a municipal ordinance. We take an oath of office, and we take that oath very seriously, and we must perform under the taking of that oath. So with that, that's basically the summary of my testimony, and I thank you very much for allowing me to appear here today.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Glancey. Just a quick question on my part. So basically what you're saying, because this would be, I guess, an advisory -- if this is put on the ballot, it's advisory in that --
Do you still feel because of your mandated -- that you're mandated by law to still follow basically what you're doing now 23 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 anyway.
And, again, no 7 disrespect. We understand that you have the right to do that and the right to enact it.
We just want to point out the fact that we have to obey the law.
And the law says that we have to put current values on properties. What it also means is that we have to work together with you to put together those pieces that are necessary to make such a program a success.
Yeah. I know you used the word "revenue-neutral" in your testimony, and I remember in the hearings that Councilman DiCicco 24 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 referred to that that was a word that -- that was a phrase that kept getting used back and forth many times, and I'm assuming that's certainly where we come in too --
-- in making sure that that is revenue-neutral by lowering the -- if indeed full valuation goes through, and I'll be honest with you, as a person, you still got to convince me totally that that's necessary.
But since you -- it would be, if it goes up, then it would be incumbent on Council -- that's where we would really come in, to have to lower the rate of taxes.
I -- I -- I don't think there's any doubt that -- but also, you have to remember that the Administration comes up with the revenue estimates based on what the spending 25 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 might be.
So they will probably come up with a tax rate. You certainly have the right to change that and the authority to change that, but that's -- that would be up to you.
And really, what you've just said falls right into what I'm talking about. Yeah, we need to continue this kind of deliberative talk each step of the way, slowly and methodically, to get this done properly.
Mr. Glancey, in a perfect world, what you described is -- is great, but in the debate about the full value, I've talked to people in 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 other areas of the commonwealth and in New Jersey that trusted their elected officials to do the right thing. That hasn't happened. Unfortunately, in some of those municipalities, people that believed that councils would represent them appropriately and adjust that millage appropriately, that people that are paying in -- I heard in one radio show just over the weekend, when they moved into their community it was 4,000, now it's 6, now it's 7, now it's 8, now it's 9, and people are starting to move because they can't afford to pay the taxes. You know, you trust the people that make these decisions, but I think, unfortunately, the people that are represented don't have the same trust that we have.
I understand 27 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 that. (Applause.)
And I trust this body and I trust the legislative bodies to do the right thing, and I trust that this legislative body will do the right thing should such a system be here.
No question. No 16 question. You might -- just so that -- kind of parenthetically. Every county that surrounds Philadelphia, going as far west as York and as far north as Berks, does it this way, the way I've described.
Right. And do you believe any of those communities, the taxes have not increased? 28 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
I -- you know what? I think in some of those communities, they not only have not increased, but they've been reduced when they changed that system, but there have been -- again, in a real estate market all boats do not rise at the same time.
That is right. There are segments of a county that may see an increase and other segments that would see a decrease.
You just 29 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 made me think of something. There have been some reassessments done of certain communities. They did the reassessment during the bubble, when things were really high, and they've stayed. Do we have anything in the legislation that will adjust on the value, the market value? I know there are people paying in other areas. Their houses were assessed for probably 20,000 more than they're actually worth today.
The legislation says "current value," so that would obviously include any lowering of value, it would seem to me. The Board of Revision of Taxes, as I have testified any number of times -- and you may or may not have heard it -- we currently lower property values where we see sales that have stated that our current value is incorrect. So we have no problem in 30 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 doing that. As a matter of fact, we feel like we're kind of an arbitrator, like the umpire. It doesn't matter to us whether the value -- what the value is, as long as it's right. So if the value has to be lowered, we're happy to do that.
Thank you very much. In piggybacking on what Councilman Rizzo just said, I understand that the other counties -- for example, Allegheny County, they have done the changes, as you state, but Bill No. 24 060787 and the state legislature prevented age and income eligibility for 31 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 tax relief in Philadelphia. So other counties have done this. Their taxes have gone up, but the exemption is not permitted in Philadelphia. So, again, our people are not allowed to get a -- to get any tax exemptions, and we're told that we have to go to the state to get these caps or tax relief. So, you know, that deals with that issue. I mean, obviously, we were told initially that if we had this millage rate lowered, it would be, as the Chairman said, revenue-neutral, but we don't have any figures on what that millage rate is. And we still don't know, if it is revenue-neutral, why there is such a problem. They gave us some examples in some of the old information from the last hearing about how some folks' taxes could go up and some down. And we need -- Mr. Chairman, before we move this kind of legislation, 32 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 we need discussion on how taxes are even assessed, what -- you know, what the criteria is, who gets what relief. We know that people can live on different streets in the same neighborhood and have different taxes. I mean, they asked us to deal with this; let's have a discussion on what that means and who it affects and how you determine that criteria. And what I'd like to ask Mr. Glancey is, you mentioned something happening in '08, so would that mean this summer, people would get new tax assessments?
No, no. This summer, what will happen is just -- the program that we've -- currently exists, as it has existed for the past seven years or so. It will be the old system in the summer. Excuse me. That is the summer of '07 for '08. What we're talking about is for '09, so there wouldn't be notice until 33 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 sometime in the middle of 2008, what I was saying were tax assessments for you folks, for the Council and the legislators and the Administration to take a look at so that you would have plenty of time to look at what those assessments would be and what revenue would be generated by those assessment. And, Councilwoman, Curtis Thomas has introduced legislation to go exactly to what you were talking about, where Allegheny County has the ability to have some gentrification legislation, we do not. Curtis Thomas's legislation is in Harrisburg. And, obviously, I couldn't agree with you more that the methodology that we use has to be completely transparent. I'm -- we're happy to do that. And we try to -- and I think we do this that today on our website as to what we're doing now. But any new methodology, I couldn't agree with you more, has to be 34 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 seen by everybody and has to be tested by everybody, and there has to be that level of confidence, I think, that citizens need, that everybody is being treated fairly.
There are also issues about the School District and how we would have to change what they get and their assessment and how that would have to be adjusted. That alone is a complicated process in terms of what we do or what we believe about the School District and what we think about these issues. Do you agree in terms of --
I -- in my conversations with attorneys from the City and also attorneys from the House Appropriations Committee -- not the Senate Appropriations but the House Appropriations Committee. They believe that Act 46, as it is written, was okay, that you can -- what we're changing are millage rates, 35 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 not the yield from those millage rates. And they believe that Act 46, as it is written, allows for that to take place. And, again, I just want to go back to what you mentioned about Allegheny County. The major problem they've had in Allegheny County, and I say this with all due respect to the council president, Dan Amarato (sp?), that school districts in certain boroughs and townships did not lower the tax rates. The values went up because the county did you what they were supposed to do. But, unlike Philadelphia, there is not unified tax rate out there. There are probably 200 jurisdiction. And is in some of those jurisdictions, the tax rates didn't get lowered. There were these incredibly unfair windfalls, I think, to those particular jurisdictions. And that is why they're having what I would consider a problem that 36 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 they shouldn't have to have if everybody could have gotten together initially like we're talking about here to make these kinds of judgments in a uniform way. It is a big puzzle, there's no 8 question, and all of the pieces have to be put together to make a puzzle as complicated as this to work in a fair and uniform fashion. If that doesn't happen, if those conversations don't happen, I'm on your side. I agree with you that this shouldn't go forward until we do that.
And so what is your opinion on us having the legislation so that the public understands so that you get a message? And every -- not you narrowly you, but that the elected officials and the Administration and all who deal with this issue, from the state to the city and beyond, get a message from the people of Philadelphia as to how they 37 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 feel about this issue?
I -- again, I think that kind of message would be a good message. I don't think it resides in the current resolution that's before us. I think -- as I said, I think that the current resolution says, you know, Tell 'em to stop. It kind of stops all debate, it stops all argument, it stops all deliberation. I think if you're suggesting that this resolution and bill be amended to say the people want to have more -- I don't know what it would say, but if you're suggesting that all of these pieces have to be put together before we go forward with this, I think the BRT could support legislation like that. And even though, as you know, I may not be a City employee very long, I would be happy to volunteer my services to help draft such legislation after that. I don't know if that would be of 38 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 any assistance to you.
Absolutely it would. Thank you very much, Mr. Glancey.
Yeah, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if the Councilwoman has had Mr. Glancey and his team have had any of these discussions throughout your district as I have. As David said, he may not be here much longer. Unfortunately, he will -- well, fortunately for him, he's retiring, and we wish you luck. But it was a very enlightening experience having the BRT folks come out and talk to folks in the communities that I represent. Even though some folks may not have agreed with the presentation, at least there was a full 39 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 understanding. And as a result of that -- and I left this out of my earlier remarks -- we have about seven or eight bills that came out of City Council, four -- three or four which I had introduced, to talk about some of those issues. While I'm giving those protections to longtime residents, senior citizens, people on fixed income and the like, again, some of those bills require enacting state legislation. So if we -- if we do something in regards to your resolution, which basically says, cut it, it's over, it's done, it's never really going to go away, and at some point, we're going to have to face that reality, my suggestion is that we continue to have those discussions, and maybe the BRT, under -- either with Mr. Glancey or other folks who will be left behind, can come out to your community and explain what full-value reassessment could mean to 40 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 them notwithstanding those pieces of legislation that we will eventually hopefully get from the State that will give us the authority in Philadelphia to enact legislation to give those folks the protection that we want them to have.
Let me thank my colleague. And, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I didn't hold meetings on taxes going up 'cause I like my job. (Laughter.)
And I know that -- and I know that my people -- that my people would get rid of -- minus some pockets. You know, I represent a lot -- several universities -- four in fact, but let me say that the legislation only says that we maintain -- should we maintain our current level. And as you know, we don't -- it 41 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 only raises the question to the taxpayers; it doesn't make anybody do anything, but it just says that we should maintain our current method. That's all we're saying. It does not stop debate and does not stop the ability for us to talk about Representative Thomas's legislation or come up with ways to protect those people we think should be protected.
I appreciate your comments. First of all, I was not having meetings so I could tell people that their taxes were going up.
Well, you got that -- you have that rich Center City area.
Well, I 42 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 have a huge Center City area, but I also have blue-collar neighborhoods and I have very poor neighborhoods as well. My conversations and the purpose of the meetings was to let people know firsthand what the process of full-value reassessment could have meant to them, or could mean to them, because there was a lot of speculation, a lot of stories that were being written. And, yes, there may have been full-value reassessment where, passed as it was presented, without any safeguards, it certainly could have had an effect with a lot of my constituents in raising their taxes. And I think that goes to the heart of what I'm suggesting, which is that, you know, we need to continue this debate, whether it's full-value reassessment as apparently has been presented or some form of that, not to cut off that discussion. I think we do 43 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 a greater injustice to our constituents if we do that. And that's really what I'm all about. I'm not supporting full value, but something needs to be changed. What we have in place today is flawed, and I think we all agree on that, so some change will have to be made. We want to make the change that is in the best interest of our constituents so that people don't see any dramatic increases in their real-estate taxes as we almost saw back in 2003, if you can recall, when there were some significant increases that were being proposed then. So the current formula with which we tax real estate, everyone agrees, needs to be changed. There -- it has -- it can't stay the same way because if it does, we're never going to be able to get some parity, or we're never going to have some uniformity, if you will, in the way we assess and pose 44 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 real-estate tax on all of our constituents.
Mr. Chairman, this is my last comment on the issue.
And that is, obviously, the City -- every -- the cities always needs money. I'd feel better knowing, you know, what we're looking for, and that's -- and then I would feel better about what it is in a real discussion, what dollars the City needs, and then we could have a discussion on what we do. But in terms of us having to change it, I mean, look at SEPTA, for example. I got the Market Street elevator project, 46th to 63rd, I go up to 60th, and we have to come up with a tax. We've already talked to the City Solicitor about coming up with something to save those residences and commercial properties. 45 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Now, we realize this affects some 568,000 properties in Philadelphia, but we believe that until you have something better, you keep what you have. I don't know that we have to at this point do something different because we don't have a detailed plan for how that is defined. Until we do that, then I think we keep what we have. Seventeen years we've survived, I've heard that, but I haven't heard anything that improves it. I've heard about this plan that brings in more money, granted. Cities always need money. We support our city, we love our city, we know the city needs money. That's a separate question that we're not discussing today. We're discussing this legislation that is going to make folks' tax bills go up, and that's here, that's what is at stake. If the law has been in effect for 40 years and if there's 46 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 some years we haven't changed it, well, it can last a little while longer, in my opinion. (Applause.)
I know 7 Councilman Kelly has a question, but do 8 you have a direct response to that, 9 Mr. Glancey? 10
Yeah. 11 Councilwoman, I appreciate -- again, 12 respectfully, I would disagree with the 13 statement that this does not cut off 14 debate. 15 If you're saying that the 16 resolution says, Do not change the way 17 the system is, you're effectively cutting off the debate. The system has to change. We all just kind of agreed with that. And so the -- again, a resolution that would go towards that to have, you know, deliberate, slow, and very meaningful deliberations and debate about this is a different story from 47 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 simply saying that this system -- we want to keep the same system we have. And secondly, if we -- and I honestly mean this as an attorney. If we do not change the system, somebody's going to change it for us, and that, I believe, will be a court. And when a court steps in, you don't have the authority and the ability to shape the way the process is, which I think we would have if all of us worked together.
Thank you, Mr. Glancey. Councilman Kelly has been waiting for a while. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me be crystal-clear about this. Right now, if we decided -- or as the system is now, no changes would be made until mid-2008 to be effective in the year 2009? 48 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
And state law does require us, whether we go with the old system or a new system, it requires the BRT to do a full evaluation or assessment of properties; is that correct?
The language of the statute is "value properties at current value" --
Or "base-year value," which is under attack right now, but the more --
So nothing would be done anyway until mid 2008, which would give us an opportunity to listen to all sides of the debate. And I think you made a very good point, Mr. Glancey, when you mentioned that if we don't do it, then 49 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 someone else will, and the someone else probably will not have the same interests of the people and the citizens and residents of Philadelphia as we do.
And that's one thing, Councilwoman, that I think we should really take to heart when we -- when we fully -- when we get into these meetings. So, therefore, I think that you -- you did make a good point, that we have to do something, but I think that we have to have many more meetings about this. We have to get the -- we have to get the right ratio. We have to, of course, include our state representatives, we have to get our state legislators involved in this because they have an interest in this also, and they have responsibility, and I think that all of us have to work for the best interests of the residents of Philadelphia. 50 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 With that, I just wanted to be perfectly clear that nothing will be done until mid-2008 --
Mr. Glancey, so there would not be a effort to preempt what we want to do here so we have the ability to shape it, who would you suggest we communicate with or you communicate with to let 'em know that, you know, we're working on this, but we need a little room to breathe so they don't do what you described.
Who are the appropriate people that we need to start 51 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 communicating with?
Yes. In my office, the new chairperson, and although I can't say who that's going to be because the board will more likely than not make that decision, if you're asking my preference, I would suggest that you contact Robert Nix in my office. I think you would contact in the State House of Representatives Dwight Evans' office. In the State Senate, I don't know who to contact at this point. But the legislation that we have seen has really come out of a working group of legislators and some City folks. Charles McPherson from this council was involved in that working group as was I, as was, as I said, Dwight Evans, Kathy Mandarino. I believe George Kenny was involved in that working group. So there was a series of state 52 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 reps that can be involved in that, dealing with the City Council folks. And, you know, I certainly don't feel that I should tell you who in Council ought to be the contact. You folks will figure that out yourselves. Clearly working with the BRT, working with the Law Department, and I would start with the City Solicitor himself to work with the Law Department. And on the Administration currently, it is the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff, Sean McNeeley.
Thank you. Let me just say, in terms of us having to go to court, I'm not worried 53 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 about that. Every agency has lawyers. And we can fight, you can have class action suits. But I still believe that it is important that the -- that we send a message because I don't know understand what the fear is. Any law we make we can amend or unmake. So, you know, all we're doing is sending a message; we're not saying what can or should or legally happen. All we're doing is asking if we want it to change. And I think that people are more comfortable having a statement on this. People are afraid out there. They keep hearing their taxes are going to go up along with everything else. As I said, we know that state tax, they're talking about raising that a percentage; gas companies coming in for a rate increase. Everywhere we look, money has gone up. The water company wants an increase. Everybody wants an increase. So I want the citizens of our 54 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 city to know that we understand their pressures and their pain, and we support them in not asking for one. We're only asking, Shall it go up? This does not mandate anything, but it certainly sends a message to BRT and to the State and everybody else that the citizens of our city can't afford an increase, and certainly we're not ready for that. Again, there's been no talk about criteria; there's been no talk about who's affected, who's not affected what kind of breaks we can get, what we do for small businesses like my SEPTA and other seniors. We're just not ready for that. And I think it gives us a little bit better control. As a council, it gives us a better opportunity to say, This is where we stand, and it gives us a stronger negotiating point for the rest of the people, the Administration, and the 55 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 state officials, it puts us in a stronger negotiating point to protect the citizens of our city who need protection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any other questions? Briefly if you could, Mr. Glancey, 'cause we have a lot of testifiers. If I could just say for the record that the next witness will be City Controller Alan Butkovitz, if he could be ready to go.
-- I left out a person who should be a part of this when I was giving names to Councilman Rizzo, and that is Controller Alan Butkovitz. 56 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
He certainly ought to be involved in any of these deliberations.
Thank you for all the time you've spent over these years on this issue.
Thank you. Before Mr. Butkovitz starts speaking, I know many people out there are huddled up, and I know it's cold in here. I wish we could do something about that, but we apologize. It's been like that way for a while, hasn't it, Councilwoman Blackwell?
Good 57 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 morning, Mr. Butkovitz. Could you identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. I'm City Controller Alan Butkovitz. Do I begin?
I mean, at the outset, I would like to recognize this council's proud tradition as really the people's city council. In a big city, especially the District Council people have a long record of being the buffers and the protectors of just rowhouse people in Philadelphia, and that's what we're asking, that you do that again. Just about everybody I'm looking at here -- Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Rizzo, Councilwoman Blackwell, Kelly, and even before he was a councilmember, Councilman Greenlee -- have had very strong reputations in their communities for keeping out toxic 58 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 types of changes in communities and for making sure that people get their real value's worth from City government. Now, tax policy is something that has been at the center of debate in Philadelphia for years, and 8 everybody's been consulted -- academic 9 experts, special interests, everybody 10 except the real-estate taxpayers and the 11 people of Philadelphia. 12 And the effort in this ballot 13 question is to finally bring the people 14 into this conversation. 15 And I would commend Councilwoman Blackwell's work in sponsoring this ordinance, and we have been working closely with her and her staff in trying to devise language that should be understandable, because it's really a simple point. And the language that we are recommending and have recommended is very simple: Do you hereby urge the stopping of the real-estate tax 59 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 increases on homes and real estate of Philadelphia by the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes by use of the new method of figuring taxes called "full valuation"? Now, that language has been submitted, and it constantly gets tinkered with. I understand the City Solicitor doesn't like it and has devised a question that has what we learned in 2nd and 3rd grade, that it's difficult to mix a positive with a negative, because you ask somebody, "You don't want to do that, do you"? Now is the right answer yes, or is it no? Why do we want to phrase questions in a way that will just confuse people? Because we're afraid of really giving it to people straight and letting people's honest opinions be assessed. We count on this council and this committee to be the people's 60 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 protecter on that and to knock out that kind of lawyer-ish verbiage and just give it to people straight. Now, on the substantive question of the full -- it's not just full valuation; it's the whole trend line of what is happening to tax policy and real-estate taxes in Philadelphia. We are really in the midst of experiencing a tremendous positive surge in Philadelphia, and it's unusual. People are used to the cities being the place where you go to work in the morning and then you go home to the suburbs at night; and in many parts of Philadelphia, that is now reversed. Councilman DiCicco -- I know it has been controversial, but Councilman DiCicco did a -- it's not that common that you have an initiative emerge in Philadelphia that turns out to be a model for the rest of the country and that you can say really took off. And his initial on the tax abatements 61 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 changed the situation that I vividly recall. Back in the mid-1990s, people said there would never be new residential development in Philadelphia. Nobody would ever build skyscrapers, nobody would ever build houses. I'm all over Philadelphia now. They are building houses, and they are getting 200 and $300,000 for it. Now why is that? Because there was this concept that Councilman DiCicco had that people would take a risk and make an investment if there was a significant economic incentive in it. And then at some point, there would be a critical mass because there would be enough development that it would support itself, and that the entire value of the neighborhood and properties values would go up.
And it turns out that that has been borne out to be true. The problem with the proposed full-valuation reassessment is a 62 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 completely contrary idea. Now that the positive spillover effects of the abatements have expanded beyond Center City to areas like 17th and Christian and Strawberry Mansion, and other people are beginning to realize the positive critical mass in their neighborhoods of increasing property values, at least in those neighborhoods that are not totally rich right now, once you start pulling in a substantially increased real-estate tax value, you have issued a death sentence on the redevelopment of those communities, right? )
Every place else in the country -- you know, when they had problems in the auto industry in Detroit, the state government, the politicians of Michigan, they did whatever they had to do to go to Washington to get special relief for the auto industry. Every other place in the Midwest is boosterish. 63 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Philadelphia somehow has this idea that if something -- if we start a good trend, we should cash in on it right away. In effect, we kill the goose that laid the golden egg. We have -- the reason we haven't had tax increases in the last few years is because we're doing such a great business of buying and selling properties, and the properties are worth so much that we got -- we had a 500 percent increase in transfer-tax revenue in the City since 1991. In 2006, we got $234 million. The reason we have any kind of surplus in our fund balance is because people want to buy properties in Philadelphia. Now, there's a lot of disadvantages to living in Philadelphia. People pay higher auto insurance rates. People -- there is a crime tax, there is a riskiness to it. A lot of things are more expensive in Philadelphia. 64 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Why do we hear policy experts say, Well, you know what? Real-estate taxes are lower in Philadelphia than they are in the suburbs, and they're lower than they are in most other places, and that's unfair. Why do we always have to go in the direction that we match whatever the thing that is not good in someplace else. All the years that I was in Harrisburg, we heard comments that the Pennsylvania income tax was too low because New York had a higher income tax. What Philadelphia should be doing is taking advantage and emphasizing those things that happen to miraculously be working in its favor right now. And one of them is that we are a bargain in real-estate values between New York and Washington and with Montgomery County and the other Philadelphia suburbs, that we now have experienced the benefit of the baby 65 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 boomers getting old enough that their kids are out of the house and the schools are not the primary consideration, and they can live where it's exciting -- and they consider Philadelphia exciting and happening. And why don't we design policies that encourage that so that we can have a diverse tax base and that we can thrive in Philadelphia. Let alone all of the people of various types that will be hurt if there is a real-estate tax shock increase. People, the abatement is generally a great idea, but it creates oddities that are unfair to people. So you can be in a situation where you're living in a million-dollar condominium with no taxes for ten years, and the guys across the street from you, who might be on fixed incomes and didn't do anything, suddenly they're living in a neighborhood that's worth a lot more money. They don't have an abatement; 66 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 their taxes go up. What will happen with full valuation is that there will be constant and immediate reassessment to the most current recent sales data. So we have a problem with the increase in reassessments, whether we have full valuation or not. But full valuation will make it fast and constant, and, I believe, will set in motion a reverse migration out of Center City and of these prospering areas. And, in fact, we would have the irony of people being hit with much higher real-estate tax bills at a time when they're also suffering 'cause their property values will go down 'cause nobody will want to buy a property with that kind of tax bill. Now, the Board of Revision of Taxes has postponed this residential full-valuation reassessment for two years, but they are in full flower on their reassessment of commercial 67 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 properties; we've dealt with that in our office this year.
And people think that I'm making things up when I say that areas like Center City and Chestnut Hill could experience as much as a tripling of real-estate tax values. Well, we've had that direct experience several times in our office with commercial properties. Most recently, a property that was assessed -- or was taxed at $1100 and had it increase to $4400 based on assumptions by the Board of Revision of Taxes that just didn't turn out to be accurate in terms of what they thought that particular facility would be generating in revenue. Our office actually went over to the Board hearing, fought it the, and end result was that the tax went up to 1400 instead of $4400. We can't take that kind of shock. We have real-estates in Center 68 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 City of maybe $2500. If it goes to or $6,000 in one year, there's a lot of development that will stop in mid-development. A lot of developers have made a bet on Philadelphia. Why do we want to be unreliable partners to bet on? We have recently upheld the voters of Philadelphia. The voters of Philadelphia have very -- they are not ignorant on tax policy, they are not stupid, they are not people who don't know what's good for them. They, in fact -- I mean, we're all committed to the idea that they are the ultimate wisdom in our business. And what they say is, the real-estate tax is the tax that they hate the most. That doesn't mean that they're just against every tax willy-nilly and they won't be re -- I mean, they have -- in some of these questions, they've said that they would pay higher taxes on certain issues. 69 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 For example, this whole question of whether City workers should continue to have traditional pensions. "So they're not people that just don't want to pay their share. And they also say, by a large margin, that they would vote for an increase in the state sales tax, which is one of the issues under consideration in Harrisburg right now, that they would go from a percent Philadelphia sales tax to an percent sales tax if that would keep them from experiencing a big increase in their real-estate taxes. And then, finally, they say if there's got to be an increase, 48 percent say let it be in the business taxes, and something like percent say they would take a wage-tax increase before a real-estate tax increase. Only 10 percent of the people prefer a 70 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 real-estate tax increase. Now, my question is: When and how do they get to be a part of this conversation? It's admitted that the ballot question would only be advisory, right? It's not mandatory. The Board of Revision of Taxes will go to court or they'll keep ding what they're going to do. Why are people afraid to let that question on the ballot? Because when the question's on the ballot, people on every block in Philadelphia will have recorded their opinion, and instead of people being able to come in here and say, I think this and I think that, you're going to know exactly to the last digit what people in your neighborhood think of this. And it will add a powerful weapon to those who say that big real-estate tax increases are bad. Right now, there's a push on the part of business community that if 71 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 real-estate tax assessments go up, that provides the opportunity for a downward push on business taxes. 2 billion in tax cuts in his time in office, and those are mostly business-tax cuts, but there have been substantial-wage tax cuts. When we had the debate in Harrisburg over the casinos, Philadelphia was the only place in the state where the casino revenues were not earmarked for real-estate tax relief for a good reason: 'Cause we didn't have a real real-estate tax problem. Our revenue was earmarked to wage-tax cuts. You have already achieved a cut in the wage tax from 5 percent to 4 percent, and you're likely to get it into the 3s.
This Council has an admirable record on wage taxes. People are counting on you to not let that be 72 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 flipped over into an unsustainable tax burden in the real-estate tax category. All we want is a chance for people to express their opinion. How -- say 95 percent of the people in Philadelphia were to vote yes, and I don't think it would be that high. But whatever the opinion is, if they say, We don't want full valuation implemented, it doesn't stop the implementation, but it -- how else do you get one-and-a-half million Philadelphians to participate in this discussion. Why is it that Philadelphia Forward is allowed to conduct numerous forums and be considered as an educated and a legitimate spokesman on this. Why is it that the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce is allowed to be a legitimate spokesman, saying, Give us a break on our special taxes? How come Comcast is able to 73 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 come in here and say, Give us a break. We would like to have a place where we don't have to pay any taxes. )
But these people here aren't allowed to have a question that they can translate and understand and give their opinion on. Who are they going to get a hearing from, if not from you guys. This is not -- there is -- this is not anti-City Council thing by any stretch of the imagination. I know that people are feeling stressed because even the Council is experiencing this anxiety about what happens with the real-estate tax increases, and people are going to be upset about it, and they're going to blame us. I don't think anybody does blame this Council, but it's going to be a big problem, and it's going to be a big problem for all of us if it goes through without being vetted, and we 74 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 start to experience the negative effects I'm talking about. Back in 1990 -- you know, Center City has had a very varied history from a time when it was basically the skid row of the city to the time during the Dilworth administration when Society Hill started. And then, in the early '90s, it saw a tremendous plummeting in real-estate taxes values and the idea that Philadelphia may have seen its day. And to the credit of Governor Rendell when he was the mayor and Mayor Street when he was the Council President and to this city government, very concrete steps were taken to provide an investment in Center City and a magnet that provided excitement and positivity about Philadelphia, and that's working. And it takes -- you need to have focus and you need to have discipline, and you got to keep your eye on the ball and the things that are 75 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 working. So I very passionately urge this committee and the Council to please approve this ballot question for May in a form that we can understand, that after years of -- I guess I had 8 years of school, including law school, 9 and I just looked at the question as it 10 came back from the City Solicitor, and I 11 can't really tell whether it's supposed 12 to be a yes or a no. 13 And that's not what democracy 14 is about, right? Let's give these 15 people a question that they can 16 understand so that we can come back next 17 year, when we know there's going to 18 be -- the City's only going to have a 19 $4 million surplus at the end of this year. We know there's going to be problems over how do we pay for all the cops that we need and what taxes are going to go up and how much. This council should have the benefit of the people's wisdom on that. 76 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 There are promises being made that can't possibly be delivered. There are discussions about, Well, if we just change the procedure here, it's not going to result in a tax increase. And yet, I think it was -- was it Councilman Rizzo or Councilman -- that pointed out the -- and Councilwoman Blackwell, I think, pointed out in Allegheny County two specific experiences -- because the situation will have changed. What looks like a balanced budget this year is going to be a deficit budget next year. And you will have had the mechanism of the reassessments that will provide a momentum for the burden to fall on real-estate taxes, particularly in a city where all of the energy on tax policy is devoted to lowering the business tax to as close to zero as you can get and lowering the wage tax. There's only one other place 77 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 for the money to come from. And if the people who are real-estate taxpayers don't get a chance to vent and to put their opinion on the record and to push back, they're going have -- you're going to knock their socks off. And I know that's not what this Council wants to have happen.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Butkovitz. Any questions from the committee? Councilman DiCicco had his light on. Councilman DiCicco?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again for allowing me to speak, even though I'm not a member of this committee. When I came up here this morning, I was not -- I didn't come up here with the intention of attacking the resolution that Councilwoman Blackwell had put forward; I was trying to continue to engage in the debate about 78 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 where we need to go in terms of how we reassess properties in the City of Philadelphia. Thanks to the City Controller, I think I'm more convinced now that I would be in support of the resolution 8 because -- not because I don't think that we need to continue to have the debate, as I said earlier, but I think there's a question of trust among the people of the City of Philadelphia. Despite the best efforts of the BRT and their pledge that they would not move forward with full-value reassessment for at least two years or until 2008, I think the City Controller raised a good point that the only way we're going to get to have a true understanding of how the people of this city people about this issue is to give them the opportunity to voice their opinion in the May primary. And because of that -- although, again, I'm not a member of 79 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 your community -- when this bill comes to City Council for our vote, I would be voting in support of the resolution 5 because, again, I think it's a question of trust, and I think it's one of the ways we can reinforce our dedication to the citizens of this city, by giving them that opportunity to be hoard on May 15th in the primary election. And I just wanted to add that. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman DiCicco. I want to thank the Controller. Obviously, I agree with his statements, and you will see in his testimony the language that we initially agreed to, which was... and that we thought made it clearer. 80 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 However, we were trying to agree -- we've been trying to compromise with the Administration in finding some middle ground, although I'm not sure we did it. And so we will -- but you already have in your packet...
Councilwoman, if I could just ask. I'm getting an amendment from the Controller's staff there. Is this the amendment you're talking about? Just so I'm on -- we're all on the --
I don't think -- I think you have a more current version, Mr. Chairman.
"Do you hereby urge the stopping of real-estate tax increases on the homes and real 81 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 estate of Philadelphia by the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes' use of a new method for figuring taxes called full valuation?"
Okay. We can -- we're happy. If the board's happy, then we're fine. Thank you.
This is what you would propose when we get to the meeting to change, okay, the question. Okay? 82 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 All right. Any other questions by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you, Mr. Butkovitz. Thank you very much. Are there any -- is there anyone here from the Administration that wishes to testify? Please come -- state your name for the record and proceed, please. ) MR. McNEELEY: Good morning, Councilman Greenlee and members of the committee. I'm Sean McNeeley, Director of Policy in the Mayor's Office for the City of Philadelphia. I appear before you today to offer testimony on Bill 060576 and Resolution No. 060590, which would place a question on the ballot asking voters whether the Board of Revision of Taxes 83 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 should implements it's long-contemplated plan to assess properties at their full value. The Administration asks that the bill and resolution be held in committee. First, let me say that the Administration supports the Full Valuation Initiative. Implementing the system of full valuation as proposed by the BRT and recommended by the City's Tax Reform Commission in 2003 would improve the accuracy, timeliness, fairness, and equity of our real-estate tax system. Analysis has shown that the existing system of assessments is arbitrary and, particularly following the recent multi-year surge in sales and values, highly in accurate. In fact, the Tax Reform Commission concluded that based on 2002 data, Philadelphia had one of the highest levels of assessments error and the most regressive assessments among the big cities that it 84 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 analyzed. That is, poorer homeowners were paying taxes based on more of their home's full value than wealthier homeowners. This condition can only have gotten worse as values have skyrocketed while most residential homeowners have received minimal or no 10 assessment increases. We would not think of asking a worker making minimum wage to pay the wage tax on all of their wages while allowing workers making over $100,000 to pay the wage tax on only half of their wages. Yet that can essentially be the effect of our existing real-estate assessment system. This regressive, arbitrary, and unfair condition best be addressed by a complete reassessment and consistent annual reassessments thereafter, as planned in the Full Valuation Initiative. Second, I will reiterate the 85 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Administration's position that full valuation should not provide the City or School District a tax windfall and that policies should be implemented to alleviate the tax impact of full valuation on individual taxpayers and protect the most vulnerable taxpayers. I've attached our testimony from the October 25, 2005, hearing on full valuation, which Councilman DiCicco referenced earlier. That testimony outlines those positions and suggests alternatives. Let me be clear. If the real-estate tax millage is reduced so that the amount of tax collected is roughly the same, many homeowners would receive tax reductions as a result of full valuation. In fact, analysis by the Reinvestment Fund estimates that a majority of homeowners would see no 23 market change or even tax reductions as a result of full valuation based on a strict reassessment and with a new 86 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 revenue-neutral tax millage rate. The Administration has worked consistently with Chairman Glancey and the BRT, State House legislators and staff, and City Council technical staff on possible protection and remedies for the impact of full valuation on taxpayers. And until we know the actual reassessments and the data, it's difficult to identify the best remedy. If we're given a preview of the new assessments later this year, there will be abundant time to implement any necessary remedies at the state and local level before the proposed implementation of full valuation for tax year 2009, which would be the bills due in February and March of 2009.
We pledge to continue to work with you on City Council as well as other stakeholders to implement appropriate remedies as we get more complete information. Third, you should understand 87 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 the consequences of not going to full valuation before asking the voters to choose. Of major consequence is that by not updating residential assessments in a significant way since 2003, we've slipped further away from both our stated assessment ratio for state tax equalization purposes as well as from an assessment ratio that is applied equally to all homeowners. The State Tax Equalization Board (STEB) has been patient in waiting for the City to implement full valuation, but if we were to abandon the project and instead implement some marginal arbitrary assessment changes, using the existing assessment ratio, we could run into one or more significant problems. One is that the real estate assessment system could be found to fail to comply with the state's uniformity clause in taxation, which would force us 88 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 to undergo a major reassessment under court order, provide tax refunds, or undergo some other drastic remedy not of our choosing. Another very real possibility is that the City could be forced to comply with a lower assessment ratio determined by STEB requiring either that City Council raise the real-estate tax millage rate in order to provide the same amount of revenue or stripping the City and School District of tens of millions of dollars of real-estate tax revenue, and creating an immediate financial crisis for both. We understand the ballot question contained in Bill No. 060576 is not binding on the BRT. Nevertheless, given our support for the project and the belief that appropriate remedies for individual taxpayers can and will be developed in the next year, we do not believe that a ballot question is necessary at this time, particularly 89 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 given the large number of elections, candidates, and ballot questions already scheduled for the May primary. This concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. And I would like to first comment on the proposed amendment to the question. I haven't seen it; I'm only commenting on what I've heard. But if the question addresses real-estate taxes, the BRT doesn't impose the taxes; the City Council and the Mayor control the tax rate, so the question doesn't seem to be exact. It's kind of mixing things.
Well, in all due respect, it says "by the Board of Revision of Taxes' use of a new method for figuring taxes." And in the opinion of the question, that would increase the taxes. Now -- MR. McNEELEY: But -- 90 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
You know, you can say -- hold on. You can disagree with that, I understand, but it does -- it says that this method would increase taxes. That's what it basically says. MR. McNEELEY: The method would assessments. The amount of taxes collected are up to you. You change the rate, and the amount of taxes would be the same.
Mm-hmm. Okay. I understand. MR. McNEELEY: Okay. Councilman Kelly?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McNeeley, I see your testimony, and I have no problem with you supporting, of course, the full assessment for all properties in Philadelphia. I understand that's where you're coming from. But what is the harm of 91 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 allowing people to express their opinion of whether we need full value or not? MR. McNEELEY: Well, I think that the question doesn't really provide all the information that's necessary to understand the issue. You know, I just commented --
Yeah, this is not a binding -- this doesn't bind either the Administration or the BRT or City Council itself for any action. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
It just -- it's merely to get a poll or a pulse of the residents of Philadelphia to see whether they go to -- MR. McNEELEY: I understand that. I understand that.
Well, what is your objection to that? MR. McNEELEY: Well, for one thing, we have testified previously on other measures that we feel like this is going to be a very crowded ballot and 92 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 that that's going to create long delays and long lines for people being able to vote.
I don't think -- from listening to Dave Glancey this morning, I don't think that's so because I don't think any action's going to be taken on this until at least mid-2008, and it won't be effective until 2009. MR. McNEELEY: Right.
So therefore -- MR. McNEELEY: Then why ask people on the May ballot about something that's not going to take effect for two years from now?
Why not? MR. McNEELEY: Because, as I mentioned, we're going to have all of the judicial elections and --
I mean, we just have to get their opinion of it, that's all. I think it just helps us at 93 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 City Council to get -- to really -- to see where the people are and some of their concerns. That's all. MR. McNEELEY: The question doesn't really -- the question gets people's opinion about a part of the process, but it doesn't explain to people that you might be paying on a lot higher proportion of your home's value than someone down the street. You might -- you might be paying a lot higher proportion of your home's value than somebody with significantly more income that lives in a different neighborhood that lives in a more valuable home. It's basically an unfair system. And so -- it also doesn't tell people that the assessment, again, the doesn't have a relationship, a direct relationship to the tax until the City Council or the Mayor --
Well, in many people's opinion or minds, that no 94 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 matter what we do, some people, it's going to feel like it's a -- you know, it's an unfair situation, and that will happen regardless of what -- which way we go and whatever we go. MR. McNEELEY: That's true, and I think that we need to communicate better all of the aspects of the issue.
Well, I think we have -- at least we have almost two years to communicate with the people of Philadelphia, and I think that's what we have to do -- MR. McNEELEY: Right.
-- and what we will do. MR. McNEELEY: Yeah. And I think we can continue to work along those lines, and I don't know that asking people a question that only involves a piece of the whole picture really provides a road map for what the best policy is. I think that what it does is, 95 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 it inflames people and it causes them concern, when, as we've said, the overall level of taxes collected will be the same. We have analysis from the Reinvestment Fund who's looked at sales data for the last few years, looked at the BRT's data, and found that the majority of people would either have no 11 change or a reduction as a result. So, you know, those are what the data tells us, but the question doesn't tell people that, the questions doesn't inform anyone; the question just continues to play into the concerns that people have without --
And people will have concerns, and I have a concern right now, feeling that all of this assessment will be revenue-neutral, as it's supposed to be. I mean, we hear that constantly, revenue-neutral. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm. 96 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
But in reality, I don't know if that's going to be so. I really don't. MR. McNEELEY: Well, again, it --
I mean, the property values went up in the City so, therefore, people will probably be paying more in many cases than less, and that's what we have to watch. One of the things that I would like to do -- ask you is, what do you feel about a capping? MR. McNEELEY: I think that --
Of any increase? MR. McNEELEY: Yeah. I think that we have been more interested in policies like phasing in increases and policies like the homestead exemption and policies like a gentrification deferral targeted to age and income level. We've been more interested in 97 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 that than in a hard, cap because with a hard cap, if -- depending on what level the cap is at, you still don't get at a more fair --
Well, one of the things that I have, and I think the Controller mentioned it pretty well, that he gave an example of somebody who received an increase of about $3,000 for one increase, one jump like that. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
And it would probably force you to start thinking about moving out of Philadelphia, and that's what we don't want. MR. McNEELEY: Right.
We want -- and now, any increase should be capped, I think, for whether it be 5 percent of what you paid for the previous year or the previous years. I think that's one 98 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 of the things that I think we should look at in Council, to protect the people that they would know beforehand there would never be any -- any huge increases. MR. McNEELEY: A phase-in or buffering system can accomplish that same effect without the -- the problem or the drawback to a cap is that you don't get to a place where everyone is paying the right amount based on their home's value. You still would have some distortions. Some people would still be paying too much, some people would still be paying too little, depending on, again, the size of the cap and any other remedies you adopted. But a phase-in, eventually everyone would --
Well, we do have safeguards in those cases because they can appear before the Board and ask for some relief. MR. McNEELEY: Right. 99 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
And they would be granted the relief anyway. MR. McNEELEY: Right. You can be.
But I just wanted to get your opinion on why you feel that asking the people who live in Philadelphia their opinions on whether we should remain the same or whether we should go to the new system. MR. McNEELEY: It's not that it -- it's not --
It's not binding anyway. We're going to continue because I think that state law requires it, and we're going to probably do it. MR. McNEELEY: Right. And it's not binding, but it is valuable to get --
But I think, as the Controller mentioned, I think he said something on a head, and that's -- that's sort of -- people want to have a save say. 100 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
And I think that we, you know, should give them that say. Simple. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilman Kelly. Before I recognize Councilwoman Blackwell, I would just like the record to reflect another member of the committee, Councilwoman Campbell, is here. Councilwoman Blackwell?
Thank you very much. I think that Mr. McNeeley is saying conflicting things. You say you did a survey and you found that there would be no change or reduction, and yet you haven't talked about really what a millage rate would be because you mentioned phasing in and buffering, which means that, obviously, you support 101 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 an increase in taxes. And on of your testimony, quote, I read. It says: "Analysis has shown that the existing system of assessments is arbitrary and particularly following the recent multi-year surge in sales and values is highly inaccurate." Now, you say it's highly inaccurate, and yet how do you compare that to what the Controller said about reverse migration? How can we be assured that people in Center City and in other areas, even in my university areas, won't experience reverse migration when it's obvious, from that statement, that you assume that taxes will go up because we know that the recent surge in sales has increased the price of real estate in the City, not kept it level or not decreased it. (Applause.) MR. McNEELEY: The statement -- the statement was that the Reinvestment 102 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Fund estimates the majority of homeowners would see no market change or even tax reductions based on a strict reassessment and new revenue-neutral tax millage real estate. If you have -- if you collect roughly the same --
Yeah. I'm lost there, too. What are you quoting now? I'm sorry. MR. McNEELEY: I'm --
I was quoting you. MR. McNEELEY: Yeah, so am I, at the bottom of .
And what the analysis that -- that sentence that says "analysis" -- MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
-- which absolutely means that you're looking for a tax increase. 103 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 MR. McNEELEY: No. It means that we're looking to assess properties fairly. The amount of taxes that are collected would be about the same.
How could there be -- you mentioned here that there's a surge in sales. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
And we all know -- there's a surge in sales and values. Those are your words. So if a surge in values means that the cost of real estate, which we all know, has gone up in the city. MR. McNEELEY: Yeah.
So how can it -- so you state in your own sentence that to make it -- to make it right would be an increase in taxes. That's what you're saying in your own sentence. MR. McNEELEY: No. 24
And then you talk about phasing in and 104 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 buffering. Those are phasing in additional costs and buffering all of -- you're talking about phasing in an additional cost in taxes for people. MR. McNEELEY: The amount of taxes collected is the product of assessments multiplied by the tax rate, so if we lower the tax to match the increase in assessments, then the amount of taxes collected is the same.
But you didn't bring that language -- you didn't bring what language we should lower taxes by, you didn't have specific information on phasing in and buffering, nor did you bring anything to say that the Administration supports this on the millage rate, this is what we should do to make it revenue-neutral. None of that. All of that is on Council to tell its people like, "We just going to raise your taxes" -- MR. McNEELEY: No, it -- 105 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
And we're not willing to do that. We're not going to tell our citizens that we're just going to blindly support partial legislation that would definitely increase their taxes. We're not going to do that. MR. McNEELEY: It's not on Council to do that. What I said was that until --
Of course it is, based on your statement. MR. McNEELEY: No. What I said was, until we know the actual assessments, it's difficult to identify the best remedy. It's hard to identify which policy to use when you're talking about over 400,000 properties and you're talking about changes in assessments of all different magnitudes for those different properties. So what we want is to get preview data from the BRT, analyze that, 106 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 talk with you and your technical staff about that, and then identify the best remedies. And we have two years to do that because this doesn't take effect until the tax is due in 2009.
Then we think you can support us, and we understand it's some 568,000 properties. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
At any rate, we hope that the Administration will consider what we've said and support us in maintaining the status quo until we have all of the other questions answered and, as Councilman DiCicco says, so that the trust factor that exists between us and the people we represent can be maintained. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of 107 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 the -- one of the concerns that I have is the way we value a property. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
I've done some reading on this, and some of the things that have occurred in other municipalities is the fact that when you assess a community based on sales, right away, you're creating a situation that if in our city, a person does a lot of upgrade to their property, unless you actually visit a property, look at a property, it's very tough to tell the value of a house that sold on the north side of the street versus a very senior citizen that still has the very basics when the house was built, meticulously maintained, clean, but still may be a property with one bathroom, a second bathroom wasn't added, and the records don't reflect that. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
So how we implement and how we actually value the 108 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 properties, because some communities won't do just on comps. They actually -- I don't think they call them appraisals, but they call them something close to it, an evaluation of the property. MR. McNEELEY: Mm-hmm.
But until you really can get your nose in the door, which I don't think many of our senior citizens especially would welcome -- MR. McNEELEY: Right.
-- that you're going to cause a lot of anxiety and a lot of stress for people because they'll get a tax bill that's the same as the guy across the street that has granite tops, and they have formica. MR. McNEELEY: Right. You know, this is really more Mr. Glancey's area, but --
I'm just trying to let you know where we're 109 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 heading here. MR. McNEELEY: Yeah. But I believe what they've been doing is, they've gone out for a physical reinspection of every property from the exterior, just from the exterior. As you said, it would be difficult to get inside people's homes, and I think they've worked on acquiring better data from third parties of interior characteristics. So part of the process is to get better information about all of the properties, and then part of the process is implementing better IT systems and better ability to model all of that. So, you know, they've been working on that from both those sides.
But I can tell you the research that I have done, it has created a nightmare in some communities because of the fact that it was just impossible to truly value a property based on what something sold 110 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 around the corner. You just can't do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you, Mr. McNeeley. Thank you very much. I have -- the following people are listed -- I have four more people listed, and maybe they could all come up so we can move as quickly as possible. Again, with all due respect, I ask that your comments be brief 'cause we have a whole different subject of people, and unfortunately, I see that list -- that area getting less and less occupied. I hope people aren't going home. Alisa Orduna-Sneed, Betty Reavis, and then I have Mary Jenkins and Ann Agee, if I'm pronouncing it right. So if you could all be ready so that we 111 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 could try to move as quickly as possible. (Witnesses come forward.)
Welcome back, Alisa. Nice to see you. Please identify your -- you know how this works. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning. My name is Alisa Orduna-Sneed, and I'm the Executive Director of the Partnership CDC. On behalf of the Partnership, I'm here to testify in favor of Bill No. 19 060576 and Resolution No. 060590. Currently, we believe that there's too much misinformation and mistrust between the citizens of our district and the BRT to substantially support changes within the tax assessment process at this time. 112 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Given the rapid rising values in land prices, especially in previously undervalued communities, there's a real fear in the neighborhoods that we serve that full valuation is a strategic approach to further dislocate low-income and minority homeowners. The fact that many new homeowners and investors are eligible for the ten-year tax abatement only adds to this fear as the burden of a new tax formula will fall on current homeowners. And, again, as the senior issue has been mentioned, in West Philadelphia alone, there are at least 30 percent of our homeowners who are seniors over the age of 62. While their Social Security and pensions are calculated together as often is required for the various tax relief programs, they make too much money and have too little, however, to pay their utility bills, make needed home repairs, afford their medications, and maintain a comfortable lifestyle. 113 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Finally, yesterday's tragedy whereby a mother and her four children were killed in an abandoned home only highlight the issue of a growing problem of limited affordable housing options within our city. As a certified counseling housing agency, on a daily basis, we see at least two to three people living in substandard housing because the have no 12 other options. The majority of substandard homes are legacy housing whereby they are inherited legally or by default from an older relative. Legacy housing is seen as often as the best option for achieving home ownership, as heirs can legally have right to by title just based on birth right versus having a lump sum of savings, providing proof of income, or other financial means as would be required in acquiring property in traditional processes. Often these properties also come with a heavy tax 114 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 burden and are threatened for sheriff's sale at any day. Recent housing studies show that housing discrimination is on the rise and that communities are becoming more and more segregated based on race and class. It is our mission at the Partnership CDC to reverse these trends. To this end, we believe that a new tax assessment strategy could be used as a policy tool to positively create strong mixed-income communities whereby racial, economic, and social diversity will flourish. At present, we fear that the present full valuation recommendation will create the opposite impact, and our long-term constituents, working-class folks of mixed races, are very afraid for their immediate future. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify before you today. We are very happy to see that our constituents will have a voice in their 115 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 future through the approval of Bill No. 3 060576 and Resolution No. 060590. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? (No questions.)
The next name I have is Betty Reavis. Identify yourself for the record and proceed, please. (Applause.)
I'm President of the Walnut Hill Community Association, and our boundary lines are 45th Street east to 52nd Street west, Market Street north to Spruce Street south. We were organized 44 years ago by a group neighbors who were concerned and came together to address those concerns of safety, health, beautification, education, and housing. These concerns have not changed through the years, and the residents have worked 116 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 diligently over the years for the betterment of their neighborhood. In 1977, the Housing Committee of Walnut Hill formed the Walnut Hill Community Corporation to combat the issue of housing. Around this time, the community was faced with many dire problems such as crime, safety, vacant lots, abandoned and deterioration of property, slum landlords, and housing code violations. These conditions brought in less social conscious citizens along with many other problems. Town meetings were held with the multi-media coverage from television, radio, newspapers, the mass door-to-door flyer distribution. The residents voiced their most serious problems regarding the housing code violations, educational problems at West Philadelphia High School, and crime against senior citizens. City officials were present as well as state representatives. 117 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 The community faced their problems head-on with persistence and hard work. And with the assistance from the proper authorities, they achieved a major success. In recent years, members have been involved with the following projects. They worked with developers to rehab the Chatham Apartments at 49th and Locust Street; they worked with the Partnership CDC to upgrade their housing stock; they turned vacant lots into gardens; they hold drug vigils; they have a youth program at West Philadelphia High School; they have had after-school programs at Lee School for tutoring and assisting teachers; and they have a scholarship program for college-bound students who reside in Walnut Hill. Today, many of our residents are still working relentlessly to maintain the quality of life in its viable community. Many of us have 118 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 reached the age of retirement -- 60s, 70s, 80s. Yes, 80s. Our treasurer is 88 years of age (Applause.)
We have seen our community go through many transitions, and we are proud of work that our members have done to maintain this community. Yes, there are still problems -- mostly drugs. However, this problem is not exclusive to Walnut Hill. I have attempted to provide you with some history of our organization. I now strongly appeal to you to consider the devastating effect that the implementation of the Full Valuation Initiative would have on many of our seniors -- many of our citizens, especially our retired senior citizens whose retirement income is based on salaries earned 15 to 20 or more years ago. The value of real estate has exploded in University City, and these 119 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 real-estate taxes will be reassessed at one hundred percent market value. This type of increase will create an unfair burden on those who deserve better and who are already heavily burdened with the high cost of medicine and utility bills. It will force people out of the Walnut Hill community, people who have worked hard to preserve this community. Shall the following referendum question be placed on the ballot in May of 2007? Shall the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes implement its Full Valuation Initiative, thereby increasing real estate assessment in the City of Philadelphia? Walnut Hill Community Association's response to that question was an emphatic no. But after testimony, we're thinking maybe we should think about that differently. We strongly object -- to go on to that, we strongly object to that 120 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 question being placed on the ballot. However, we do support an amendment calling upon the citizens of Philadelphia to urge the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes to retain their current method of real-estate assessment and not change to the Full Valuation Initiative. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much for your testimony. (Applause.)
Mary Jenkins? Oh, that's you. It doesn't matter. Either/or. You're at the microphone, Miss Agee. Go ahead.
I came with the Granny Peace Brigade. 121 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
Yes. I did not intend to speak with them, but I'm moved to speak on think issue as well because I'm a Philadelphia homeowner and a retired person, and also, I've made a little bit of a study, or I have some knowledge that perhaps would allow me to raise a couple of issues. One of them is about the abatements. I'm not so sure that the abatements -- like, for instance, the tax on salaries or the tax on the -- the wage tax in Philadelphia, that's been touted as being a disincentive. I'm not so sure that the abatements themselves are a tremendous -- are the incentive that they are touted to be. I think that there are other factors involved in the real-estate boom in Philadelphia and -- one of which is the low interest rate that has created huge amounts of investable money on the 122 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 part of investors. And so -- the second thing is that that creates also inequities, as has already been brought out, so that's something that needs to be addressed. And the second thing is that there's another kind of inequity in taxing in this city that has been mentioned by Mr. McNeeley, I believe, but sotto vocce, and we've been sort of dancing around this issue. And that is that a study has been made, and it's been found, that people in the neighborhoods are paying higher rates of tax than people in Center City. You all know that. Oh, I'm not telling you anything you didn't know. Okay. I just wanted to make that point. So we do need to change the system. And the system that's going on right now, of course, is one that has its inequities, too. I'll just mention Chicago because I was just consulting with a 123 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 friend who tells me that the tax rate in Chicago is much, much higher than in Philadelphia, the very heavy tax burden in Chicago. They have a different economy, they have a different structure altogether, but that's just a point to be raised. What I'm bringing up here is that I need on NPR the other night on a program called "News and Notes" that addresses mainly African-American issues, they were talking about Chicago and how the whole city has been totally renewed. And, literally, many people of color have been forced to move to the suburbs. This is also happening in Washington, D.C. And so, you know, Philadelphia's participating in something that is probably nationwide, but in any case, it's happening in number of other cities.
Miss Aggee, just so I -- if I could just 124 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 ask quickly. Are you in favor of putting this question on the ballot or not? I'm not real clear on what you --
That we need to do a good job of educating people about what all of the issues are and assuring people that equity is what we're really about.
And, you know, and my last point was this, that, you know, we're in the computer age, and we can develop screens for, you know, bringing about this kind of equity because everybody feels -- you know, we feel that this equity question is being addressed, but, as I said, in a kind of quiet way. And we need -- we need people in general to be aware of what these issues are. 125 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 And the final thing I would say is that on February 23rd, there's going to be an all-day seminar at Temple University on real-estate issues and changing the real-estate tax, and it's happening at the law school at Temple University. You can contact Brett Mandell, M-A-N-D-E-L-L.
And you can look to your left, and he's sitting right there.
Thank you, Miss Agee. Thank you. Any questions or comments? (No questions.)
It's now "good afternoon," but good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record and proceed, please. 126 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590
My name is Mary -- Evangelist Mary L. Jenkins -- Odom Jenkins, I shall say, and I'm President of Mantua Community Planners, Inc. This tax issue, I'm going to read the documentation that you have, and then I'm going to piggyback on a few things. Councilman Greenlee and members of the City Council, I am here to testify regarding the Bill No. 060576 and Resolution No. 060590. I believe that the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes should retain its current method of assessing real-estate taxes. I fully support the bill and resolution without any amendments, change, or thoughts of doing so. The change would place a hardship up on many residents. Because of high taxes in the City of Philadelphia at present, many residents are struggling to pay taxes. I don't 127 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 understand why the reason for change. Whatever it is, hopefully the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes would be able to enhance the betterment of the citizens. The question should be on the ballot so the residents can decide if there will be a change. Now, I just want to further piggyback and say that my reason for saying this is because Philadelphia residents are suffering now tax-wise. There's a song being sung out there every day, and I hear the song that's being sung. They're singing this song: "More taxes, more taxes, more taxes." And, you know, it is so sad because we have senior citizens who do not understand the tax system at all. And then we have residents who don't understand the change, why the change. And every time they hear a change, the change is pay more taxes. We have senior citizens who are afraid of losing their homes because of 128 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 taxes, and they're sitting down with me every day, talking about their taxes. This is a serious issue, and I think now is the time that this ballot be put on -- put out there for the citizens and the residents of Philadelphia to decide what should be changed. It is time for a change, but we want change for a betterment, not to make the struggle harder for the citizens and the residents of this city. It is so hard. I mean, these taxes, people are giving up their homes because of taxes. And the broad issue is that it is time that people become educated. I heard something about a tax revision or a tax workshop, tax conference or whatever. That is needed. We should have more conferences. We should have conferences all the time centered around taxes, raising people's taxes, they don't -- and they're asking 129 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 why. So my question is -- I mean, I have a question. What can we do and what are we going to do to make this taxation problem understandable so the citizens and the residents would understand more about what's going on with their taxes? That's my thought.
I know we have just one more person. I'd like to thank all of the community leaders -- this is the Mother of Mantua -- for coming. And she reminds me of what we studied in elementary school that said "taxation without representation," and it reminded me of that phrase. But we want to thank them all, 130 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Mr. Chairman, for being here.
I agree. Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell. Is there anybody else to --
Okay. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
I'm Ruth Adams from West Powelton Concerned Community Council giving testimony. We're testifying on Bill No. 060576 and Resolution 060590. We are appalled to hear of notions about real-estate taxes in the City of Philadelphia possibly being increased again. The thought is terrifying. Seniors who have worked for years investing in their homes with the expectation of living their last days in comforts are now being plagued with high utility bills, unbelievable prescription costs, and food prices skyrocketing. 131 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 Now another tax increase would surely do us in. Everyone is not in the bracket to receive help. Fifty cents over the guidelines disqualifies a person for assistance. And then there are the young people just starting out with children and day care experiences and school loans to be paid. We realize taxes are need to keep cities afloat, but plans should be implemented to protect those who could become homeless with another tax increase. What about setting up a homestead act or something similar for seniors who have been in their homes for X-number of years and have put all of their earnings and savings in the upkeep of their property. Or maybe a tax credit or a tax freeze. This testimony is critical, and we are trusting that you will consider another avenue to raise funds for our 132 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T-BILL 060576, RES. 060590 city. And we have brought petitions from 472 people, and we are in agreement with Miss Blackwell. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to thank Alisa Sneed, Executive Director of the Partnership CDC; Miss Adams from West Powelton Community Council; Betty Reavis, Walnut Hill Community Association; Reverend Mary Jenkins, Mantua Community Planners. We have Alice Wright, United Block Captains who is here, and all other people who have come to certainly try to protect their survival and their rights to be productive citizens in our city. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilwoman. 133 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Anybody else to testify on this? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to the next bill and resolution finally for you folks who have been so patiently sitting there. Mr. Boyle, will you please read Bill No. 060849 and Resolution No. 11 060861, please.
Ordinance 060849, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled, "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section 20 providing that the citizens of Philadelphia urge the United States to make year 2007 the time to redeploy U.S. troops out of harm's way in Iraq; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot 134 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution No. 060861, a resolution proposing an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section providing that the citizens of Philadelphia urge the United States to make year 2007 the time to redeploy U.S. troops out of harm's way in Iraq. (Applause.)
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell, did you want to make a brief statement?
Thank you very much. We are so appreciative of members of the Granny Peace Brigade, and I watch them on TV. They're 135 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 everywhere -- they may be in Harrisburg, they may be in Washington, they may be here. I missed their last one where they wanted to protect someone in the service who didn't want to go to Iraq. And we want to thank them for their diligence, for their commitment, for their hard work, and all other people in our city, state, and country who realize there's no criticism here; we're just saying that it's time to come home. (Applause.)
So certainly we want to make that clear. We know that some members can't support it, but we want to make it clear we're not criticizing the president, we're not criticizing anybody in his administration. And we thank all of those who sacrifice their lives every day. We recognize their families, we recognize their supreme sacrifice. We're only 136 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 saying it's time to bring men and women home. And, again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing this. We thank all who are here and look forward to this testimony.
Thank you, Councilwoman. And I'd like to incorporate my feelings the same way as yours; I think you stated it very well. I have -- I'm sorry. Any other questions or comments first? (No questions.)
No? I have two -- I have a long list, but I have basically two groups that are listed to testify: The Granny Peace Brigade and -- well, actually, I have a couple, but also Delaware Valley Veterans for Peace. I'm going to call the Granny Peace Brigade. If I could respectfully suggest, if you have a couple of -- one or two spokespeople so we could try to 137 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 move this along because we want to make sure we have our quorum so we can vote. So please come forward, identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony. (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Marlena Santoya, and I am with the Granny Peace Brigade, Philadelphia. As you well know, we recently had an election. Seventy percent of the people of this country said that the election was about the war. We have had enough of partisan politics. The people have voted, and we believe that it is indeed time to bring our troops home safely. (Applause.)
We realize that Philadelphia is the fifth largest city in the state [sic], and it is time that we, the people of Philadelphia, go on record as stating clearly that we are not about occupation. We are not about 138 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 occupation in this country and we respect the rights of other countries. That it is time that we realize that it's -- that the way to resolve our issues are with political action and not with military endeavors. And so, I respectfully ask each and every one of you here to honor the voice of the people of Philadelphia and to recognize that, indeed, it is time for you to represent the people of Philadelphia and to bring home our troops. Thank you. (Applause.)
Before you proceed, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Campbell.
Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman? 139 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861
I have to leave, but I wanted to go on record that I'm voting on yes on all bills and resolutions.
Okay. The record will reflect that. Thank you, Councilwoman.
Thank you, Councilwoman. UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS: I appreciate that, Councilwoman.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. Thank you.
I am also from the Granny Peace Brigade. I want to talk about two things. One is money. I got your 140 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 attention. Money. You all know, because you know the city budget, you work with it all yearlong. You know how much the City of Philadelphia depends upon the influx of federal funds on all levels -- education, transportation, the airport the dredging of the Delaware River, the various military installations that are here in the city still, even though the Navy Yard is having problems. My check that comes in from Social Security, all of the federal money is in jeopardy. All of it is in jeopardy because the federal budget is in debt. It is getting deeper in debt, and the reason -- there's one important reason -- there are a lot of other minor reasons. The biggest reason is the Iraq War. (Applause.)
$258 billion estimated in a newspaper article, and we're talking about -- that's about a 141 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 year ago that that was the estimate in debt, that's going into our debt. What makes the City Council of Philadelphia think that you will have the money to spend on anything if the bucks are going to come from the feds if they've already spent it -- in fact, gone into debt in order to continue this idiotic war. Point one. Point two. As much as I support Jannie Blackwell and her effort to get think on the ballot so that at least the people of Pennsylvania -- or, I'm sorry, the people of Philadelphia will have a chance to say what they think, even though Philadelphians can't -- don't have jurisdiction, it doesn't matter. If we can say what we think, it will have an influence. I support her bill, with one small exception that's fairly a big exception, actually, when it comes down to it. Get rid of the word "deployment." We don't want the troops 142 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 deployed to Iran. (Applause.)
We don't want the troops deployed to Kuwait. We want the troops brought home to the United States. (Applause.)
If I could just mention on the witness's point, though. I believe, in the title of the resolution and bill, it specifically mentions Iraq, so I don't think we can bring in any other subject in the body. Councilwoman?
But this was as much as we could get everybody to agree to. 143 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861
Okay. After this gentleman who was just here, I did have a request, after this gentleman that was at the table, for the next speaker to be Cathy Santos and the National Alliance of Women Veterans. Okay, is that you?
Okay, so you will be next. Sir, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
I'm Bill Perry of Veterans for America. We're a coalition of Korean War veterans, Second World War veterans, Vietnam veterans; all are veterans. And our leadership is made up of Iraq veterans and Afghanistan veterans. What I would like to make clear is, the winner of the May primary, in all probability, will either be the United States Representative from the 1st District or the United States 144 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 representative of the 2nd District, two fabulous Philadelphians, who have, for a long time, have signed on to the Out of Iraq Caucus in Washington, D.C., two Philadelphians who we know, whichever one wins, we know where he's going to stand come November. And what is really important, after the dust clears in May, for all practical purposes, the winner of the primary will be the winner in November. We need something to focus our corporate press on the impossibility of moving the administration. We want the corporate press to help the five-county area around this city understand how we feel in this city about saving lives. So far, 3,123 folks have died in this war. By November's election, it will be close to 4,000. By the May election, it will be in the 3500 range. We've got to do something now. We really realize the importance of this bill. 145 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 And we know how Philadelphia will vote. We have great confidence in the citizens of Philadelphia, and we expect this to be on the ballot. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments? (No questions.)
Miss Santos, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Cathy Santos, founder of the National Alliance of Women Veterans. Yes. Good morning and thank you all for these important hearings on bringing the troops home from Iraq and to place this on the ballot. I also want to thank Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell for her continuing support of veterans and homelessness. The National Alliance of Women 146 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Veterans, we're an advocacy group, and we address veteran's issues, particularly women veteran's issues and those that have suffered from sexual assault in the military. Over the past years, 8 advocacy has included corresponding with 9 the Veterans Affairs Committee and the 10 Senate Judiciary Committee and the 11 related subcommittees and other levels 12 of government, most recently addressing 13 the issue of the Patriot Act and the 14 Domestic Spying Program, the Department 15 of Defense instituting of the Sexual-Assault Database Management System, and the war in Iraq, which has increased our awareness and revealed many problems that exist within the military as we deal with the issue of terror, also as an activist on Capitol Hill in support of stopping the war in Iraq, along with supporting other veterans groups and peace activists. My purpose of this testimony is 147 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 to add somewhat of a different spin here. I support putting the question on the ballot to bring the troops home; however, my question is: What are we going to bring them home to? (Applause.)
It is my belief that based on a study that proved that innocent lives are lost and are at risk as a result of the president's decision to fight terror and to locate weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11, it is still not clear what we are fighting for, and there was no findings of weapons of mass destruction, neither has there been any progress in the capture of Osama Bin Laden, who was identified as the perpetrator of the attack on the Twin Towers and central to the international terrorism. As of February 7, there was 3,000-plus deaths, 149 from Pennsylvania, 69 women, and over 50,000 wounded soldiers in Iraq. And we are in 148 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 jeopardy of escalating the war by another 21,000. It's my belief that veterans who are returning from the Iraq War not receiving level of care that their conditions sometimes warrant. , for me, it's horrendous. I believe that the health care is basically in question. A. Hospital prepared to handle the level of care? I know that Brooke Hospital and Walter Reed Hospital have just built a rehabilitative unit to deal with the brain injuries and then loss of limbs. Many of these soldiers are coming home with conditions that their family is not prepared to deal with, they're not equipped to deal with. However, I spoke with 149 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Dr. Gintos, who is the chief surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, who actually believes that they have the best technology possible to deal with the care of these individuals, and that the mothers are comforted by that. However, that does not diminish the -- in my belief, the extreme extent of this war. I think that this war -- the troops should be brought home, but in coming home, there needs to be a level of care to handle the conditions that they are bringing home. I do believe that the State of Pennsylvania is somewhat slower in addressing he issue on the veterans. I've been somewhat advocating on trying to get Pennsylvania government to represent this issue in Washington. I do believe that -- what Senator Bob Casey from the Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, that we can get this issue more on the table for how it represents us in 150 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Pennsylvania. Recently, I was at a forum where the New Jersey National Guard and the Delaware National Guard were represented. However, there was no 7 Pennsylvania representation there, which surprised me in that this forum was held in Pennsylvania, and I was told that the Pennsylvania general, or whoever would have been represented, was probably too busy. The issue concerning the veterans that I speak from Iraq, they are homeless. They are being jailed because of their illnesses not being recognized and diagnosed. They are being denied treatment because they're saying that certain illnesses are in their head or nonexistent. So my question is: Can we bring these troops home and prepare them for wholeness? Can we bring them back to a level that exists where they could be whole and transition into society and 151 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 be whole again? It is my belief that there is a tremendous amount of veterans that have psychological illnesses that are being absorbed, I'll say, into the normal population, where the civilians are not prepared to deal with these people, so we identify them as mentally incapacitated to some degree. And they're being put into situations where they are becoming involved in drug use, substance abuse, and subsequently, they're homeless and they're being jailed. A. is dealing with the issue that would give them the eligible benefits where they can become whole and survive and transition back into civilian life.
So that is my concern, and I do believe that these hearings are necessary for bringing up some of the concerns so that the community can get opportunity to hear the concern that 152 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Philadelphia is, in fact, concerned about the war in Iraq and the impact that it will have on our city and our economy, because the ongoing treatment is very costly for these individuals, because it's very intense and it's long-term. And I think that the issue has to be addressed now. I think that it's important that Pennsylvania recognize it as a critical issue. A. A. because they -- they have the concern that they're not getting equal treatment. A. Hospital. We want to be able to reach out to these people and get them the help that they need. My organization, we do outreach. We are offering these veterans a platform to come to confidentially, because once these people are being identified as speaking out or coming forward, they are being harassed, and there's retaliation against them, and I think it's unfair. I think that these women should have the freedom to come and get the services wherever they want to and get that kind of help and support wherever they can get it, and that's what the National Alliance of Women Veterans offer. We recently hosted an event 154 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 where there were several women actually from across the country that came and testified and were relieved that there was an opportunity for them to come and connect with other women veterans with similar problems and share and get some healing because I think that's going to be critical, the healing process, for veterans. One other point is that sexual assault in Iraq is a very major concern, and that when they come home, a lot of times, these episodes are denied. )
They are denied. Excuse me. I'm just -- there's just so much information on this issue that could come out. I'm just trying to just touch on some of the critical points because I deal with the women. This is a major concern that the women are not being treated in a way to have their issues addressed. 155 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 And I think it's important that Philadelphia gets the community in -- gets the community involved in what's going on so that they can realize that veteran women as well as men have critical concerns, and they need to be reaching out to them in some profound way, I think, at this point. I do believe that in the long term, that if the issue is not addressed, that there could be a population -- I understand there's probably 1100 women veterans homeless in the City of Philadelphia. I think there needs to be some kind of monitoring and tracking process done of these veterans so that we can know where they are and how we can reach out and help them. Veterans are not often identified through questionnaires or whatever when they come in to the V.A. I don't understand that tracking process, but I have sought to find out 156 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 through the V.A. However, they have not informed -- or they are -- they're not quick to inform me about the amount of veterans that are homeless. And so the different organizations, the Philadelphia Veterans Multi-Service and Education Center impact -- all of these organizations are very important and they need funding. So I would -- I do believe that putting this ballot -- this question on the ballot would allow the residents to be informed, to be sensitive towards the veterans and their issues. Delaware and New Jersey have 501(c)(3)'s in existence, where they are having sponsorship from the government and from other corporations within their cities that's reaching out to veterans, and I think this city should get on board and consider doing some of the similar things. (Applause.)
And I do believe 157 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 that it's going to be important as people become more aware of the issues that veterans face. And I don't want to be too late. There are -- there are veterans that are in situations that I do believe, if these -- if there was a outreach, if there was the kind of agencies available when they were known, that there would be less suffering amongst the veterans. So I do support putting the question on the ballot. And thank you, Councilmembers, and all those that support the veterans' rights groups, Iraq Veterans Against the War and all the different veterans groups that are just doing all that they can to bring attention to this. And I think it's very important that we all get on board and support this matter. (Applause.)
Thank 158 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 you, ma'am. Any questions or comments? (No questions.)
Thank you. If you wish to testify, please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, of course. My name is Kelly Dougherty. I am representing Iraq Veterans Against the War, which is a group of service members and veterans who have served since September 11, 2001. I, myself, was in the Colorado Army National Guard for eight years. I now live in Philadelphia. I was in Iraq for a year as a military police sergeant. And I think with the question of Bill 060849 and Resolution 060861, I definitely think that the question should be put on the ballot to the Philadelphia voters as to whether or not 2007 should be the year to bring the 159 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 troops home. We're quickly approaching the four-year anniversary of this war, and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives. And the violence continues to escalate. Our presence in Iraq continues to cause instability, and here at home, we're no safer. Of course, 2007 should be the final year that my brothers and sisters in the military face death and destruction in this illegal, immoral war. Of course, 2007 has to mark the final year that the Iraqi people, over half of them children, struggle to survive under the brutal violence caused by the U.S. occupation. With approximately 70 soldiers and unknown thousands of Iraqis being killed every month in Iraq, each day the U.S. military stays in that country, we are basically sentencing men, women, and 160 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 children to death. (Applause.)
The year to bring the troops home is 2007. And to be specific, the time is right now. When we say we need an exit from Iraq, that's not a strategy; it's a command to the military commanders of the United States to bring our troops home. We have the equipment, we have the funding, we have the resources to bring all of our troops out of Iraq, back to the United States quickly, safely, efficiently. And I think that that's really what we need to demand, and I think that's what this bill -- or this vote will put towards the people of Philadelphia, who, I think, will resoundingly be in favor of it. And when I was in Iraq, I got to Kuwait before the war actually started, and I saw how quickly we were able deploy our forces to the region, 161 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 and there is no reason in my mind that we can't redeploy them back to the United States equally as quickly. During my time in Iraq, I saw the suffering that my presence and the presence of my fellow soldiers were causing the people of Iraq. We drove past cities that have been completely destroyed by the bombing and the ground invasion, and the only rebuilding that I saw happening was on our military bases. Every day we'd see dozens of Iraqis living in abject poverty, struggling just to provide for their families. Things that we here take for granted, such as electricity, clean water, fuel, and medical care, were in short supply. We spent much of our time escorting Halliburton fuel tankers to and from military bases. When these vehicles would break down, rather than recovering the $80,000 trucks and their truckloads of fuel, we would be ordered 162 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 to destroy them, to burn fuel in front of civilian populations who would wait all day in the dust and the heat just to fill up their tank with gas. We would raid people's homes and arrest Iraqi men, even at times women and children, I'm sure, even if they hadn't actually committed a crime or posed a threat. We didn't have translators, and the sentiment was that it was better to just arrest someone and that they would -- it would be sorted out later. S. military. I also witnessed my fellow service members indiscriminately firing bullets and concussion grenades into crowds of civilians. S. violence. We're placing our service men and women in situations where they're basically just fighting to survive and fighting to keep their friends alive. We're causing, not preventing, the majority of the violence in Iraq. We have no clear mission, no identifiable end point, and our citizens here at home are no safer. For many of us who make it home alive, we still have to struggle every day with the memories of what we've seen and done in Iraq. The fight doesn't end once we come home, and care and benefits for our returning veterans are sorely lacking. The Department of Veterans Affairs is grossly underfunded, and many of my veteran friends find it hard, if not impossible, to fit back into the 164 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 lives that they left before the war. The negative effects on our veterans, their families, and our communities continue to grow every day we spend in Iraq, which is why need to bring our troops home now. I urge each Councilmember to put this question on the ballot to let it up to the citizens of the United States to decide, because in the end, it's our -- they're our citizens, our veterans, our communities, and we really need to have a say in the way that this country conducts itself in the world and here at home. And we need to provide for the needs of our citizens here at home. Thank you for letting us testify. )
Thank you. And if I could add a thank-you for the service to America.
Thank you. 165 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861
Sir? MR. LaCHANCE: Hello. My name is Mark LaChance, and I'm also with Iraq Veterans Against the War. I served in the Army for five years, from May of 2001 to January of 2006. I served as a calvary scout with the First Infantry Division. I'm not really here to talk, per se, about my service anywhere and also into Iraq, but more about putting this vote to the people, and I think that it's very important that this is done. This is where it starts. Over the weekend, I was looking it up, and 149 service members have died from the State of Pennsylvania, and 11 -- actually, I believe, now 12, but that's not confirmed, have died from the City of Philadelphia. And as more time goes on, that number is only going to increase. So that's why this needs to be (indiscernible). Philadelphia people 166 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 need be able to sit there and tell you so that you can tell everybody else really what's being done. And it's kind of nice because this is non-binding; this isn't saying that this is what the United States is going to do, but this allows Philadelphia to have a voice without creating too much trouble. I also want to say that we were the ones over there with the rifles and the uniforms and walking and getting blown up, but we all went to war, so it's our responsibility to all determine what should and should not happen with this war, and this is the best way to start that process. The debate for Iraq is really over. Now it's time to debate the action that will be taken. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. 167 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Any questions or comments? (No questions.)
I'll just be real quick. My name is Mike Felker. I'm a resident of Philadelphia. I was a hospital corpsman with the Marines in Vietnam, I'm a member of the Philadelphia of Veterans for Peace, and I fully support the referendum to bring the troops home from Iraq. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that wishes to testify on think bill and resolution? Mr. Miller, my neighbor, please come forward.
Yes? 168 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 Yes, Councilwoman Blackwell?
We want to thank -- while he's coming forward, we want to thank everyone who's come forward to testify and who've waited for so long. We had the other bill before this.
And who, again, have worked so hard to keep this issue alive and who have come back. Many were here at our first hearing, but we thank them all for sticking with us and for coming out again. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Mr. Miller, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Eugene Miller. I'm a Philadelphia resident and I'm not representing any veterans group or peace group, but I just learned of this resolution at the last election, 169 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 and I really feel compelled to express my gratitude that the City government, specifically Councilwoman Blackwell, has taken the initiative on this. We really have a stake here in Philadelphia, as a previous commentator stated earlier. The money diverted to this war could bankrupt the nation, and it's already impacted Philadelphia. We've seen the cuts at the Housing Authority. And I -- I urge the Councilmembers to support this Resolution 060861 and put the issue on the ballot. I would be surprised if this resolution got any less than 90 percent of the vote in Philadelphia, and that is not a minor issue. I think state and local government, elected officials, can send a message to Washington, that it's not just the 100,000 people in the streets in Washington or New York, but it's the 170 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 rank-and-file citizens of the United States, of Philadelphia that are opposed to the war. I would also like to enter this into the record. It's House Resolution 7 508, which is in the U.S. Congress. It's the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007. This was introduced into the U.S. Congress in January, and it was cosponsored by two of our Congressman here in Philadelphia, Fattah and Brady. And I think we should commend them for taking the initiative. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any questions or comments? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else who would like to testify? I see one other person coming to the microphone. 171 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861
While she comes forward, let me note that the late Lucien Blackwell was a Korean war vet, and I'm sure, were he here today, he would be taking the same position that we are.
And I think very forcefully so. (Applause.) (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Yeah. My name is Libby Schwartz, I'm representing a group called Northeast Philly for Peace and Justice. And we took this resolution, which was first proposed in the summer, 172 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 'cause the first hearing was September 24th, and we took it to the people just in the Northeast, and over just a few weeks' time, we got all of these people to sign who are really supporting this resolution. So if you need any proof that the people of Philadelphia are for this resolution, here it is, okay? Do you want to take that? Go ahead. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to testify on think bill or resolution? (No response.)
Seeing none -- I'm sorry, the Chair recognizes Councilman Savage.
I'd like to 173 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 thank everybody that came out today, especially you that served in any type of war that we've been through in this country. The majority of the population in the U.S. is against the Iraq War, and I think that it is good that we are giving Philadelphia an opportunity to voice their opinion. (Applause.)
My namesake, Daniel J. Savage, was in the Three Force Recon. He was a U.S. marine in Vietnam, and he never returned. He was years old. 17 And if my grandmother was here 18 today, she would be here in favor of 19 this resolution. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you very much. And I can't resist throwing 174 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 this in for the record. If you remember when this issue came up before, it fell a little bit short, 'cause you need 5 votes. Well, three people have been 6 elected since then. 7 (Applause.) 8
And those 9 three members are on this committee and 10 voting for this bill and resolution, 11 okay? So please remember that. 12 (Applause.)
Sorry for the blatant commercialism. I just had to throw that in. Any other people -- Councilwoman, anything else?
And we brought it back, hoping you all would be with us. Thank you, thank you. 175 2/12/07 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 060849, RES 060861 (Applause.)
Thank you. That concludes the public hearing of the Committee on Law and Government. If you give us one minute, we will go into the public meeting. Thank you. (Applause.) * * * 176 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING
The Committee on Law and Government's public meeting is now in session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Savage regarding an amendment to Bill 7 No. 060576.
I move the amendment for Bill No. 060576. (Motion seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 060576 be approved. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? The amendment passes. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Savage regarding Bill No. 19 060576, as amended.
I move for the adoption of Bill No. 060576, as amended. (Motion seconded.)
And further, I move for the suspension of 177 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING the rules to allow for first reading at our next scheduled City Council session. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060576 be approved by this committee and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed? The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Savage regarding an amendment to Bill 16 No. 060590.
I'm sorry, it's a resolution. It's Resolution 060590.
I move the amendment to Resolution 060849 -- (Motion seconded.)
No, no, 178 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING no. I'm sorry. Let's do this again. I'm sorry. That was my fault.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Savage regarding Resolution 060590; the amendment, I'm saying.
Okay, sorry. I move the amendment for Resolution 060590. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that the amendment to Resolution 060590 be approved. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? The motion carries, and Resolution 060590 is amended. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Savage regarding Resolution 22 No. 060590, as amended.
I move for the adoption of Resolution 060590 as amended, and further I move -- 179 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Resolution 5 060590, be approved, by this committee. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? The motion carries, and Bill -- Resolution 060590 is approved by this committee. I'll get this right eventually. The Chair recognizes Councilman Savage regarding an amendment to Bill 14 No. 060849.
Second? Oh, you want to speak on the amendment? Okay. Before we vote, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 180 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING Just let me say for the record that I have the utmost respect for the sponsor of this bill and resolution in Councilwoman Blackwell. I think that she's -- she's, like many of us, very frustrated over the conduct of this war, and I think that she's trying to get people motivated into taking action, and I think that she's to be commended. The only reservations I have with this bill -- and, in fact, I mentioned before that my personal opinion is that the troops should be home tomorrow, but I think that's probably asking too much. But I have reservations about it with the timeline. That's the only thing that I am questioning, that I think that this could be a negative impact on the outcome of the war, and I think -- I don't want I want to send the wrong message to the enemies that we have over there. And I think it could -- this could affect maybe the 181 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING safety of the officers and the men and women who are fighting this war. So without the timeline, I would fully support this resolution and bill, but with the timeline in there, Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against this bill.
I don't want to restate everything Councilman kelly said, but I feel the same way. I'm not pleased with the way this war has conducted itself. And if you look over the weekend, you see the suggestion that Iran is now supplying devastating land mines to the Iraqis, which now, even our heaviest armored vehicles can't deal with the technology utilized in the devices. 182 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING The only issue I have is the timeline. If -- and I've talked to a lot of professional warriors who tell me that if we show our hand on a timeline, that it could be very, very difficult for our troops to move forward. So unfortunately, I agree. I'd like to see it over by 1 o'clock this afternoon, but I have to vote no because of the fact that there's a specific timeline.
Thank you, Councilman. Could we just hesitate for one second. I just have one technical question somebody's checking on. Please. (Short break taken.) (Proceedings resume.)
Okay. We're -- the question is the amendment to Bill 060849. All in favor of the amendment, please say aye. 183 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING And the record should reflect -- and I should have said this earlier -- that Councilwoman Campbell wishes to go on record as voting aye on all of -- the bill and resolution and amendments, so she will be recorded as aye. All those opposed to the amendment?
Okay. The record will reflect that Councilman Kelly and Councilman Rizzo are voting no 16 on the amendment. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Savage on Bill No. 060849, as amended.
I move for the adoption of Bill 060849, as amended. And further, I move for the suspension of the rules to allow for first reading at the next scheduled City Council session. 184 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill 060849, as amended, be approved by this committee and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Let the record reflect that Councilman Rizzo and Councilman Kelly are voting no, but the motion passes. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Savage regarding an amendment to Resolution 060861.
It's been 185 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING moved and seconded that the amendment to Resolution 060861 be approved by this committee. All in favor, please say aye. Those opposed to the amendment? Motion carries, and the amendment to Resolution 060861 is approved. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Savage regarding Resolution 12 060861, as amended.
I move for the adoption of Resolution 060861, as amended. (Motion seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Resolution 19 060861 be approved by this committee. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
The record will reflect that Councilman 186 2/12/07 LAW and GOV'T PUBLIC MEETING Kelly and Councilman Rizzo voted no, but the motion carries, and Resolution 4 060861 has been approved by this committee. There being no further business at the present time, I thank all of you for your patience, especially with me. And the Committee on Law and Government stands in recess until 1 o'clock, Wednesday, February 14th. Thank you all very much. * * * 187 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Law and Government are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Monday, February 12, 2007, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of think 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.)