COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 1/30/02 10:30 a.m. - - - BILL 010125 Passyunk Ave. Special Dist. Controls BILL 010126 Old City Res. Area Spec. Dist. Controls BILL 010305 Held. BILL 010392 Withdrawn at request of sponsor. BILL 010560 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change BILL 010617, 010666 Re Oversight of Phila. Schools BILL 010632 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change BILL 010660 Held. BILL 010718 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change BILL 010745 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change (Full text of all bills attached hereto.) PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 1/30/02 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING - INDEX WITNESS Bill 010745 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... Jeff Rush, Chair, Community Council for....... 8 Interstate Land Management David O'Donnell, Queen Village Neighbors Assoc. 10 Carl Primavera, Esq., for Asbell & Associates 13 Steve Pollack, for Marvin Robb, owner......... 27 836 to 844 Swanson Street M. Robb, owner of 836 to 844 Swanson Street... 42 Fred Levin, Counsel, Swanson Enterprises...... 55 Bill 010125 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... 66 Passyunk Avenue Business Owners............... 72 Bill 010126 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... 74 Old City Residents............................ 76 Bill 010718 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... 79 L. Halliman, Penn Area Neighborhood Assoc..... 82 BILLS 010617, 010666 Ted Kirsch, President, PFT.................... 88 Jerry Mondesire, President, Philadelphia NAACP 97 Tom Doyle, Pres. Local 1201 School Employees 101 Wendell Harris, Phila. Home & School Council 109 Aldutus Jordan, PCCY.......................... 112 V. Joyner, Parents United for Better Schools 116 R. Lentz, Area Academic Rep for the Northeast 117 Dolores Shaw, EPOP............................ 121 Cecilia James, Alliance Organizing Project.... 123 Dane Harris, ACORN............................ 125 S. Gilliam, Parents Union for Public Schools 127 Debra Zubow, Public Schools Coalition......... 131 Phyllis Gilbert, Peace Action Delaware Valley 135 Alice Sharboro, Parents Union and NOW......... 141 R. Spigel, Coalition to Keep Schools Public 145 Kati Sipp, Jobs With Justice.................. 148 Pat Raymond, Phila. Home and School Council... 151 Debra Kahn, Phila. Sec'y of Education......... 156 3 1/30/01 RULES MEETING INDEX - cont'd. WITNESS Bill 010560 Cardell Blue, Philadelphia Housing Authority 193 T. Chapman, Philadelphia Planning Commission 193 Bill 010632 T. Chapman, Philadelphia Planning Commission 203 - - - PUBLIC MEETING............................... 207 - - - 4 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Committee on Rules. We appreciate your patience in waiting for a quorum. The quorum exists in the form of Councilmembers Longstreth, Nutter, Kenney, Clarke, and DiCicco. The first bill we'll hear testimony on today is Bill No. 010745, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Christian Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, a line 143 feet north of Fitzwater Street, and the I-95 Expressway. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. I'm Richard Lombardo, Deputy executive Director of the Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 21 010745. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Kenny for Councilmember DiCicco on December 20, 2001. The bill amends the zoning maps by rezoning a certain area bounded by Christian 5 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Catharine Street, I-95 right-of-way from existing G-2 industrial, partly R10-B residential, partly R10-A residential. The Planning Commission has yet to reconsider this bill, and this bill includes the area that is the subject of another bill before the committee, Bill No. 010392. Since both bills cover the same area -- or the material covered in Bill No. 010392 is the same as contained in the subject bill, parenthetically, you only need to pass one of those two bills. In closing, as I said, we haven't considered it' we're scheduled to consider it at our next Commission meeting. However, I don't think we'd have any -- the staff would have any objection to this. As a matter of fact, over the years, we've worked with the Queen Village Neighbors and this whole zoning issue of going from industrial to residential. The industrial was left down there as a remnant of when this area was industrial; now it's promptly a residential area. I think the last of the industrial uses have left the area, and it would be appropriate to make it 6 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 residential.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lombardo, are you suggesting, then, that we just withdraw one of the two bills?
Yeah. We're suggesting that you withdraw 392 and go with this bill.
392, okay. So noted. Councilman, I'm going to withdraw Bill 14 No. 010392.
The Chair notes that the Councilman's request will be -- a request will be made to withdraw Bill 010392.
Yeah, and just to clarify, we have not considered this particular bill over the years. In other venues, we have considered --
I'm sorry, hold on, hold on. Let's just take a slight recess till we fix this mess (referring to sound-system malfunctioning).
I was saying, just to clarify the record, though we have not considered Bill No. 010745, over the years, on other issues in the Queen Village areas, we have considered it and concurred with the community's desire to make this area residential rather than industrial, and I would anticipate that the Commission would recommend approval of this bill when it considers it later this month.
Does anyone have any further questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, we now call as a panel: David O'Donnell, Jeff Rush, Reverend David Rivers -- is Mr. Pollack and/or Primavera going to testify? Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
And I'm David O'Donnell, 8 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and I'm on the Executive Board of Directors for Queen Village Neighbors Association.
I spoke with Reverend Rivers and he was unable to make it today. My name is Jeff Rush, and my wife, Kathy mand I are City lifers and 22-year residents of the Court at Old Swedes, and I'm past president of Queen Village Neighbors and currently chair of the Community Council for Interstate Land Management. I spoke with Reverend Rivers, and he had a prior commitment and he was desperate to be here but he wished me to express a strong support for this bill. We're here today in support of rezoning the last remaining industrial zone acreage in Queen Village. It's in the middle of what has become a viable tax-paying residential community, a gateway to Penn's Landing. And I don't have to go over how much change there's been between Society Hill and 9 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Queen Village in that part of the City ever since the '60s. We ended years of bitter wrangling when the City and State permitted the completion of the highway project, and that included four access ramps, which are all within walking distance of Swedes Court. We lived through the reconstruction of Delaware Avenue, now proudly called "Christopher Columbus Boulevard." We completed the construction of the Southwark housing project, and next spring, 240 apartment rental units will be on line. A lot is left to be done. The pace of development in the Penn's Landing area needs to quicken. And that is undeniable and indisputably vital to the City's long-term interest. Even if we disregard the long suffering of neighbors in the area, rezoning to R10-A will stabilize and strengthen current efforts to achieve balanced development by creating a process that's sensitive to all development interests, including commercial developers, who will then have the opportunity to present their ideas to the communities in partnership. This will ensure the legitimate interests of all parties, while protecting the neighborhood against inappropriate 10 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 or unwanted uses, as well as unreasonable density. Before I conclude my remarks, I'd like to take a moment to thank Colleen Puckett, President of Queen Village Neighbors, Reverend Rivers of old Swedes Church, and especially Councilman DiCicco for their efforts in getting this bill front and center. Finally, on behalf of my local homeowners association, representing 50 families and all of the families living in and around Swedes Court, I respectfully ask for your support and strongly urge you to pass this Bill 010745.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record. and proceed with your testimony.
Okay, I'm David O'Donnell, and I've been asked by the Board of Directors of Queen Village Neighborhood Association to testify in favor of these zoning changes. This tract of industrial lands puts a wedge through and separates our residential community. It is not attractive, not well-maintained, and greatly diminishes the 11 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 historical importance of this area. After being founded by the Swedes in the 1600s, Old Swedes Church and the beautiful land around it is a national landmark and a Philadelphia treasure, and yet directly across the street, our tourists and our residents look at empty lots with chain-linked fences, topped with barbed wire, deteriorated, boarded-up buildings, and a towing garage with a large side lot filled with wrecked cars which spill onto the sidewalk and the street. All this is wedged between the beautiful Old Swedes Court residences and the rest of Queen Village. We feel that the highest and best use of this land would be residential. Instead of severing the neighborhood, residences here would cement the continuity and flow of the community. It is vital to the restoration of the area. For years Queen Village Neighbors 20 Association has worked tirelessly to restore and 21 revitalize this historic neighborhood. We've 22 accomplished a great deal but we have a lot more to 23 do. We are reversing the old trend of families 24 leaving the City and eroding the middle-class 25 taxpayers by doing that. 12 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 We need the City's help to continue to accomplish this goal. We need this zoning change. Block by block, we are creating lovely, liveable streets in which to raise our families. We have an opportunity here to push development in a very positive way. If Swanson and Christian Streets are restored and stabilized, the revitalization will then continue to the streets south and to the west. We recently received a grant from PennDOT for a pedestrian improvement project just a few doors away from this industrial tract. Further up on Christian, between Front and Third, many homes are currently being built or restored. A small park is proposed for an open space at second and Christian. We're asking you to help us bring back the great old residential neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Reconstructing Queen Village will also aid the neighborhoods of Pennsport and Jefferson Square to our south and Bella Vista and Hawthorne to our west. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 13 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Mr. Pollack, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Steven Pollack. I have with me today Mr. Marvin Robb, who is the owner of the property known as 836 to 844 Swanson Street. And also with me is Mr. Fred Levin, who is an attorney who represents the Van Deeben ph) family, which is the owner of the property known as "Philly Ship," which is just to the south along Swanson Street. And Mr. Primavera?
Yes. Carl Primavera. I'm actually here on behalf of Asbell and Associates. They're the people who have the property to the north. And we're here really in our separate capacities.
Whoever would like to go first, please proceed. 14 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745
First of all, thank you for allowing me to make these remarks. The property which is really the unimproved tract north of Catharine Street is something that's really been the topic of a lot of conversations for a long period of time with the community, I guess, and with the Planning Commission. The one thing we agree with is that it's no longer appropriate for G-2 industrial. So in that regard, we agree with what we've heard, that the tract that we're talking about is really not something that we would like to see developed on an industrial scope or scale. The concern that we have is that we've been looking to develop this in a more, I think, creative, high-end fashion, which would be consistent with RC-4 or C3-C4, and there are ordinances that were crafted by the Planning Commission, and I know we've given them to the Councilman for the district. We are now looking for the first time, quite frankly, at a traditional townhouse development. The concerns we have about the reality of that are, it's in a flood plain, we have 15 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 limited access on Columbus Boulevard, we have 95 on two sides of us. So at this point, we don't know if in fact it could be developed for townhouses. Now, I did hear from the neighborhood something that was very encouraging. What they've said is that, you know, they haven't said categorically that that's all they're willing to listen to, and that's important because at some point in time, if townhouses don't make sense because of the topography or the market, then, quite frankly, the other plan, which I can share with you today, which is actually far more expensive to build, might be the only way to develop the property, and this would be for like a 35-story apartment building with a garage and other amenities, which obviously would continue to bring in people and taxes and jobs. So I'm glad to hear that I'm a little more in agreement with the community than maybe the ordinance first suggested, and really what I want to say to the Councilman and to the committee and to the community is that the developer, who has substantial experience in this neighborhood, doesn't want to be seen as a part of the threat. 16 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 We think the G-2 industrial is part of the threat, but I don't want anyone to have the expectation that because a zoning ordinance says "single-family dwellings," that that can make it happen. It may and it may not. But I would like for the community to keep an open mind and for the Council to keep an open mind and really to see this process through in a more expanded dialogue so that maybe we could do something really exciting. Right now, this property that my client has is a across from the DePaul project, which is, I guess, dockside. Our project is called "port side." There's a heliport there. So there are a lot of features that are lacking for a single-family-dwelling neighborhood, but those features may actually support a high-rise apartment.
Many, many years, as I 17 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 understand it.
Did this bill prompt 8 new consideration of the land use? 9
Well, it prompted for the 10 first time a serious look at townhouses. I can 11 tell you, he spent substantial dollars on design 12 for the project. I mean, the architects, Bower, 13 Lewis, the engineers, the hours of time with the 14 Planning Commission. 15 So what has prevented that project from 16 moving forward has been the financing impediment, 17 but now that we're seeing these high-rise 18 apartments in Philadelphia, this may be the closest 19 that this vision has come to reality. I'm not 20 going to say here today that they have the financing and ability to do this, but I'm also not here to say that we know for certain that townhouses work. So I guess what we're really saying is, keep the door open, we want to protect the 18 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 community from industrial, and we're about that as well. But I don't want anyone to think that the site is either appropriate or available for townhouses -- we just don't know. And if everyone can keep their minds open, there may be something much more exciting and much more valuable to the whole community than just laying out some townhouses.
All right. Councilman DiCicco has some questions but, I mean, I guess, just in general, I guess it would apply to most of the parcels we're taking about, but it seems that these parcels, despite their zoning designation, have been in somewhat deteriorated condition for quite some time, and I'm sure you can understand, well, at least this property's been undeveloped, and you can talk about the condition of the other properties, but I guess after years and years and years of continued condition, people get frustrated as to what's ever going to happen with them, and I'm sure you can understand from their perspective, they have an investment also in their residence.
And, you know, the continued status quo probably isn't acceptable to anyone.
No, and we are not here to say that we want G-2. I mean, every plan that we've looked at has been residential, but we think that the site -- our site is really more adaptable to a more creative type of zoning, more density. You know, the noise from the highway is less a factor in apartments that go up. The view from the waterfront can't be appreciated from the townhouses. So my plea today is that as you go forward with the community that you include us, and hopefully whatever you do, if it doesn't work for my client as an R10-A project, you'll remember what we said today and you you'll be willing to be flexible. I know the Councilman for the district has always been accommodating, but I don't want anyone to have the expectation that because the bill says "R10-A," that that means someone can build it and, you know, do it and do it profitably. So that's the caveat. But I didn't hear the community say they 20 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 were wedded to anyone project, so hopefully, they'll keep an open mind.
Thank you, Mr. Primavera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Primavera, we had a couple of conversations, I think, on this and one as recent as yesterday. And I fully appreciate your concern for the remapping becoming an R10-A, and possibly by doing that, restricting the type of development that may go there, in particular residential development. And you may be right that that parcel -- those parcels may not be conducive to residential townhouses. The community and I met with the developer -- I guess it's a couple of years ago, I lose track of time -- to discuss the development of a high-rise, a luxury high-rise apartment building. And in your comments, I think you mentioned something around 35 stories. Please don't be misled by the generosity of the community as that's something that they would accept; I don't think they would. We had a little bit difficult time convincing the community 21 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 that maybe a 10-story building would be appropriate. And after going through the process, which is what I would normally do in any development, the community agreed that stories 6 was something that they could live with. 7 And that's not to suggest that should 8 your client or some other developer come along and 9 want to propose something of a greater height than 10 ten stories that they would not at least listen to it; and I'm certain that they would, and we would go through that same process. That being said, a history of what I've done since I've been the Councilperson for this district, and even before that when I was involved in my community, I always took the position that when you had buildings or parcels that were zoned G-2 -- and many of those parcels in my immediate neighborhood, 11th and federal had been zoned G-2 for a number of years -- that the best way to approach it was really go to R10-A and work from that point up or down, whatever way you want to look at it, so that the community was really and truly a part of the process. We did it in my immediate neighborhood 22 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 primarily because we were concerned with the over-saturation of what were formerly single-family homes being converted into multifamily dwellings -- duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, what you have, because mostly all of the properties were either zoned in G-2 industrial or multifamily. So we took the position -- I think Jimmy Tayoun was still the Councilperson when they first started that and then completed it when I got elected -- that everything east of Broad from Washington Avenue to Oregon would be zoned R10-A, with the exception of some corner properties, which were left as C-1 or C-2. And with that, I was under a lot of criticism initially by Realtors who said I was going to destroy development. Well, as it turned out, it actually has improved residential development and some light commercial because we maintained the residential fabric of that community. And I'm really proud to say that it's worked to our advantage: Property values are going up, it's a much more desirable neighborhood. But had we not taken the position at the time to do the reclassification and left it as G-2 23 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and C-4 and C-3, I don't think we could be proud of what -- we would not be talking about that today, because we would be either overrun with multifamily dwellings without the proper amount of parking or other types of businesses that were no longer acceptable or fit into what residential communities are in Philadelphia today -- auto body shops and things like that.
So I've taken that position in the past, and I think that, you know, I hear what you're saying, you and I have had a great relationship, I know the owner of the property, he wants to do something obviously that will make money for him, and he's entitled to do that, but I'm concerned that if we don't do this now, 'cause we've been doing this for a while, at least four, five years, and I see Jeff shaking his head, that I've been around, that enough time has passed for us to say, Well, you've had enough time to do so something. Let us do this: As long as I'm around -- and I'll be around for at least another year and a half -- there's some people who would hope that I won't be around after that, but whoever the Councilperson is, if there's no plan on the table 24 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 in the next year and a half, we will work, I will work to find some commonality so that we can get something done there. I was the guy who brought it to the table initially about the high-rise, and people said, Why are you doing this to us? Because I believe in a process. And some people may disagree with that and criticize me through reporters who take the advantage of the ability to be able to write stories that I don't pay attention, but I do. It takes me a lot more time to do my job, but the community is always going to be a part of the process. I don't take the position of a knee-jerk reaction. If the community doesn't want it, that means you're not going to get it. I bring the parties together, and I think we'll be able to, going forward, come up with a reasonable plan that may not be a hundred percent what the community wants and it may not be a hundred percent what the developer wants, but something good will be developed there. So I wanted to express that to you 'cause I do have a lot of respect for you.
And I know your client, you know, he's been a friend of mine, he's been a supporter of mine in the past, and I know he has other things going on in his life now, so it's not this thing that we don't want it; it's just a question of, what do we now to protect the integrity and work toward a better development going forward?
Well, I appreciate that. And, you know, I, for one, think that you are going to be around, and I also know that the community's going to be around. So what I would like to see, you know, maybe as early as --
I will not accept a contribution from you because after that endorsement, they will suggest that I'm doing this on your behalf. (Laughter.)
But maybe within, you know, 30 days or so, we can have some workshop with the community and start the process. It may well be that townhouses -- and Mr. Asbell's working with some of the best Realtors in town -- may under some circumstance work. So 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 we're not shutting the door on that, but quite frankly, the issues to date have been problematic. Now, some of them, you may be able to help with -- curb cuts on Columbus Boulevard striking some of Fitzwater Street. So some of the things may actually work for everyone's best interest, but we just didn't want people to think that this closed the door for further discussion. So with that offer of further discussion, I --
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't close the door; it's on the record.
I mean, I will never close the door. And I've been (indiscernible) to those enhancements obviously.
But I think the workshop idea is a good idea, and I'm getting some nods from the back -- I think we should start that immediately. So let's start exploring some possibilities.
All right. Well, thank 27 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 you. We appreciate that.
Chairman Kenney, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Clarke, Steve Pollack on behalf of Marvin Robb, who is the owner of 836 to 844 Swanson Street. And I think there has been a discussion -- we have to discuss history, and I guess what happened in 1978, precursor, you known, destined that we would be sitting here today. 'Cause in 1978, when this property was zoned G-2 industrial, developers by the name of Levitt and Heller had a plan to develop this property with townhouses, which became Old Swedes Court. And as part of the zoning process, I haven't been able to get the official paper, but I had it confirmed through the attorney who is of record at the time, that the Zoning Board, Mr. Carl Zucker, that there was discussions and there was 28 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 some letter that was put into the record that the people were going to have to be told who bought at Old Swedes Court that they had to realize that they were, in essence, moving to a nuisance; they were moving to an industrial area. So that's in 1978. And we all know that at one time, there was a Front Street and a Dock Street and that they were vibrant communities serving the port. This is an area that was part of that area; it's still zoned G-2 industrial. Mr. Robb has been, you know -- the first Councilmatic District's representative over the years has had this probably on his plate, you know, Councilman DiCicco's predecessors have had this on their plate before. No one can ask for a better friend than Councilman DiCicco in terms of, you know, trying to balance everybody's interest and working together for the public good. And I know that, you know, he's given that consideration today. But we have an existing business. Back in 1988, when the City tried to do something to Mr. Robb and his business, he had 65, 70 employees. There were numerous health inspections, code-violation inspections of that nature that came 29 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 down, and the message was clear. So instead of growing his business here, he, unfortunately, moved most of his business to where there are about 280 jobs now in New Jersey that could have been here in Philadelphia. Why couldn't it be in Philadelphia? Because -- it should be in Philadelphia because we have a business now that's to 30 people, and I 10 have pictures and I want to show you, that, 11 Councilman Kenney, the facility that we run is a 12 USDA, United States Department of 13 Agriculturally-run facility. What we do is we 14 process chickens for Chinatown and for the Muslim 15 religion. 16 And why is that? Well, because you have 17 a special thing, and you'll see, the chickens are 18 allowed to be processed with their heads and their 19 legs still intact, as opposed to having them 20 chopped off. So that's the special way, just like 21 where we have kosher where you can kill kosher for 22 the people that maintain the kosherness of the 23 chicken, there's also this. 24 And that -- you only get that -- you 25 don't get that by being a business asking you for 30 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 that; you get it from the community asking that they would like to have this kind of facility. So we have a special facility that serves Chinatown, and we know the proximity of Chinatown to where we are, at basically Christopher Columbus Boulevard and Washington Avenue. We also have -- and I'll hand up the pictures, and you can see, one of the things that wasn't also said -- it was said that this is a vibrant residential communities and this portion cuts it off -- cuts that development off. Queen Village is one of the finest neighborhoods in the area, but one of the things that insulate us is I-95; I-95 is right behind us. And if I may approach, I would like to hand up these photos for you. And I also took the time to take photos of copies of the Sanborn Atlas, which shows you the land use, and I've circled in green where we are on the pages. You'll see that we have -- and we beside -- we do -- we also do free-range chickens also.
So besides the employees, the thing that we do have is that these are people who live in Philadelphia. These are people who, when they were 31 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 told to go out and get a job by the federal government and the state government because their government assistance may not be there, that social network might not be there unless they get a job, these are those people. But Philadelphia provides a pool of labor that you can't get anywhere else. So what we're saying is that we are in a situation where, through modernization, through technological change, if that were to happen and we were to be zoned from G-2 to R10-A, we are in a predicament where we would have to go always for a zoning variance. And the reason -- one of the probably motivations and reasons why we are still here today and you're here today with this bill is because of the, as I said, the battle that's been raged over the years of what do you do with this -- with our business that's been there -- and this business in some ways has been there since the 1920s and has developed, as I said, at a time when this was industrial. I was at a meeting last night up in my neighborhood where they were fighting over Woodhaven Road expansion, and one gentleman got up 32 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and said that at MIT what they tell the engineers is that you're not necessarily drawing lines on a plan, but what you're dealing with is change. We understand there's change, we understand that, you know, this area has changed in terms of what is going on around it. There's commercial development, but right across the street, obviously, there are still piers that are vibrant and used as the part of the Port Authority, and adjacent property would become nonconforming immediately, and that's -- I think it's the stevedores' union that just had a beautiful new union hall built.
The Pilots' Association had a beautiful new office building, you know, built right between Mr. Primavera's property and basically the Penn's Landing -- I think it's called the Penn's Landing Condominium at Old Swedes Court near us, and they would become nonconforming. One of the other thoughts had always been that when you deal with land use, City Planning and this Council has always looked at what is the existing uses on a property as opposed to -- and 33 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 where you have existing uses, you try and rezone or remap so that you conform with that. So nobody's saying to you today, Don't consider what Mr. Primavera's discussed with you, don't consider the cry of Old Swedes Court and other residential in this pocket to be remapped to R10-A. What we're saying to you is that this is a piece of industrial ground, again in the City of Philadelphia, we are losing our industrial ground. And City Council years and years ago -- not years ago, but in the late '80, I think, enacted something that tried to preserve industrial ground, G-2, by taking commercial uses out of the zoning code just so that -- because we were finding that a lot of our commercial districts were getting eaten up -- I mean, our industrial districts were getting eaten up by proposals for commercial uses. So we're asking you to look at this. We're an existing use. This will severely limit our ability to be able to grow and modernize, even within the confines of our building possibly, and we are saying to you that it's an economic- development issue. We don't want to stand in the way of progress. There probably will come a time 34 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 where, you know, maybe there will be somebody that will want to develop us as R10-A. There may -- there probably will come a time of that, and we will not want to stand in the way of that either, because we do realize that what we're asking you is for the survival of our use. As you can see, we have spent money, we do employ people. We ask you to consider allowing our area to -- the block between Swanson and I-95 and Queen and Christian to remain G-2. Mr. Levin -- I will yield some time to Mr. Levin, who is here on behalf of the Van Deeben family who own Philly Ship. They have a little slightly different area consideration 'cause they do have vacant buildings; whereas we are an existing vibrant business.
Doesn't it at some point make sense for a client like yours to sit down with the Commerce Department and try to find a location, an industrial location in Philadelphia, whether it's the Food Distribution Center, which you can't actually doing at, I understand, but an area which is more conducive to transportation, upgraded facility to keep the industrial jobs but 35 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 to do it in an area within the confines of Philadelphia that makes more sense than a rapidly changing residential area? I mean, isn't that what the Commerce Department is for? I understand that there was a -- wasn't there a slaughterhouse that -- I believe there was a -- wasn't that a slaughterhouse (to Councilman DiCicco)?
I believe, for example, at Front and Wash, Washington Avenue, there was a slaughterhouse that backed up against residential property, and there was concerns about the --
That was Dominic Venuto years ago 'cause I represented Dominic many years ago.
Yeah, and I may be mistaken, they may have left the City, but I don't think they did.
And Dominic also had one at Sixth and Federal, right behind Federal Pretzels, that was like a notorious zoning battle I had years and years ago because the neighborhood didn't want 36 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 him to grow and expand, so now he's gone, he's out of the City.
But, I mean, when you have an older building -- is Venuto out altogether from -- is the Washington Avenue thing out?
But, Councilman Kenney, to answer your question, first of all, we would -- we did see Mr. -- the Commerce Director here, Mr. Cuorato, just outside before this session was called, and we mentioned it to him and we discussed it. I think at one point in time, Councilman DiCicco may have at least brought him around to look at the area. But the thing is this: Here we are, before this bill was called for this, Mr. Robb's experience had been in New Jersey, they came knocking to him. They said, What can we do for you to try to get you into a building and do something? So the onus should be, maybe if it's a business -- if we're trying to have an environment where we're trying to improve a neighborhood that has residential desires but also retain business, that if we're trying to reach out like that, then before a bill like this finally becomes a law, maybe that 37 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 kind of economic-development homework should be done so that instead of us showing up here today and saying, Hey, save us, hold us, or hold back a little bit until we can have this kind of dialogue and maybe locate something, that maybe should have gone -- hopefully could have happened beforehand. So, yes, we are open to that; yes, we had hoped that that had happened before. You know, and I hate to bring up what his experience has been with New Jersey 'cause I'm a -- I love Philadelphia and I think, you know, we should --
Well, I think Philadelphia has a lot to be criticized about regarding its economic development and commerce policies, no doubt about it. I think that we have been taking for granted businesses for a long time. But the question I have is, is the value of the property in a rapidly changing residential area that's getting and commanding pretty decent prices for the property there, if an arrangement could be made to move the company to another more suitable location, why does that diminish the value of the property because the obvious residential development that's going on there has improved the 38 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 value of the land for residential use? I mean, you may not be killing chickens there, but you may be developing residential property that will make you -- would make the property continue to hold its value. I don't understand -- I understand the removal of the G-2 designation to a residential designation is certainly a big jump; however, it doesn't necessarily mean that the land is valueless and of future use. Now, would the changing of the G-2 to R-10 stop you from doing business?
Well, not only that, but its future considerations of, you know, technological --
Just technological advancement of our business or, you know, changing -- if we have changing in processing or 39 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 something like that, we could have an interpretation that would throw us in front of -- that we are, you know, exceeding what our use is and that we've exceeded the nonconforming use of the --
What I don't want the record -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
What I don't understand is -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
-- the concern about preserving the rights of the owner. I also don't accept the argument that the property is decreased substantially in value because of the potential development abilities that are there now. If the company decided that they didn't want to do this business anymore, the property is not without value because the property values of the residential properties there are substantial and increasing. So, I mean, while you may not want us to do this, on the other hand, the property still has 40 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 value, and it has value for other uses that aren't really, you know, low-end.
But in essence, then what you're saying is that you want to take through ordinance the development rights or the rights that they have with regard to their business, put a limitation on their business, and use it for a purpose, use it for a purpose --
There's no limitation on their business, the current operation of their business. In the event that the business is no 13 longer there or the owner decides they want to do something different with the property, then it would be conducive with what's going on in that neighborhood to either be a developer and develop residential there or to sell it to a developer who's doing residential there, and I would suspect that the property is still of pretty high value. So, I mean, as far as the diminishing of the value of the property, no one's going to pass a bill and tell you to go out of business tomorrow. You may want to go out of business 10, 15, 20 years from now; at that point in time, I would suspect that all of the residential development that's 41 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 happening there would continue to increase the value of that property.
But what we're saying to you is that you could be chasing us out a lot sooner than you think because of the very nature of -- if there is a determination -- if we had to do something and we had to modernize or we had to put in new equipment or something -- I know you're shaking your head, Councilman, but there is that potential, because this has been on the radar screens, as I've said, for a lot of years, for a lot of your predecessors in the 1st Councilmatic District and, you know, you've introduced something that will change, you know, the underlying district that will, you know, make it a non-conforming use. So what -- this is also sending a message, especially without the component that Councilman Kenney said about economic development with the Commerce Department reaching out to us, to my client, you know, the message is getting sent very clear again, you know, that we're going to chase away another business that has to 30 24 people. 25 Nobody will tell you that there isn't 42 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 some value of this land and then the problem might be that if it's not valueless, I would have a hard time proving the hardship I would need to go to the Zoning Board if I'm stuck making any kind of changes. So, I mean, what we're saying is that I understand the long range of that, but what I'm saying is, we're here because in 1978, the industrial neighbors were willing to allow some residential use to come in, and the minute, I guess, that came in, the seeds were planted over the years that now we're sitting here and we're the ones that fighting for our, you know, industrial survival. Mr. Robb would like to speak.
Marvin Robb. My only concern is -- my major concern is that in '78, you know, we allowed the construction of these new buildings, and all through the years, we've been harassed, and so we've been forced to move our business out to New Jersey, which my lawyer explained, and our business has grown. 43 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 We're 250 employees outside of Philadelphia. But at the same token, all this transpired, no one contacted us, no one brought the Commerce Department, no one came, no one discussed anything with us, you know, to try to make this some type of relationship that was discussed before between commercial and residential uses. None of this was done. And I don't think it's appropriate. And then the other issue is that, you know, we have a thriving business there. You know, the other people have their own considerations. We have people that we employ that necessarily would be on the welfare. And we are providing a service for the community. And, basically, we are granted by the federal government to operate this facility, as well as they have the grants from the Chinese and the Muslim communities, came from the federal government. So we're the only plant in the State of Pennsylvania that does this type of slaughtering. So, consequently, you know, the whole thing was not handled correctly. And, you know, the first step should have been -- you know, I 44 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 think we need to take a couple steps back, we need to sit down with the industrial users and tell us what your game plan is, and then we will then, you know, sit down and work together. I mean, if someone came and offered me a price that was, you know, reasonable, I'd be an idiot to say that, you know, I wouldn't leave. I mean, I would rather be in a -- but right now, no 10 one's come, okay? And all this is talk. They're building new houses down the street, I just found out. There's five holes in the ground, there's going to continue to be five holes, 'cause the guy who built it passed away, and that's going to remain. So you're going to have four or five holes in the ground, which is not very appropriate. So, you know, there has been to be a little bit more planning, there has to be work with industry as well to come to a common goal.
I agree with you. The only thing I would take exception with is the fact that I did personally take the Commerce Director, Jim Cuorato, down through the neighborhood maybe a year or so ago. And my only 45 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 contact -- and maybe it's my mistake and I will take responsibility for it -- is that I didn't speak to you, but I've had some informal conversations with a mutual friend, Howard Lander.
And I even spoke to Howard, I think, back in October -- again, I lose track of dates -- that I had someone who might be interested in the building. And he said, Hold off, we'll get back to you, Marv may have a buyer. And, I mean, he's not here obviously, and I held off, but going forward, I certainly would have no 14 problem establishing a meeting, setting up a meeting with you and the Commerce Department and see if we can't accommodate some relocation needs for you. That being said, my concern is for -- Mr. Pollack, if this ordinance is passed, it doesn't limit your ability to continue to operate there. It would only -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- it would only limit your ability if you wanted to expand beyond the legal description of the boundaries of your property. Is that not correct? Unless you were to change the use. 46 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 I mean, if it is poultry factory today, and Mr. Robb were to sell it to me tomorrow, even with the change, if I want to continue a poultry factory, I still would be able to continue to do that. Is that correct?
Well, Councilman, I'll harken to the battles that you have -- not in a -- just as a perspective, not any commentary. But you do have other considerations like this going on in your district, and that would be the corner of 13th and Locust, where there are battles over whether only a portion of the building was used or whether, you know, it could expand. So you might -- or you also have on 13th Street whether the first floor would be allowed to -- you could expand the use from the first floor into the second floor. So I'm just saying to you, Councilman DiCicco, that through, you know, the needs to upgrade the make of this, to continue our certification as a USDA-run facility, we may need to do certain processes that, you know, that somebody could interpret at L&I as being an expansion beyond our non-conforming use, 'cause I always say you take a picture and you take 47 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 snapshots. (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
Well, there's always possibilities but, I mean, 13th and Locust, the issue there, as far as I'm concerned -- and we're not going to belabor the record with it -- is the fact that there's a gentleman's club that occupies a portion of the building. The rest of the building could, I think, by right, be used as a bar/restaurant, but there's a special license for a gentleman's club if they want to expand. The license that allows you to do poultry business, if you put another story on it, provided there's no height restrictions, I don't think that would restrict you from doing that. I mean, is it not true that if --
If we increased our floor area more than a certain percentage, it would, 'cause we, you know --
But I think the argument -- it would work in your favor that you've 48 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 been an existing business and you're only expanding it another floor. But let me ask you this question: If tomorrow you sold the business to someone and this change does not occur and you were selling that business to somebody who was going to use that building where the poultry factory is now for some other use other than poultry factory, would they not have to go to the Zoning Board?
No, no, forget this bill. If this bill didn't exist, if this bill 15 doesn't get reported out, tomorrow --
If it fits within the G-2, they would be okay; they wouldn't have to --
But if it doesn't fit within the G-2, they'd have to move --
They would still have to go -- I mean, you know, they would have to go the Zoning Board if it doesn't fit within the G-2. I mean, if somebody wanted to make this a commercial 49 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 office building, they would have to go to the Zoning Board because, you know, you're not allowed to have commercial use. If somebody wants to turn this into some sort of retail commercial, they'd have to go to the Zoning Board. If somebody wanted to do something and turn it into a bank, they would have to go to the Zoning Board
I guess I'm missing something as to what harm, what is the damage done to your client as a result of this change that's being proposed today, going forward?
With the exception of the fact that you might not be to sell it to someone for another use other than a poultry factory?
Well, again, the first problem is that we're always the -- we're at the end of the process, and we always seem to be waiting -- you know, through the years I've been at this property, we always seem to be the person that everybody comes to when, you know, well, how come you didn't come talk to us? You know, no one's done that. 50 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 And the other problem is, I don't see what benefit -- if you wanted to rezone the whole area except my property, that's fine. I don't see why my property has to be rezoned. Why can't you just leave it under G -- whatever --
G-2 and leave -- do everybody else's property, you know, the empty lots that are there, so people can build, and let me have the flexibility to utilize my property wherever I see fit.
Councilman DiCicco, 1404-7-A of the Zoning Board says that any structure, once it becomes nonconforming, cannot increase its gross floor area, add extensions or additions. So if we wanted to go up more than 10 percent if the gross floor area, then it becomes nonconforming. If we needed to add something up above because of some requirements, you would be putting a limitation. And, Councilman DiCicco, you know, I was the President of the South Street neighborhood association years ago, and I represented the Somerton Civic and a lot of other civic groups in 51 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 my day and have been a civic leader, but, I mean, it's -- but I've represented Mr. Robb over the years, and it's clear that this development has always been on the radar screen as something that, you know, was an act -- a use that the neighborhood has never wanted. If we had been forced to go to the Zoning Board, you're pushing us up probably to the Common Pleas Court and maybe up to the Commonwealth Court or Supreme Court before we could maybe vindicate ourselves.
You know, when those decisions had to be made about whether to stay in Philadelphia or move to Jersey, why wasn't consideration being made then to expand the building at that time so that you didn't have to move the jobs to Jersey?
The political force at that time basically was just harassing us so much that we had no choice and we decided, why invest more of 52 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 our money here and --
So you reduced your work staff from 250 to under duress? 5
Well, whatever it 10 was. You reduced the workforce -- 11
So you reduced your 14 workforce by three-quarters because of harassment 15 but you choose to stay there. I'm a little 16 confused about that. 17
Well, let me tell you what we 18 did. I mean, when we -- last time we met with the 19 neighbors, or the City got involved, they said do 20 not use the front of your building. So the whole 21 front of the building is just used for some minor 22 storage. We only use the back of the building. 23 So we've tried to accommodate whatever is 24 necessary to satisfy the neighbors. The problem is 25 that they moved into an industrial area and they 53 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 wanted to be like South Street -- I mean like, you know, from the other areas and just, you know --
Development occurred, people chose to live there, understanding that you were there. I mean, I don't know what took place with L&I; I certainly never put L&I on you.
And, you know, whatever happened, I apologize if you were being targeted that way. I'm just trying to figure out a way in which we can continue with the residential development. You know, as we've tried to continue to keep businesses here and to attract more, we're also trying to figure out ways in which we can repopulate our neighborhoods with residents, and it's not always easy to do because we have residential and industrial communities that are always competing. And things have changed. You know, there were factories all around 11th and Federal, where I live. Where I live now was a factory; it is now a 54 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 townhouse, a row of townhouses. Things change. And I try to figure out a way in which you have less harm done to you. But to spot-zone it, I don't think, is the answer here. I think what the answer is for me to meet with you and not our mutual friend -- and I apologize for that.
And set up a meeting with the Commerce Department and see if there's some way in which we can find a way in which you can either relocate, if you still choose to stay in Philadelphia, and come up with a way that's economically feasible to you and continue with the residential development of the Old Swedes/Penn's Landing condo community. I mean, that's what I think is the best for all of us. Because to not to at least explore that is an injustice to everybody -- you and the residents. And I think we need to do that.
All right? Okay. And, Steve, you can call me up and we'll set up a meeting and we'll get started. 55 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745
Chair and members of the Council, Fred Levin, with (inaudible), counsel for Swanson Enterprises.
You need to speak directly into the microphone. Thank you.
Fred Levin, counsel for Swanson Enterprises. We appreciate this opportunity to address you, particularly since the proposed zoning change will have a very significant impact on my client. It's somewhat different than the perspective that has been presented by Mr. Pollack's client, Mr. Robb. Just to identify the property, my client owns what could be characterized as three parcels that are bordered by Christian Street and Swanson Street, approximately 65 percent of that block. Originally, two of those parcels and part of the other were used as Philly Ship. There are structures on the property, there was ship building and ship repair that went on. Swanson Enterprises is now -- the 56 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 principal of Swanson Enterprises is the widow of Mr. Van Deeben, who operated Philly Ship. Philly Ship ceased operation in 1997, I believe, and there are now some uses on the property. One of the structures is occupied as a tow-truck facility. There's a machine shop in one of the buildings, which, I understand, may be leaving. And one of the other structures is empty. There is always a residence that was converted to a restaurant a number of years ago, which is also not being utilized at this time. Now, the devastating impact that would occur to my client -- it's not from the sense that Councilman Kenney referred to, that the property would not have some value, even as residential property, but my client would effectively be rendered -- it would effectively be rendered impossible for my client to lease these properties at this time because none of these properties today are conducive or feasible for residential use. So it would require in every instance -- and we're talking about 65 percent of this block, three separate parcels -- to seek a variance for use of the property. The G-2 is very encompassing, 57 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 almost includes anything. But just to illustrate, my client on one of the properties, sought to have a dog-grooming facility operate, which was one of those unique uses that was not included in the G-2 zone, and it was rejected. Well, if a dog-grooming use is going to be rejected, I think we have to assume almost anything else on that property would probably be rejected if the zone was changed. And the widow, of course, relies on these rentals for her income and her livelihood, and this would have a devastating impact. Granted, there may be a value in the property for residential purposes, and at some point in time -- we don't know when -- a developer may present him or herself and make an offer, but that is not the case at the moment. My client needs to have these properties rented at least from time to time. And this clearly --
What are the -- could you give me some idea of what the rentals are or what the uses are of the people who lease the property, or what they do? What's conducted there?
Well, as I indicated, one of 58 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 the buildings had been converted to a restaurant. It is not being occupied at this time, but that could conceivably still be used as a restaurant.
Excuse me, how long ago was that, sir? How long ago was that renovated; do you know?
Yeah, I think it was -- it was an industrial-type of cooking; it wasn't a restaurant like -- it was like a commissary, where you would --
Mr. Robb may be a little more familiar with it because he's obviously --
As I indicated, one of the properties that's being utilized is a machine shop because that was conducive to the former use of the 59 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 ship-building. That tenant may also be leaving shortly. From what I understand, this tenant manufactures or assembles the metal parts that the vendors use on the street that you may see out here in front of City Hall at times. And, apparently, there's been a significant decline and demand for that for certain reasons. But those are the type of operations. These are very, you know, obsolete buildings in the sense that they were, you know, for manufacturing, for assembly, for repair business. It's not conducive or feasible to modify these buildings for other types of use -- well, certainly not residential, and my client isn't in a position to develop it for residential purposes.
Thank you. Did your client ever try to market that property for sale?
In fact, everybody's joined 60 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 together, we joined together.
And we're marketing the property as a whole. We're not trying to say, you know, take our piece and --
There's been an interest but you're not getting your price?
There was an interest, but then 9/11 came and the deal went south.
Do you know if the interest was for residential? Or you're not -- did you say that it's not?
Yeah, I think it was for some type of residential, yes. The property -- if you go to the property now, there is a sign put up by the broker saying that all three properties are up for sale.
It may actually be shown in one of the shots I took along Christian Street.
That's surprising because, I mean, that is a hot real-estate market, 61 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and there's just not enough land. I get calls from Realtors all the time asking if I know of any land in my district because they want to develop.
I mean, I don't think any of us sitting at this table would object if after there's an agreement of sale and if we've got it and if there's somebody who wants to develop this as residential that you would come back here and rezone this, whatever would fit that residential classification, that, you know, Queen Village would want it and that developer would want it. I don't think any of us sitting here would fight that bill 14 at all. You know --
Councilman DiCicco, if I could address that. Certainly if an offer was made and it was acceptable, my client would probably be inclined to accept it, certainly in conjunction, maybe even with Mr. Robb's. But on the other hand, there seems to be something inherently unfair that somebody would be compelled to sell their property or almost forced to sell their property just to, you know, be able to continue to --
See, I guess I get 62 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 hung up on that statement that they would be compelled -- I get hung up on the statement that they would be compelled to sell. The mapping we did in 1989, most of the business people were of the opinion that the sky was falling and that the properties weren't going to be worth anything and they were going to be forced out of business, and those business folks who chose to stay since 1989 and conduct their normal business are still there today. I mean, I didn't see this, you know, dramatic effect on the ability to continue to operate, I just didn't see it. It has not occurred. And then when I got elected in 1996, with the help of Councilman Kenney, we did a whole remapping, as I said earlier, of everything from Oregon Avenue to Washington and found auto body shops in places I wish they were not, but they were pre-existing and they are still there today.
Well, that may be the case and this property in the future may have significantly more value than it does today, and hopefully that will be the case, but in the 63 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 meantime, my client has to rent out space and would be --
Apparently, you're client is not having success in renting it now and we haven't even done the bill.
Well, there is interest and, I mean, it's something that has to be pursued but --
Well, we have someone who may be interested in using it for a limo -- there's parking as well but --
And I do pass there 64 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 often and I'm not going to suggest I'm an expert, but I don't know if those buildings have been occupied all that much for the past five years anyway. So where is the harm here? I mean, it's not as though this is a thriving real-estate property, where you have tenants and when you lose tenant, there's one waiting in line. The building is basically vacant most of the time anyway -- if I'm correct. And, again, I don't live there; I just drive through there. And maybe I pay too much attention to what I do on my job because I don't sleep at night, but I don't think those buildings are occupied anyway.
Well, there have been tenants off and on over the past few years; they have come and gone.
And if the manufacturer or fabricator of hot dog carts moves, you're really down to one anyway.
I mean, I heard you and I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but in your 65 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 statement, if I heard you correctly, your client is relying on the income from this property and there's one or two tenants? I mean, is that a life-and-death thing? I mean I don't understand that.
Well, you know, I can't address her finances, but she does rely on income from that it, but beyond that, whether it's rented fully or not, it becomes impossible --
It becomes impossible to market it or use it for any income-producing basis if the ordinance is passed.
What's the rental coming out of those two rented places now; do you know?
Any more questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Thank you. 66 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. I want to have a couple of announcements. Bill No. 010305 will be held; that's dealing with an ordinance amending a zoning area between Snyder Avenue, Columbus Boulevard, Porter Street, and Weccacoe Avenue and Vandalia. So if there's anyone here for that bill, that will not be heard today. Bill No. 010392 will be withdrawn at the request of the sponsor, and that's also dealing with zoning maps between Columbus Boulevard, Catharine Street, I-95 and Delaware Expressway. And Bill No. 010660, which is an ordinance to amend the zoning maps on areas of the City of Bartram Avenue, west of 84th Street, will also be held. So if there is anyone here to give testimony or listen to testimony on those bills, they will not be heard today. The next bill on our calendar -- oh, and by the way, we have a number of also zoning issues: Councilmember Clarke's bill, Verna's bill, and 67 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 Miller's bill, Bills No. 010560, 010632 and 010718. Is there anyone here from the public to testify on those bills just so I can try to coordinate this better? I'll tell you where they are: It's Poplar Street, Ninth Street, Percy Street, or Meadowlark, Lapwing Place, Longspur, or Chelten Avenue... The next bill for consideration is Bill 9 No. 010125, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1621, entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls," under certain terms and conditions. We also have witnesses from the public on that. If they could just come forward and take those chairs inside the rail. The Planning Commission will give quick testimony after identifying themselves. Thank you.
Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. I'm Richard Lombardo, Deputy Executive Director of the Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 24 01025. This bill was introduced by Councilman DiCicco and Council President Verna on March 1, 68 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 2001. This bill amends the zoning code by adding a new Section 14-1621, entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls," to the zoning code. This section of the zoning code would establish a certain use in zoning controls for commercially-zoned properties fronting on Passyunk Avenue between Wharton Street and 25th Street. This is a list of zoning overlays. Section 14-1600 of the zoning codes are special controls for various areas of the City and this would establish a new area. The following uses would now be prohibited if this ordinance is enacted in the commercial properties fronting on Passyunk Avenue: athletic and drill hall, dance hall, automobile repair shop, service station, installation of automobile parts, sale of automobile parts and car washes, fortune teller establishment, tattoo and body-piercing establishments, outdoor advertising signs, outdoor sales or storage, drive-through restaurants or take-out restaurants, private clubs, beer distributors and sale of malt beverages as 69 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 accessory use, trolley and bus terminals. The following use controls will also be established: Newly erected building would be required to construct to the street line of Passyunk Avenue. That basically means that new buildings would not be permitted to set back from the sidewalk with parking or whatever between the building and the sidewalk. Only flat wall signs would be permitted; you would no longer be permitted to have projecting signs perpendicular to the front of the property. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 15, 2001, considered this bill and amendments and recommended that Bill 01025 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions I also understand we've been asked to address a couple of amendments.
Okay. There are a couple of amendments that proceed from issues raised either by either by the Law Department or by interest groups. One is a correction. I'll do the correction first. 70 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 On of the ordinance, paragraph 2, district boundaries, on the last line: Frontage on Passyunk Avenue between... That should be Washington Avenue, not Wharton Street, and 25th Street. That's one correction. On the same page, under Paragraph 3, sub B, automobile repair shops, automobile service stations or retail sale of automobile fuel, lubricants and accessories, retail sales, installation of automobile parts, tires, audio equipment, automobile truck or sales lots. What the committee has been doing recently in these commercial strips is not making it clear that this is not prohibiting uses that are a part of a larger new-car dealership. So we want to insert the language "except as part of a franchised new-car facility." The last amendment is on at the top of the page, subparagraph H. It currently reads, "Private clubs with a license from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages." The Law Department has informed Council and us, the Planning Commission, that based on recent court decisions 71 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 that they no longer have the authority to preempt the Liquor Control Board in establishing land-use controls based on the sale of alcoholic beverages, and they suggest that we drop the language about alcoholic beverages and just leave it as "private clubs." And I believe that's going to be given to the Chief Clerk's office if they're not adopted by the committee.
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Are you going to have generally one spokesperson? Please, you can ail 72 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 identify yourselves for the record, but if one person would go last who's going to speak for the record.
Just kidding. Talk about your business and your location, that's fine.
Michael Giordano, owner of Century Forrester Real Estate in the 1600 block 16 of East Passyunk Avenue. 17
Gregory DiCoco (ph), owner 18 of the St. Jude Shop at 1807 East Passyunk Avenue. 19
You can tell they're 20 all from South Philadelphia; they pronounce 21 Passyunk as "PASH-YUNK." (Laughter.)
Al Masino, Terry Shear, 73 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 Greg DiCoco and I are today as business owners and property owners along Passyunk Avenue and as members of the Passyunk Avenue Business Improvement District Steering Committee to voice our strong support for Bill No. 010125, entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls." We need this legislation to preserve and improve Passyunk Avenue and to encourage new investment along this important thoroughfare. We are also here to support the proposed amendments to this bill extending the boundary lines to Washington Avenue and the technical changes relative to prohibited uses. We recommend that you move this legislation forward, and we thank you for your support of this bill.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
We appreciate your patience in waiting. It's a lengthy process and we hope you understand. Go back to work.
Thank you. 74 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 PANEL MEMBERS: Thank you.
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 010126, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning 9 and Planning," by amending Section 14-1610 entitled 10 "Old City Residential Area Special District 11 Controls," by providing that fortune-teller 12 establishments and tattoo and body-piercing 13 establishments are prohibited uses within the 14 District, all under certain terms and conditions. We have to do the planning Commission first, please.
How will we ever know what lies in our future? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Deputy Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to speak on Bill No. 24 010126. This bill was introduced by Councilman DiCicco on March 1, 2001. 75 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126
Excuse me. I need to interrupt you for a second. I know it's a long day and people have been here a long time, but all of the extraneous conversation taken together is really drowning out the witnesses, so if you have any need for conversation, please go into the hall. Even if you think you're whispering, all of the cumulative whispering becomes tough to hear. Please proceed with your testimony.
This bill amends the zoning code by amending the Old City Residential Area Special District Control, which is another 14-1600 overlay, by designating fortune-teller establishments and tattoo or body-piercing establishments as prohibited within this area. This overlay currently covers the area bounded by Wood Street on the north, Front Street on the east, Market Street on the south, and Fifth Street on the west. No legally existing buildings would be affected by these amendments. A new business of this type would need to be approved by a variance of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. These amendments were requested by old City Civic 76 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 Association to address community concerns regarding the conduct of these businesses within a residential community. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 15, 2001, considered these amendments and recommended approval of Bill No. 010126. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we thank you. Please come as a panel. (Witnesses come forward.)
Cindy Filo, Director of the Old City Special Services District.
Joseph Schiavo, resident of Old City, 155 North Third Street.
As I said before, I'm Cynthia 77 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 Filo, I'm the Executive Director of the Old City Special Services District. The district provides clean, safe, and economic development improvements for a 22-square block area, which is smaller than the residential overlay that is being proposed today. I'm also an 11-year resident of Old City. I'm here today to support the additions to the Old City Residential Area Special District Controls, as proposed by Councilman DiCicco and supported by the community here today. Each of the uses added to the ordinance -- tattoo, piercing, and fortune-teller establishments -- are already regulated elsewhere in the City. This is just bringing Old City in line with its neighbors -- Rittenhouse Square, Main Street in Manayunk, South Street Head House District, and now Passyunk. These additions will serve to protect the major public and private investments by property owners, both commercial and residential, thereby maintaining the economic vitality, aesthetics, and the historic nature of Old City. I'd like to thank Councilman DiCicco for his work in putting this matter in the forefront, and I would also like to thank him on his work with 78 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 the Special Services District and the community here today. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions, if there are any.
Thank you very much. See, Councilman, some people do love you.
I suspect I will read his comments in the paper tomorrow?
I assure you that I can probably send his love to you from here.
Thank you. And thank you for all of your hard work. It's a joint effort, all of you.
Anyone else here to 79 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will quickly move to Bill No. 010718, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded generally by Chelten Avenue, Baynton Street, Belfield Avenue, and Logan Street, a railroad right-of-way, and Germantown Avenue. Planning Commission, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, I'm Deputy Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 010718. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Miller on December 6, 2001. This bill represents comprehensive rezoning under the Planning Commission Citywide Zoning and Remapping Program. Approximately 367 80 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 acres of land located in the northwest section of Philadelphia are included in this bill. This rezoning covers an area bounded by Chelten Avenue, Baynton Street, Belfield Avenue, Logan Street, Germantown Avenue, and represents the Wistar neighborhood. This bill was prepared at the request and in connection with the Wistar Neighborhood Council and was the subject of several community meetings of the zoning committee of the Wistar Neighborhood Council during summer and fall of 2001. This group -- this zoning group consisted of representatives of the residential community, the business community, the development community, and representatives from Councilwoman Miller's office. The major zoning changes that would be accomplished by this remapping include the following: The C-3 commercial zoning designations in the area of Germantown Avenue and Chelten Avenue would be changed to C-2 commercial in order to reinforce the retail commercial nature of this area. 81 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 Several parcels of Chelten Avenue would be rezoned to C-7 commercial, reflecting the abilities of these sites to provide off-street parking for customers. Former industrial sites have been rezoned to permit the redevelopment as residential uses, while existing active industrial sites have remained zoned G-2. The community expressed concern regarding the conversion of single-family dwellings to multifamily dwellings, and accordingly, most of the R-10 and R-9 residential zoning are being changed to R9-A or R10-A, which, the Council knows, is limited to single-family occupancy. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 6, 2002, considered this bill and recommended that Bill No. 010718 be approved. I will be happy to answer any questions. There is one amendment since this bill 21 was prepared and it apparently has been requested by a property owner and has been reviewed and approved by the Community Council. That is one property, which would be south -- and this amendment we will provide to the clerk of the 82 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 Council so the committee can adopt it. One property which is being proposed to be rezoned to R-5 residential on Germantown Avenue, south of Logan, would be rezoned to C-2 commercial to reflect that it is commercial occupancy in that building. With that one amendment, we would, again, recommend that the bill be approved.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Seeing none, sir, would you like to testify? (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Lawrence Halliman (ph) and I'm here to represent the Penn Area Neighborhood Association in Germantown. We are on the east side of the railroad, the Reading Railroad tracks. The Wistar Town Council is responsible for what they call "the west side." I will be brief. Thank you for the time.
The only concerns that we have with regard to any aspect of the bill, sir, is 83 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 that Belfield Avenue was originally a creek. The 5200 block and the 5300 block of Belfield Avenue have stability issues. They have abandoned gas stations from Esso as well as Sunoco stations with tanks still in the grounds. I'm referring specifically to what was formerly Reading Railroad property that is now Bob Toyota's carcass. We need to make sure that the powers that be understand that because of severe flooding, the fact that it was carcass, the fact that it was wetlands at one time, that if we were in Exton, it wouldn't even be developed. The fact that when it comes down to it, there is an issue with regards to PCBs. We have a major Superfund site in the 5200 block of Belfield Avenue. These are all on our side of responsibility corridor with regard to the railroad. We need to make sure that not only the Planning Commission, City Council, as well as any developers work with Penn Area Neighbors. We have been accessible since 1955. 1955 was the start of the battle over 15 years over developing a glen into Bob Toyota with Reading Railroad. The neighborhood lost; now we have an abandoned 84 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 automobile dealership that is flooded with regard to contamination and PCBs. We need communication; that's all we're asking for. We want to make sure that we're available and accessible, but we do not want to be left out of the loop. Every other parcel is the responsibility of the Wistar Town Council. Those parcels on the east side of the railroad, specifically the 5200 block of Belfield and the 5300 block of Belfield need to be addressed in public meetings with the community that is affected by them. And that's all I have.
Thank you. I assume you've had this discussion with Councilmember Miller's staff and --
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 85 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
Seeing none, we will now call two bills for testimony. The first is Bill No. 010617, which is an ordinance providing that no agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other commitment for the operation, financing, or management of the School District of Philadelphia, which will substitute for or supersede the functions of the Board of Education or its successors or assigns which will require the appropriation of City funds, the imposition of taxes by the City of Philadelphia or the authorization by City Council of the levying of taxes on behalf of the School District of Philadelphia or its successors or assigns shall be entered into or be any force or effect without the prior review and approval of the Council of the City of Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions. The second bill is 010666, which is an ordinance providing that no agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other commitment for the private administration, management, or operation of any school within the School District of Philadelphia which will require the appropriation 86 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 of City funds, the imposition of taxes by the City of Philadelphia, or the authorization of City Council of the levying of taxes on behalf of the School District of Philadelphia or its successors or assigns shall be entered into or be any force or effect without the approval of the parents of students at that school and without the approval of the Council of the City of Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions. I'd like to recognize Councilmember Nutter first, and then we will begin our witness list. We thank you for your patience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. First, there are a number of citizens, taxpayers, and parent advocacy groups and others that are here with us this morning, and before the official testimony starts -- and we will hear whoever is here -- I want to thank all of you for taking time away from either your work schedule, your life schedule, possibly your child schedule to be here with us to see if we might have an opportunity to still provide you with what I think is an appropriate place to be, which is a voice in 87 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 what is going on in public education. These bills were introduced in October and November of last year primarily for the purpose of trying to secure a place at the table for parents as they are concerned about what is going on with public education and specifically at their child's school. And so we want to thank you for coming out this morning. I look forward to the testimony from all perspectives, but I wanted to acknowledge the parents who are here with us this morning and express my deepest appreciation, and I'm sure my colleagues share in those sentiments.
Thank you very much I want to call these witnesses in threes. Hopefully we can move through this quite efficiently. First is Ted Kirsch, Mr. Jerry Mondesire, and Mr. Tom Doyle, or anyone with them. (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Kirsch, please identify yourself for the record. and proceed.
I am Ted Kirsch, President of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and joining me is Jerry Jordan, Vice President of the PFT. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of our more than 21,000 members. Before I would begin, I would like to take a minute to recognize the contributions of Philadelphia public school employees. While the debate over privatization rages, most people forget that dedicated school employees have gone to work every day amid chaos, fear, uncertainty, but they're determined to do their jobs and educate our children. They deserve our gratitude because in tumultuous times, they have remained focused on students and education, which is more than I can say for some of our elected leaders who seem to have forgotten that children are educated in classrooms, not in back rooms where political deals are being made. I want to thank my --
Feel free to highlight who they are, so we're all not included in that group.
Yeah, I don't see any of 89 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 them in the room, I might add.
I want to thank fellow PFT members and all school employees for their commitment and hard work under these difficult circumstances. I am here today to support Councilman Nutter's initiatives, which, if approved, could restore the school reform efforts, a semblance of democracy, and public dialogue that have been conspicuously absent from the present process, where companies are bidding and the public is kept in the dark. Since its passage in April of 1997, Act 46 has represented a new legislative low point in Penn. The Philadelphia school take-over law was passed in just a few hours without any public notice or opportunity for public discussion. Afterwards, a dozen legislators, who voted for Act 46, had the audacity to admit they didn't know what was in the law they had just approved. 90 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Three years later, in another stealth legislative activity in Harrisburg, State legislators amended the take-over law to increase already sweeping powers that a politically appointed School Reform Commission would have over Philadelphia's public schools. The legislature created a five-person commission to run our schools -- unelected and unaccountable to the Mayor, the Governor, the legislature, the City Council, or the people of Philadelphia. The Commission was granted absolute authority to privatize any or all of our public schools as well as district managerial functions. It can hire, fire, or suspend employees; it can privatize jobs or service provided to our schools and our students; it can hire for-profit management for neighborhood schools, and if parents don't like it, they have absolutely no recourse. Throughout the nation, parents and taxpayers have expressed growing concern about the privatization of their children's schools. Stagnant test scores, declining enrollments, high teacher turnover, and big cost overruns are raising serious questions about risky privatization 91 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 ventures. In New York last April, when parents were given the right to vote on privatization of their public schools, 80 percent voted no, a resounding defeat for those efforts when parents were given an opportunity to voice their concern. In San Antonio, in Minneapolis, Lancing, Michigan, and just yesterday in Wichita, Kansas, where privatization experiments began going terribly wrong, their elected school boards, parents, and taxpayers were able to say "enough" and out the private-management companies. Yet here in Philadelphia, the Cradle of Democracy, we have neither a voice nor a vote on who runs our schools or how they run them; the legislature took that we from us. Furthermore, the legislature robbed Philadelphia residents and taxpayers of their most basic franchise: Our right to vote to determine for ourselves how our tax dollars are raised and spent. Act 46 confers upon the new commission the authority to levy taxes and incur debt until the Secretary of Education issues a declaration revoking that awesome power. The unelected 92 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 commission has the authority to increase City taxes without the consent of the people who pay those taxes, until the unelected Education Secretary says otherwise. In the birthplace of democracy, one of democracy's most basic rights have been crushed because the new State-controlled board will have the power not only over our schools but also over our taxes. We believe, as Councilman Nutter proposes, that it is up to the City Council to restore the same rights that Americans living in New York, San Antonio, and every other city enjoy: The right of self-determination and to taxation with representation. Councilman Nutter's proposals would help restore independent oversight, public input, and a system of checks and balances to guard against potential abuses of power that could occur under this unparalleled scheme. Already there are hints of abuse.
Voters and taxpayers have still not seen in writing documentation of agreements made between the Governor and the Mayor. Since the agreement and 93 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 State takeover in December, the interim chairman of the Commission has awarded $675,000 in no-bid contracts for consultants, media companies, and law firms; while, I might add, students and teachers are still scrounging for basic supplies, school libraries are closed or understaffed, successful reading programs remain unfunded, and many schools lack full-time nurses. Revelations that Edison Schools has spread $85,000 in, quote, business to influential companies with ties to the Mayor or other local politicians, private meetings between the Commission Chair and Edison officials in New York and the hiring of the Governor's lead attorney on the Edison deal to work for the local school Commission should make us skeptical and cautious. The PFT is calling on City Councilmembers to insist that Philadelphians be given the right to vote on who will manage their schools and that City Council be given an ambiguous oversight over the Commission on spending City tax revenues. It's no secret why Act 46 is silent on the issue of public input. There's been a groundswell of opposition from parent, community, 94 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 civic, and labor organizations. In an independent poll this fall of Philadelphia residents by Peter Hart & Associates, a highly regarded national polling firm, it showed that 76 percent of Philadelphians oppose privatization. In fact, the only support for privatization seems to come from those who will stand to profit from them; our children will not profit from it. The Hart Associates poll found that more than two-thirds of all Philadelphians want changes in our public school system but they do not want the changes that have been proposed so far. Parents, teachers, students, and the community are unanimous in their desire for safe, orderly, effective schools in which all children succeed and become creative, productive citizens. The public supports: Early-childhood education programs that prepare children to learn; significant smaller class sizes, which have been proven to raise test scores, close the achievement between white and minority students, and prepare more minority students for college; uniform and consistent disciplinary standards that make every 95 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 school safe and orderly; and top-notch schools alternative schools where troubled students can learn without disrupting their classmates. We agree that we need: A District-wide curriculum; we need proven reading and math programs with track records of success; qualified supported teachers with modern books, materials, and technology in the classroom; well-stocked libraries, access to music, arts, and sports programs. In fact, it was just reported in yesterday's newspaper in the Chester Upland area where the Edison schools are requesting the right to have 10 percent of their teachers unqualified and uncertified. It's another indication that the best interests of our students will not be served by privatization. We need school nurses, psychologists, and other resources to meet children's special needs. We need a statewide funding system that provides children with the same educational opportunities regardless of the affluence of the community they live in. )
These reforms are the 96 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 reforms our students need and deserve, reforms that work. I urge you to choose education over idealogue and democracy over demagogue. Put the public back into public education and democracy back into our government. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Whoever would like to go next, please feel free to ... Good afternoon.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the Philadelphia City Council, good afternoon. I'm Jerry Mondesire, President of the Philadelphia branch of the NAACP. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you this afternoon concerning Bill 21 No. 010617 because the NAACP believes that Councilman Nutter's legislation is among the most important matters this body will consider for many years to come. At its heart, this legislation speaks 97 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 directly to the issue of just how much citizen participation will be allowed in the restructuring of Philadelphia's public schools. It speaks to just how much the political decision-makers in this city and in Harrisburg are willing to listen to the parents, the students, and the taxpayers. To date, except for the two days of hearings this Council held last year in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus, there really has been no public discussion about the future of public education in this city. Yes, there have been plenty of public demonstrations and rallies and press conferences -- heck, I've either planned or participated in most of them. But a real conversation among all of the stakeholders, that public discussion has been consistently blocked by both the City Administration and by Harrisburg. No more significant issue related to the future of Philadelphia as a city can be found after the public school issue. No public act has such lifelong consequences as education. If we fail the students now, we will have to live with the effects forever. A failed public education system cannot 98 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 be reversed; it will outlive us all. Thus I commend this Council and urge you to pass Bill No. 010617 since the expenditure of taxpayers funds for public education should not even be considered without the prior review and approval of City Council. You are our representatives and it is to you that we taxpayers look to when it comes to controls on the public purse. In addition, we urge passage of this bill 12 and also the companion bill, 010666, because it should be up to the parents to approve any authorization to have a private company take over a public school where their child attends. This is the public's business, and no 17 private company or appointed official, or for that matter, even an elected official should have the power to seize control of the education of our children unless and without parental consent. (Applause.)
If we require children to bring a signed note from a parent before we allow them to attend a school trip, say, to the museum or to the aquarium, how is it that we would surrender 99 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 control of an entire public school system without first asking the parents to render their opinion. Today, public school children, most of whom are black, brown, yellow, and come from working class families, are under direct threat by some of the most callous politicians in the history of this Commonwealth. Additionally, they are under direct threat by some of the greediest corporate entities ever seen in the public arena. In my days on Capitol Hill, I've seen arms dealers who displayed more compassion for what they were trying to sell. Many of these politicians and business interests want to make money off of our children. Like you, they know the Philadelphia school budget, at roughly $1.7 billion, is the second largest budget in the Commonwealth. Only the City of Philadelphia's municipal budget is larger. We spend more taxpayer dollars on public schools than it takes to run the entire City of Pittsburgh or to run Harrisburg, Allentown, and Scranton combined. That's why the privateers have arrived at our doorstep when we face our most serious funding crisis. They are not here to help us; they are 100 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 here to get paid. All doubt about their motives should have been erased last December 28th when the so-called Reform Commission approved spending of nearly a million dollars in pin-striped patronage deals to politically connected lawyers, PR consultants, and insurance experts, even as the District continued to pay the salaries of experts in these fields, who are already on the public school staff. We in the NAACP will continue to speak out against such flagrant abuses of the public trust, and we urge you to pass these two bills to better protect us in the future. Finally, as you consider these very important pieces of legislation, we at the NAACP also ask that you remember that in a city where the working-class, middle, and upper-middle classes have their choice of any number of private schools, from Quaker to Catholic, from Jewish to Christian academies, from Islamic to Korean schools, which one of these systems sets up children as engines of profit as does the current plan as outlined by the so-called Reform Commission? Can you actually buy stock in any 101 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 archdiocese or Quaker or yeshivah school? Of course, you can't. These schools were never set up to make their investors rich. So why, then, have we allowed ourselves to reach a point where we are prepared to subjugate the poor, the black, the brown, the yellow, and the white public school children in ways we wouldn't even dare consider for the children of the privileged Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Thomas Doyle, and I'm the President of Local 1201 School Employees in Philadelphia. I apologize that I do not have a prepared statement today; I didn't find out about these hearings, to be honest about it, until late yesterday afternoon. But I would like to read briefly from a report in regards to contracting out school services. The significant expansion of contract-out janitorial and custodial services to private operators requires very careful consideration. 102 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 This careful assessment is required because cost reductions based on wages and benefits can have serious negative effects on worker productivity and commitment. Five years ago, the public school board considered contracting out its janitorial-custodial functions to the private sector. Before doing so, the board instituted a three-year research program to compare the relative performance of the private sector versus in-house public-sector workers in matched schools. Subsequent to the intensive study, the public school board conclusively decided against contracting out. The research results from this study indicated that public school workers outperformed the private-sector employees by a percent margin 18 in the key area of cleaning function. Moreover, 19 the deficiency of cleaning performances by 20 private-sector workers led to tens of thousands of dollars damage to floors, rugs, and other elements of school infrastructure. And as you know, the (indiscernible) report in 1956 [sic], the infrastructure repairs needed for the School District of Philadelphia is 103 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 $956 million. We also noted that the private-sector employees displayed a general lack of commitment to their work, 0coupled with some real hostility to their employees. This serious lack of worker commitment and in regard to daily tasks and upgrading skills stemmed from a single source: Substandard pay rates and benefits received by contracted-out employees. The observed deficiencies in worker performance and attitudes were not attributed to specific private-sector operators but observed throughout the industry. The reason for this is that industry is too competitive because entry into this industry is easy. No great investment in equipment or apparent skills is required; as a result, bidding by contractors is extremely intense. So the contractors are under extreme pressure to minimize their major operating outlay, wages, and benefits. Contracted-out employees respond by displaying a lack of workplace commitment and excessively high turnover rates. During the three-year period of our study, turnover rates of 104 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 contracted-out employees approached 500 percent. As an interesting aside, I've noted that sometimes decision-makers who are ideologically committed to contracting-out/privatization will seek to minimize public knowledge of private-sector underperformance contracts, which is what is going on right now. No one in City Council, no one in the School District of Philadelphia other than the Reform Commission, and absolutely none of the parents or students know what's going on because there's no information being given to anyone. This is all being done behind closed doors and back-door deals. Decision-maker espousing contracting-out policies under conditions where excessive competition prevails in an industry have to confront an inescapable economic reality. If employers pretend to pay their workers, the workers will pretend to work, regardless of the presence of seemingly airtight obligations. If, on the other hand, workers and supervises receive adequate pay and benefits, these positive incentives will encourage all employees to 105 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 view their workplace as a career possibility.
To put it in brief, contracting-out, as is proposed right now by Act 46 and the legislature, will not benefit the School District of Philadelphia, absolutely the students of Philadelphia, the parents of the students of Philadelphia, or the employees of the School District of Philadelphia. We have proven over and over that we do it better, faster, and cheaper than everyone else. We believe in Councilman Nutter's bills, we believe the parents should have an opportunity to vote, they should demand to vote. We, unfortunately, believe the parents still don't know what's going on in the School District of Philadelphia and what's happening with the takeover. We also, at this point, I would like to emphasize that a part of the education process is a clean, healthy, and safe environment. The School District of Philadelphia, and we believe influenced by the Reform Commission, has decided to cut 50 percent of the asbestos-abatement team that works for the School District of Philadelphia who 106 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 are members of my bargaining unit. Since January now, they've cut it by 50 percent, and they said that they can still meet the federal requirement levels by reducing it in half. The School District, since January 2nd of this year -- today is the 30th -- has 53 locations of schools where they are removing asbestos, and it's not all being done by our members. They said they could meet the requirements. If they can, why are they currently contracting out and they're going to get rid of half of the department. They can't meet those requirements. These are copies. This is just for January. They cannot meet these requirements. As you go through these letters, they are in classrooms, in hallways, in ceilings, in pipes, in crawl spaces, gyms, cafeterias, you name it. These are cancer-causing agents, this is poison in the air that's there every day that the students of Philadelphia are breathing, that the staff in the building, the teachers, the cafeteria worker, the 1201 workers, the administration, that everyone one of them is breathing every hour of the day that they're in school. These schools are located all 107 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 over the City of Philadelphia. Each one of you has a copy. Right now, I'm sure it's a different location. They are in everyone's Councilmatic district. Since last year, this is the bundle that we received from the School District for asbestos abatement that was done by our 1201 members, of which there are only 30, and they cut it down to 15. This stack here does not include one asbestos abatement date for the months of February, March, half of April, May, and June. We have six months' worth in this stack, so you can imagine it will most likely be doubled. And yet, the Commission and the District has determined that they can meet the requirements and it's cheaper for them to do it with contract labor. Contract labor for asbestos removal in the City of Philadelphia is $42 an hour. Our members make less than half of that. Less than half. It is not economically feasible, it is not economically justified, and it is certainly not by cutting 50 percent of that workforce creating a safe, healthy environment for the students and 108 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 staff and members of the School District of Philadelphia and the parents that go in as they pick up their children or attend their PTA meetings or whatever it is. We ask that the Council in these hearings, as a part of these hearings, go back to the District, demand to know what's going on, why they are taking people that are certified, which every one of these members has a supervisor's card, which enables them to go in and visibly identify, visibly identify, with training from Drexel University and a certification from Drexel University, why they're being removed, and it's going to be left on the building engineer, who has received in their career two hours of training.
This is unjustified, it's wrong, and it's killing people. We ask you to seriously consider that, bring it back to the Commission and the Board, and demand that these people be brought back to work, that they be kept, and that the students be kept safe in the School District of Philadelphia Thank you.
Thank you very much 109 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 for your testimony. (Applause.)
The next witness is Aldustus Jordan, Wendell Harris, and Veronica Joyner. (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record, whoever wants to start.
-- to Chairwoman Verna and the distinguished members of the Committee of Rules and all of the Councilmembers that are present. My name is Wendell A. Harris. I'm currently the North Academic Area Representative and School Safety Chairperson for the Philadelphia Home and School Council as well as a board member for the Parent Union for Public Schools. Over the past 18 years, I have served as president for five different home-and-school associations, and currently, I have three children in public schools and four on the way. All that's to say, I have been involved 110 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 in the struggle for improving Philadelphia schools for a long time, and I have a lot invested in this district. However, I have, and I am disheartened by many of the current reform proposals that would turn our district into a for-profit free-for-all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to our educators, administrators, and school staff making a living, a good living in fact. However, I draw the line when for-profit companies line up to bid on our schools like cattle, especially given the fact that their first responsibility is to their corporate shareholders and not to our children and parents, the true stakeholders. In the current school reform debate, there's been a lot of talk about partnership with parents and community. However, these words mean nothing unless the parents and community have a say in the decisions being made. Thus far, we cannot trust anything coming out of the mouths of many of our elected officials because the voice of the parents have been excluded from the decision-making process. Most parents will tell that you reforming 111 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 public school education is not just about painting schools and changing management. What is most important is what takes place in the classroom. Real reform is about providing our kids with the same resources as kids in suburban districts, reducing class size, making sure that all of our children have qualified teachers. Most importantly, school reform is about involving parents in decisions that will have an impact on their lives and the communities that their children will grow up and work and serve in. What we're asking for is nothing less than what parents expect in public schools across the country. In New York, for example, parents were given the opportunity to vote on whether schools were to become privatized. Are we any less important here in Philadelphia the birthplace of democracy? I say not. What kind of message do we want to send across its nation of ours? All we ask is for our voices to be heard. We urge you to do the rights thing for the true stakeholders of this city. Vote in favor of this City Council resolution, 010666, and allow the parents to choose the type of education that they 112 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 want for our children. Anything less can only be construed as a hostile takeover. Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much, thank you. Whoever would like to go next, please proceed by identifying yourself first.
My name is Aldustus Jordan, and I'm here representing Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, the region's outside government child advocacy organization. First, I'd like to thank the Committee on Rules for the opportunity to provide public testimony on Resolution 010666. PCCY is also an active member of Philadelphia United to Support Public Schools, a coalition consisting of parent organizations and other education stakeholders from across the City. Since August, our coalition has advocated for common-sense approaches like to improving schools, like reducing funding the gap between Philadelphia 113 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 schools and the surrounding suburban districts, lowering school class sizes, and making sure that every student is taught by a qualified teacher. Most importantly, we have argued, rallied, and marched in order to provide parents and students, those with the most at stake in the school reform debate, to have a voice in shaping the future of their public education. We strongly believe in civic involvement in school reform and have been outraged by the lack of parent, student, and community engagement throughout the State takeover process. With plans in the works to turn over as many as a hundred schools for privatization, there has been no mention of whether the stakeholders at these schools will have a say. Parents and students must be the driving force behind school reform in Philadelphia, not Edison's $2.7 million report, which, by the way, is required reading for any potential District contractor. According to Edison's report on the District, we can improve school by eliminating 500 teaching positions, when, in actuality, we need more qualified teachers. According to the report, the District can save money by charging community 114 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 groups for the use of school buildings; in actuality, this would save very little and discourage parental and community partnerships. Furthermore, the report suggests that we need to make a significant financial investment in the cleaning and upkeep of schools, at the same time, recommending cuts in school maintenance costs, starting with eliminating school asbestos workers. This type of logic flies in the face of common sense and further strengthens the argument for parents to have a voice to decide whether or not this type of change is what they want for their children's education. We're asking Council to provide Philadelphia's parents with the same basic rights that are afforded to public school parents across this state and country. In 2000, under the State of Pennsylvania's current charter school law, the parents of York, Pennsylvania, were given the option to vote on whether or not they wanted a private company to have the power to take over a public school. Under a similar provision, parents 115 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 in New York City public schools were given the opportunity to decide on whether schools would be privatized. The parents of Philadelphia should be given the same opportunity to vote on the question of school privatization. (Applause.)
We call on members of Council assembled today to restore some level of democracy in a school reform process, which, up to this point, has been completely lacking public input and accountability. We count on you to have the courage to fight for the right of parents to have the opportunity to decide what they want for their children's education and future life chances. In closing, we urge you to vote Resolution 010666 out of this committee and vote in favor of its final passage when it is brought in front of the entire City Council. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. 116 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
Good afternoon. I'm Veronica Joyner. I'm a teacher formerly with the Philadelphia public schools and I'm the president and founder of Parents United for Better Schools, which is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) multi-racial parent advocacy organization. I represent 20,000 parents in the City of Philadelphia. I am also the chair of the NAACP Education Committee I wanted to make City Council aware and I wanted to thank everyone here in City Council, the representatives who are being our voice. I really commend you. I also wanted to make people aware that the first public schools were founded right here in Philadelphia in the 1600s. And I think what's going on today is criminal in terms of our schools and this takeover. I am here to support Councilmembers Nutter, Ortiz, and Cohen's bill, and that's 010666. I have never seen parent groups and community groups work so well together and have said repeatedly "no" to privatization, State takeover, give-over, management, whatever. We have said no. 25 I agree with the appropriation of funds 117 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 or any increase of appropriation of funds on behalf of the taxpayers must be voted on by the taxpayers and the citizens of Philadelphia. Parents and legal guardians of the minor children attending the Philadelphia public schools should have a right to vote, and they have voted verbally repeatedly. Further, no agreement to privatize or to manage the schools should be agreed upon without the vote of the taxpayers and the parents. I agree that 75 percent of the parents whose children are registered at the schools should be required to vote for any privatization. I did think I lived in a democracy in this society, and that right has been denied every citizen here. I continue to say no to privatization, takeover, give-over, and I want the right to vote and so do the parents I represent. Thank you.
I'm sorry about this, but I was going to enter testimony into the written 118 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 record and not testify, but I was told that I could do so. My name is Roseanne Lentz and I am a parent and I am also an area academic rep for the Northeast.
I would ask you -- 'cause your name is not on the list and people have been waiting and have asked, so I would ask you to please make it brief.
My testimony's in letter form, so I'm going to begin by saying: "Dear Councilman Nutter: We are the parents of a student who attends Northeast High School. We are submitting this letter in strong support of Bill No. 01066. It is about time someone has considered the constituents, the taxpayers, the stakeholders, the parents, guardians in this issue, privatization. We applaud you, Councilman Nutter, for the foresight and commitment you have shown us. We demand to have our rights reinstated and to be afforded the democratic process proposed in this bill. 119 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 "We have been dismissed as being unimportant in the scheme of things concerning privatization and the takeover. We have been ridiculed by Governor Schweiker and the press with the statement he made that we do not have the best interests of our children at heart if we want to sustain the status quo that exists within the Philadelphia School District. "Our statement is no, we do not want to sustain the status quo; we all know that reform is needed. We as parents and guardians who have had experience and vast knowledge concerning education, we have not been consulted, nor has our advice been sought by our elected legislators nor our appointed governor. Our illustrious mayor, John Street, has also abandoned us. "We urge someone to ask us what our vision is concerning schools, but especially the education of our students. Ask what we envision the end-process to be. Do not attempt to force us to accept the private corporation whose goal is to enhance and build their profits at the expense of our students' education. "We all know that more funding is needed, 120 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 along with smaller class sizes, improved technology, teacher professional development, teacher incentives, and community learning within the school buildings. "There has been a grave omission because, in the meantime, the Reform Commission has been appointed and has been meeting, and we, the parents and guardians of students in the Philadelphia Public School District do not have our rightful place at the table. Students were a part of the former process at the former school board. "We will continue to fight for our rights and our place at the table in the decision-making process that is occurring, not after all of the important decisions have been made. Mr. Nevels has hired a private firm to deal with the parents. We will not be afforded direct contact with Mr. Nevels, nor the Commission. How ludicrous. The situation will not be tolerated. "Reform. Perhaps Mr. Nevels needs to consult Webster's Dictionary for the meaning of the word. "Thank you for the above bill. We are working very hard in spreading the word to have 121 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 this bill pass within City Council. Councilmembers, we insist and urge you to right the injustice that has been done to us. We, the people, are the constituents, the taxpayers, the stakeholders, the parents, guardians. Our voices will be heard." Thank you.
The next group of witnesses is Dane Harris, Cecilia James, and Dolores Shaw. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record, whoever would like to go first.
Good afternoon, Council President. My name is Dolores Shaw and I am a member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, and I thank you this afternoon for the opportunity to speak on this important issue.
I am a product of the Philadelphia system. I have two children currently 122 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 the Roberto Clemente Middle School in Hunting Park. EPOP believers in the ability of our public schools to provide an excellent education for all of our children, and will continue to advocate for this cause. As parents and citizens of this city, we demand the right to participate in the educational future of our children and the fate of our public school system. As defenders and stakeholders in our children's future and education, we must have full participation in all the decision-making processes. Our voices and our votes must be heard. (Applause.)
We urge and implore City Council to support Bill No. 010666. Your support will send a clear message to all, that the rights of parents to vote for and participate in the educational system that serves all of our children will not be denied. Thank you.
Good afternoon. 123 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
My name is Cecilia James, and I represent the Alliance Organizing Project. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to express what parents want for their children's education. We strongly believe that parents should have a voice. This entire process has not included parents and what they want. Parents want smaller class sizes, more certified teachers, greater resources -- things that privatization will not bring. We understand that our schools need improvement, but we want the State and the City to implement reforms that work. Our greatest concern is that a community-based organization or educational management group will come into a school that has been making steady improvements and hurt the learning that is taking place. We're also concerned that the teachers that do an excellent job educating our children will leave, refusing to work in a school that is controlled by CPOs or EMOs that does not know or understand how to educate our diverse population of students. We fully support your plan for parents 124 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 who have a voice, especially since during this entire process, no one -- not Edison, not a community-based organization, not the Mayor, not the Governor -- has asked parents what children need to learn. A vote will give the parents the power to decide what educational system is best equipped to educate students. A vote would also give the parents the power to maintain a voice in schools and also make CPOs understand that you do indeed work for us. I'm also a member of -- I'm also a noontime aide, a member of Local 634. I've been employed by the District for almost years. I 16 say "almost" because as of September 3, 2002, I may 17 very well be out of a job with thousands of other 18 School District workers. 19 Let me ask you something: Would you 20 allow someone to walk in your house and make a 21 change without your permission? 22 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. 23
I do not think so. Then how 24 come we're allowing this to happen? People will lose their jobs. What about the people that have 125 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 gone from welfare to work; do they go back on welfare? When I go back to my seat, you may not remember my name or who I am, but please remember this: One person can't do everything, but everyone can do something. So I'm asking each and every one of you to consider the fate of our city, because in the long run, this is going to affect every one of us, every one of us -- the workers, our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren for generations to come. Think about it. Thank you. (Applause.)
My name is Dane Harris and I want to thank you for giving me the time to testify today.
I'm here on behalf of the 5600 members of Pennsylvania ACORN and the members of Philadelphia ACORN's independent membership organization, which is made up low- and moderate-income people who wish to change their 126 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 communities at the neighborhood, local, and federal level. Our members have children in schools throughout Philadelphia and we have consistently been critical about the Philadelphia School District and have agitated for positive change. I also have two girls who attend schools in Southwest Philadelphia. We have done much to (indiscernible) decrease teacher vacancies in our neighborhoods and believe that without adequate funding and public pressure, we can create public schools where our children can succeed and thrive. For generations we have struggled to win the fight -- I'm sorry, to win the right to vote on issues that affect our children and communities in our cities. However, right now, our children's future is on the line, and we as parents have not had the chance to make our voices heard. In fact, everything about the recent State takeover of the School District and the possible privatization of our schools has happened behind closed doors. The most troubling aspect of Edison's recent entry into our school crisis is a systematic 127 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 attempt to keep parents, teachers, and students out the decision-making process. Why is Edison afraid to allow us to vote on the future of our schools? Because if we are given the chance, parents will overwhelming vote to keep public schools public. In New York, the ACORN chapter reports, there was a parent vote at a school that was considering privatization or privatizing. Despite the promise of a free computer, parents voted to keep their schools public 3 to 1. Closer to home at, Wharton Elementary School in Southwest Philly, where I live at, ACORN organized a mock election on privatization, and 92 percent, or 300 parents, who turned out voted against privatization. Our right to vote is too important to ignore, especially when our children's future is at stake. For this reason, ACORN supports Councilman Nutter's bill, 010666, requiring that schools (indiscernible) before any potential privatization. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. 128 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 The next witnesses are Sarah Gilliam, Barbara Dowdall, and Phyllis Gilbert. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and whoever's going first can proceed.
My name is Sarah Gilliam, the Executive Director for the Parents Union for Public Schools in Philadelphia. The Parents Union for Public Schools submits the following testimony in support of Bill No. 010666: First of all, we'd like to commend Councilman Nutter, Ortiz, and Cohen for presenting this bill for consideration. It is imperative at this pivotal turn in public education that parents have the right to be included in the decisions made around their children's futures. This should have been the process from the very beginning. Parents want what is best for their children, and allowing for a process such as Bill 22 010666 gives parents the opportunity to make those decisions that will ultimately impact their children's educational experience. A bill such as this allows for parents to feel included as well as 129 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 assuming responsibility for the reactions resulting from the decisions made. This is a fair and honest approach. We at Parents Union feel that such a bill also allows for a different approach to parent involvement. It allows for parents to feel empowered and not powerless. Parents will have the opportunity to investigate for-profit companies running their schools as well as to mobilize and organize other parents to have an invested interest in being proactive at their children's schools. Parents do make a difference. When given appropriate information, they are able to make rational decisions. This bill would certainly begin the dialogue that is needed in most of our schools. Clearly, an informed parent can be an asset to creating better schools. Far too long, parents have been excluded. This must change. Statistics and data support the fact that when parents are involved in their children's schools and decisions surrounding them, the children's academic performance fares at a much higher rate. A true partnership is one that gives 130 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 all parties equal rights and responsibilities. Bill No. 010666 can be the beginning of a process that has been long overdue. For the many parents in Philadelphia which our organization serves on a daily basis, we are certain that they would welcome a process that allows for them to determine what type of educational programs they want for their children. The passing of this bill will begin to remove some of the cynicism and distrust. Parents and educators can begin to work as a team, with the common goal of educating all students with the input of their parents or caregivers. This should not be a privilege; it should be an entitlement. No true reform can occur without the engagement of parents. It is our hope that Councilmembers will acknowledge the importance of this bill and vote yes to this process. We must begin today for securing our children's futures for tomorrow. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record, 131 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 whoever's next.
Good afternoon. My name is Debra Zubow, and I'm here to give testimony for Barbara Dowdall, who is a teacher, and we are associates in the Philadelphians (indiscernible) Support Public Schools Coalition, and I'm here representing her because the hearings today are happening during the day, at a time when teachers and students, two of most important stakeholders in this system, are not able to attend, and I'd like for myself to strongly urge you to consider having hearings at a time when teachers and students can also be presented and have their voices heard in person. (Applause.)
(Reading.) "Good afternoon, Councilman Nutter and other members of the committee. I thank you for this opportunity to voice my support for Bill 21 010666. My name is Barbara McDowell-Dowdall. I am a 1964 graduate of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, a 27-year veteran teacher in the School District, currently serving as English Department Head at Dobbins Randall Area Vocational Technical 132 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 High School and a parent of a 1999 Central High School graduate. "Schools succeed where parents are involved. This resolution is, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, "a beacon of hope" to all who have been locked out of the State takeover process from its inception. By placing decision-making power in the hands of the stakeholders, you profoundly enhance the possibility for quality education in Philadelphia. "As a child growing up and attending public schools in Germantown, I observed the common pattern of intense involvement by a parent at the elementary school level. Today, I can walk a few blocks to Fitler School and see the assembly room 17 addition that the Home and School Association lobbied for under my mother's leadership in the late 1950s. As my siblings and I moved on to junior high and high school, my mother went back to work, and her ability to participate diminished. "Parents and guardians today face similar challenges. Even so, their interest in and commitment to the best for their children remains as strong as ever. Parents, students, teachers, 133 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 and administrators, we all have our moments -- the stress of the situation, large classes, inadequate resources, decrepit buildings, high-stakes testings creates tension, and on occasion, misunderstanding. We sometimes disappoint one another as we struggle to make the best of our schools under difficult circumstances. "In more than a quarter of a century of teaching, I have had hundreds upon hundreds of positive conversations and meetings with parents. They have sat in classes, accompanied us on trips, brought in baked goods and covered dishes, taught life-saving, and in one case, produced a video about our school program. As a parent, I was pleased when administrators knew who I was and when teachers praised my daughter's efforts. A child thrives when school and home work in concert. "Perhaps the only benefit of the school takeover process thus far is the unity engendered among parents, students, school employees, and community activists, as we have shared in the feelings of powerlessness while backroom deals were cut. "The Coalition Philadelphians United to 134 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Support Public Schools consists of many such groups working together to reclaim the democratic heritage of our beloved city. With this first step of empowering parents, the elected representatives of City Council show their commitment to creating the better schools that every one of us yearns to see. "Thank you very much. Barbara McDowell-Dowdall, 13th Ward, 4th Division, 8th Councilmatic District." (Applause.)
Before the next witness, just let me give you a little -- to the witnesses here and the people in the chamber who are interested in this issue, let me give you a little bit of a Council political primer. It's likely that the people who are here today will vote this bill out of committee, it will go to the floor. It is also likely that a majority of the members of Council will vote in favor of these two bills. It is also likely that the Mayor will veto these two bills. There is where you come in, both advocates and parents. Do not allow those Councilmembers who voted for this bill the first time around to switch their vote to support the 135 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Mayor in his veto override, because it's happened in this room in the last couple months four or five times, where bills get out of this Council to 2, 5 17 to nothing and come back on a veto and wind up 6 having this Councilmember sustain that veto. If 7 you allow that to happen, it is a mockery of the 8 process. 9 And I am telling you: It will get out of 10 committee today, it will probably be passed, it 11 will probably be vetoed, and that's where the 12 rubber hits the road, and you've got to hold these 13 Councilmembers -- both at-large members and 14 District members -- accountable for their 15 flip-flopping on issues that are important to you. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you for that reality check, okay, and we'll certainly work very hard to override a veto. I'm not so sure it's going to pass in Council either but --
No, I think we have a shot at it, I think we have a good shot. 136 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
Okay. Thank you very much, Councilman Nutter and City Council's Rules Committee, for the opportunity of testifying in support of Bill No. 010666. My name is Phyllis Gilbert, and I am speaking as a parent of three daughters who graduated from our public schools. I was once a volunteer for the Citizens Committee for Public Education, and I helped to found the Parents Union for Public Schools, and now I'm the director of Peace Action Delaware Valley, and an organizational member of the Coalition United to Support Philadelphia Public Schools. Peace Action Delaware Valley is a 45-year-old advocate organization with 3,000 members in its Delaware Valley. Its local mission is building democratic and peaceful communities. We believe that maintaining public control of our City schools and improving their effectiveness with the insight and expertise of public workers and parents is essential to keeping Philadelphia a liveable and democratic city. Local educators know our students and the difficulties they face from poverty, drugs, and 137 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 violence in the community and sometimes at home. These problems inhibit student motivation and parents' ability to help children learn. We all know by our own experience and the findings of many studies that high student achievement is much more likely when students have the crucial benefit of significant parent support. Parents know that education reform has been grossly hindered by lack of adequate funding; nevertheless, their voice has not been heard. Despite the decision of the Supreme Court that parent participation in decision-making to influence educational excellence, our governor and mayor have chosen to privatize our public schools without consulting parents. Bill 010666 will give the first structural step towards that democratic right to parent participation in voting for or against private management of our private [sic] schools, and I'm sure, of course, that the parents will vote for no privatization. Peace Action Delaware Valley reiterates that all of Philadelphia's youth deserve an effective public education. For years, public 138 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 funds for education have decreased due to a falling tax base in the City and diminished state and federal support. Consistently, the public schools were expected to educate more and more disadvantaged youth with less resources. 7 million to evaluate Philadelphia's public schools, with the expectation that it would then run many of the City schools after the State takeover. This deal speaks of a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, while teachers are without basic school supplies and little access to computers, the State School Reform Commission is hiring an additional group of consultants at a cost of $675,000 and no bids. The hypocrisy of pay-to-play also applies to the State's sham aim of increasing educational effectiveness. The claim that private enterprise will produce better education for students cannot apply to the track record of Edison Schools Incorporated. This private company has not made a profit since 139 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 its beginning years ago. However, it has promised its shareholders that taking on a large number of Philadelphia schools will erase their debt and make them profitable. In two independent reports, Edison-run performed no better, and often worse, than public schools in the same districts. In cities from New York, Lansing, Michigan, San Antonio, Texas, Miami-Dade, Baltimore, Detroit, Las Vegas to San Francisco, Edison Schools show high costs, poor performance, high teacher turnover, and lowering enrollment. So this private enterprise has not only failed at what business does (make a profit), but also at improving students achievement.
In the mid-1990s, Philadelphia was offered an education reform opportunity by the recommendations of Judge Doris Smith's report developed by her education expert commission to improve the City's racially-isolated schools. Again, parents were not consulted. It is no 22 surprise that the report called for smaller class size, extensive training for teachers and parents, expanded early-childhood programs, improved facilities, and greater community control. 140 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Peace Action Delaware Valley would also suggest smaller school size and an intensive teacher monitoring and community volunteer program are necessary for significant reform. To implement these recommendations would require much, much more money. Instead of the State heeding the judge's findings and the report, the State made a political deal with Philadelphia's mayor to shelve that report. Despite the political leadership's refusal to support Philadelphia's publicly-run schools, the system is struggling to encourage more parent involvement and to push for more equitable statewide funding for public education. Many schools have reinstated home-and-school bodies and now have an opportunity to participate in hiring their principals. In contrast, the present School Reform Commission is an appointed body with no realistic or codified way to make it accountable to any of the public school stakeholders: The parents the students, the teachers, and administrators -- let alone the City taxpayers. Real educational reform requires real collaboration between all 141 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 stakeholders rather than reliance on secret and behind-the-scene deals. We respectfully urge that this bill be passed and we're delighted that it would give the opportunity to parents to be significantly involved.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Alice Sharboro (ph) and thank you for allowing me to speak.
I'll be brief. Thank you, Councilman Nutter and the Rules Committee for the opportunity to testify on the merits of your bill, Bill 01066 and its role in building parent participation in Philadelphia public schools. Again, my name is Alice Sharboro. I have three children in the Philadelphia public schools and am a board member of the Parents Union and a member also of the Political Action Committee for the National Organization of Women. 142 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 NOW is a women's advocacy organization that has 900 at-large members in the Philadelphia area. Members take public education as a prime family value that is a bedrock necessary for an effective democracy. We are painfully aware of the struggle of many single mother heads-of-household to have the energy and the time to help their children succeed in school. Eighty percent of our students' families are on some sort of welfare. Our public schools are a reflection of the serious problems plaguing our urban societies. NOW knows that parent support is crucial for improving public education and, therefore, parents must have a voice in public school policy. As an involved parent in my children's schools, I have experienced the positive effect of parent participation in the classroom and in helping other parents get involved. Through the home-and-school organizing parent education, we are arranging for teacher-parent cooperation in the vein of helping parents know how to support their children. Parents are gaining confidence in their involvement and do not trust the policy of profit-making companies taking the education of all 143 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 of our children as their prime goal. Profit-making companies put their stockholders first instead of putting children first. (Applause.)
Our children are not for sale. Parents know that our public schools need smaller class size and a curriculum that motivates children of all abilities and experience. We do not trust private management that operates in secret and ignores the demands of our parents and our students. (Applause.)
You may have heard that many high school students have also spoken out against privately-run public schools. Now it's excited at the possibility of parents having a voice on how their schools will be managed. Bill 010666 will be a welcome first step. Many do not presently know about the troubling track record of privatized schools, especially those run by Edison Schools Incorporated. Nonetheless, NOW will help other coalition members ensure that parents are well-informed about the 144 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 issues involved so that voters will make a well-considered choice for the sake of our children's future. Thank you.
We have four witnesses on this list: Rosalind Spigel, Kati Sipp, Debra Toney, and Pat Raymond. (Witnesses come forward.)
And in the interest of time -- and I know you've been very patient sitting here, but we have a hearing that was scheduled at 1 o'clock. No interest in limiting what you have to say, but if you can kind of contain it to new ground or to simplify your testimony on the bill, we'd appreciate it, but if you feel you have something you need to say, please, we in now way want to hamper your ability to speak, but we're running up against a time problem. I called four names. Is that person -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Debra Toney is not here. 145 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
Thank you. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity -- thank you very, very much.
My name is Rosalind Spigel and I'm testifying on behalf of the Coalition to Keep Our Public Schools Public. I only have a of testimony.
Thank you. The Ghettysburg Address very short very effective.
Yes. This coalition includes parents, students, community and union members organized to oppose State takeover and support legislation that would guarantee our right to vote to determine how our tax dollars will be spent and how we will educate our children. Corporate privatization promises us that it will raise student achievement in the low- performing schools for the same amount we currently spend to educate our children. Time after time in school district after school district, this promise 146 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 has been broken. Taxpayers have faced millions of dollars in cost overruns ranging from three-quarters of a million dollars in Wichita to million in Dallas. 6 There's more. Private education 7 companies have violated state laws by hiring 8 teachers, with no background checks, have not 9 improved test scores, have not addressed student 10 behavior problems, and have not elevated poor 11 school performance. 12 Private-education companies have, 13 however, provided resolving doors for their school 14 administrators and excessive cost overruns in 15 district after district. 16 And parents and students have nothing to 17 say about this. A corporate experiment could take 18 over our schools and once again, we would be frozen 19 out of the process, once again subject to the 20 backroom dealings and secret meetings. From its conception, the Coalition to Keep Our Public Schools Public has demanded right for Philadelphians to vote on whether or not to privatize. We support Resolution 010666 and insist that before any school can be privatized, 147 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 75 percent of the parents of the school's kids need to approve privatization. (Applause.)
We at the Coalition know that privatization does not equal reform, but we know it is up to each person to decide this issue for him or herself. We have more than enough evidence that privatization equals patronage. Education reforms that we know work have yet to benefit from the dollars doled out in contracts so far. The track record is clear: Private-education over-promise and under-deliver. We don't need below-par academic performance and cost overruns. Philadelphia's families can't afford more broken promises. Education is the fundamental issue of our city's well-being. Our coalition demands the right to vote. We will not stop until Philadelphians control Philadelphia's schools. It's our city, they're our children, it's our decision Thank you. (Applause.)
Please identify 148 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 yourself for the record.
My name is Kati Sipp, and I'm the Director of Philadelphia Area Jobs With Justice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today about this important resolution. Jobs With Justice is a coalition of over 50 labor unions, community organizations, and religious leaders who have united in the struggle for social and economic justice. Like many of the groups that have testified today, we have been active in the fight against school privatization for the past six months. I am here today to let you know that we are firmly in favor of Councilman Nutter's proposal to allow parents to vote on the privatization of their children's. As our friends from ACORN and the PFT have already testified, polls of Philadelphia residents taken last fall show that parents of children in our district are solidly opposed to the privatization of the public schools. The voices of these parents must be heard as our schools consider the option of privatization. The School Reform Commission, in holding their hearings at in the afternoon, when most 149 1 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 parents have to be at work, has shown that they are not interested in encouraging parent participation in the fate of our schools. Since the Commission is unwilling to allow parents to play a role in the creation of public policy, it is imperative that City Council act on the parents' behalf to ensure parents have a voice in the creation of School District policy. At this point, the Commission has begun a bidding process where the public is not even allowed to know what companies are bidding on public services. Our city, as the birthplace of American democracy, should be an example of open government, not one of closed-room deals of this kinds. If, in fact, the Commission is planning an open bidding process, as Chairman James Nevels has stated, then they should start by opening the books on this process to the parents of Philadelphia. Since the Commission is unwilling to shed such light on the sale of our schools, then parents should have the right to vote down any proposed privatization. We commend Councilman Nutter for carrying this legislation and urge the 150 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 committee to vote it forward. Opponents of privatization have often been criticized for defending the status quo for wanting to protect a faulty system that is said to be failing our students. I am here today to say that this is not true. We are interested in developing an education system that has a vision of creating a better democracy with students who are able to participate in our society as citizens, not as subjects. Selling off our kids to the highest corporate bidder doesn't tell kids that they are valuable members of our society; it tells them that they are commodities to be used by any and all to turn a profit. (Applause.)
We at Jobs With Justice resist the "corporatization" of our schools for the same reason that we resist union-busting and unfettered globalization because a system that prioritizes profits over people is one that is failing the people it purports to serve. Give our parents the opportunity to act for themselves and their children by letting them 151 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 have a voice on the privatization of schools. The people of this great city deserve to have that voice in their children's future. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Pat Raymond.I am co-president of Philadelphia Home and School Council. I'm here today to ask for your full support for proposed Bills 010617 and 010666. I am doing this in an effort to give the parents of the students of the public schools in our great city a chance to be heard. When you take the public out of public schools, you take the parents' voice away. This is a voice that has been gaining momentum and strength over the years but still has not realized its full potential. This would be a tragedy. 152 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 By supporting these bills, you would be supporting the citizens of Philadelphia by giving them the chance to make the decisions pertaining to their own children's school. This will lead to more informed parents. For example, do you think the average parent understands that private schools do not have to take special-needs children, whether it be physical, mental or emotional? By being better informed, more parents will see that they can make a difference and might be motivated to volunteering at their children's schools more often. Most importantly, by supporting these bills, you are supporting the children of Philadelphia. They can't vote until their public education years are almost over. They have to rely on their parents, neighbors, educators, and government officials to make the calls for them to make the very decisions that will affect them in the future. These decisions are made more often than not based on funding or lack of funding. With adequate funding always as the bottom line, the decisions made on behalf of Philadelphia's children 153 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 are not always the best but, rather, the cheapest. When you factor in a profit margin and stockholders, then the equation becomes more difficult, therefore, adding a greater margin of error. Do you really want to make more mistakes with our children? Our children cannot be used as a lesson in economics. When you add profit to any equation, you increase the chance for corruption, dishonesty, and deceit. These may be good vocabulary words, but there is no other place in education for these negative qualities. The morality of the situation is that you cannot make a profit on our children. Someone has to be able to have some control over the privatization of our schools. Public education in Philadelphia, the very thing that should be the saving grace of the future of our city, what would be the stellar reason to live in Philly, has made us a national laughing stock. All eyes are on Philly now as begin our latest experiment. We don't allow testing on animals, so why would we allow experimentation on children? (Applause.) 154 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
Until the State of Pennsylvania proves that they are capable of resolving the equity issue and all the other issues surrounding public education, it is up to our local government to help our parents do what is best for our children. I call on you now to support Bills 010617 and 010666. We, the stakeholders of Philadelphia and its future, our children, need your help. And I will assure you that Philadelphia Home and School Council has taken this ball, we have run with it, we have kicked it, we have punted it, and all the other cliches I can think of, and we will make sure that we do everything within our power to notify the parents what is going on. (Applause.)
What we are asking you, though, is, can you tell me the timeline that we have to get to the Mayor? Does it have to be within the next hours, two weeks? 22
What will probably 23 happen today is that these two bills will be voted 24 out of committee. We will have a special session of Council on Tuesday, the 5th, and we will 155 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 probably -- if the sponsor of the bill requests a suspension of the rules, we will have a first reading on Tuesday, the 5th, and then we will have another Council session the following Thursday -- not that Thursday, but the Thursday after that -- on the 14th, Valentine's Day, at which time the bills will be eligible for a vote, considering that the sponsors desire that there will be a call for a vote, and then we will pass it or defeat it. And at that point in time, the bill is sent to the Mayor, who has ten days to either sign it, let it become law without his signature, or to veto it and send it back, at which time we would undertake a veto override. So we're taking about maybe three to four weeks. We're educating people better these days so maybe we have a better shot.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Additionally, we have written testimony which will be entered into the record from Lois Yampolsky; Rosalind McKelvey, President of Martin Luther King Home and School Association; Glenavie 156 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Norton and Steve Gulick, who are parents in Philadelphia; Bob Turino, President of Upper Roxborough Civic Association; Alan Woodruff, a resident; Kristine Soffa, Neighborhood Preservation Alliance; Ellen Tichenor, a resident; Thomas F. Gordon, Ph.D., resident; Shortie McKinney, Ph.D., resident; Abby Ruder, resident; Deborah Kodish, Director of Philadelphia Folklore Project; and Jill Saull, President, John Story Jenks Home and School Association. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to the two bills? Please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Chairman Kenny and members of City Council. My name is Debra Kahn, and I am Secretary of Education for the City of Philadelphia, and I am here today to testify on behalf of the Administration of Mayor Street regarding Bill No.'s 010617 and 010666. While we admit to some confusion about the full intent of these proposed ordinances, I do 157 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 want to say that we absolutely recognize that an important underlying purpose of the ordinances is to provide a means for parents and City Council to have a say in the future direction of public education in our city.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. Let me just first make sure. We have your testimony, right?
Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Do you wish to -- would you rather wish to summarize the six pages of the testimony and have this included as a full part of the record?
Yeah, I understand that you do 158 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 have some time concerns, but I would like to get the legal concerns on the record and then maybe summarize. Maybe I can make reference to the Mayor's address yesterday about why we're in this partnership arrangement that we're in.
But I would like to say that we do respect and appreciate the concerns and the interests of City Council and parents and the broader community when it comes to reforming our schools. We claim absolutely no monopoly on good ideas and no illusions that we can succeed in isolation. In fact, it is clear that it was the active and the persistent voices of this community during the months of negotiations with the Commonwealth that helped make it possible for us to reach the partnership arrangement that we now have. And in particular, it was the forum created by this City Council under the leadership of Education 159 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Committee Chair Councilwoman Donna Miller, in full concert with the Board of Education and with the Legislative Black Caucus that was very effective in helping us air information and a range of experiences and opinions about privatization of public schools. We always had the position, and it was confirmed by the voices of this community, that a takeover accompanied by immediate and extensive privatization of both the management functions and school operations would have been a disaster for our city. Philadelphians absolutely spoke out and their voices were heard. In order to assess the impact of any of these proposed ordinances under consideration, I do think it would be useful for me to summarize the main points of the agreement that Mayor Street and Governor Schweiker shook hands on December 21st. The agreement, first of all, recognizes and establishes a governing partnership in which the City has a meaningful voice on the School Reform Commission. The Mayor and the Governor also recognized that they could not determine any terms or scope of work or costs of contracts with any 160 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 consulting organization. And the Mayor just yesterday, and continuously, has publicly acknowledged that he and the Governor disagree about the role that Edison Schools should play in the School District. And, in fact, you know and the City knows that the School Reform Commission has solicited proposals and are under review proposals from more than 30 businesses and organizations to do various sorts of work at the School District. The Governor and the Mayor also know that they cannot determine the full educational program that is undertaken by the School District, but this agreement does lay out some parameters -- and parameters that I think everyone in this room would be in agreement with: A full-day kindergarten, a reduced class size in primary grades. And extended-day and year-end instructional programs are essential educational components, and they will be preserved and continued in our schools And then finally, the agreement addressed the financial parameters which the Mayor did in his budget message address to you yesterday. The legal concerns that we have -- and accompanying my 161 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 testimony is an opinion from the City Solicitor, and Richie Feder, the Chief Deputy City Solicitor, is also here today in case you have questions about the legal aspects. First, if what you're trying to say by these bills is to affirm Council's absolute role, undeniable role in being the only body that can appropriate funds for the City, we agree with that. There is certainly no dispute on that. However, we don't see the need for any additional legislation to affirm that because that's a position that we certainly support. However, if the intent of these bills appears to somehow be precluding the Mayor from entering into certain agreements that do not now, and never could, exist, then we don't think that these bills make sense. The Mayor has absolutely no authority to enter into any arrangement that would supersede the functions of the Board of Education, and he has in fact not done so. The Mayor's agreement with the Governor did not authorize the State takeover of the School District.
That action occurred pursuant to Pennsylvania State law when the Secretary of 162 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Education declared our district to be financially distressed. Nor does the City/State school partnership agreement authorize the private administration, management or operation of any school. Again, the Mayor would not have the power to do that. This agreement does not actually do what these bills imply, and we can only conclude that their impact would be meaningless from a legal standpoint. However, they could be harmful from a perception standpoint if they create the perception that somehow, the City's commitment to this partnership is weakened. And, finally, if the intent of these bills is to be far-reaching and to govern the conduct of the Governor or other State officials or the School Board or the School Reform Commission, then the Solicitor has concluded that Council lacks the power to govern their activities and is prohibited from enacting legislation to regulate public education. So the passage of these bills would not actually provide the kind of input and the process that parents in this room apparently think that it 163 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 would. But rather than dwelling on the legal aspects of these measures, I do think it's important to have this partnership in some context. And because of the School District's perpetual cash crisis, the fact is that we've been under the threat of a State takeover since the General Assembly enacted Act 46 in 1998, and actually probably before that, given prior legislation. In May of 2000, we were warned by Governor Ridge that unless we adopted a balanced school budget, we would be taken over. We got short-term relief that year, but the fact is that a year later, we proposed a City workout plan that was dismissed as being unaffordable. The Mayor and the members of this Council know full well that the City cannot afford to provide all of the money that's needed to put the District on track and to balance its budget, yet alone to provide smaller classes, technology, well-trained and supportive teachers that our children need to succeed. The State could not -- would not consider significant new funding without playing a greater 164 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 role in the operation of the District. The Mayor, therefore, concluded that the best course for this city was to negotiate the most favorable terms, the timing, and the conditions under which takeover would occur. The Mayor said yesterday he believed strongly that local control of schools is the way to go, it's our preference, but the fact is that given the cash crisis that the negotiation and establishing this partnership is the best situation that we can have at this time. And it is true that this arrangement provides the City with a meaningful say. Again, in the interest of time, I just want to point out that our ability to make the City-State partnership work would be enhanced tremendously if we could achieve cooperative relationships within our own city. We absolutely do need to create workable vehicles where we can have regular communication and community participation through the School Reform Commission and in other ways. I believe that all of us -- the Mayor, City Councilmembers, students, parents, faculty -- we know really good schools when we're in them. 165 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 These are schools that are colorful, they're even a little bit loud; students and teachers are attentive, they're animated, they're working with engaged, learning materials; there's energy there's activity, there's creativity, and there's confidence. I'm a parent, and it saddens me that too many of our schools just simply don't fit that description. And I haven't heard one thing in this chamber that any one of us would disagree with what about what we need to turn our schools around.
And I think that we all want so badly for our children to have access to these types of quality schools, that sometimes I think the frustrations are the big problems and the scarce resources in the long run cause us to create conflicts, where we all would be better off having unity and cooperation and hearing where we have common ground and points of agreement. But I think if we can remember our successes, stay focused on our ideals, we just might be able to work out the difficult details and realize the problems of this new partnership after 166 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 all. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Miss Kahn, I know that you indicated that you had gotten the testimony to us a few hours. I do, with every respect, want to remind you and any other members of the Administration that may be here that the rule in the Council is that testimony from the Administration come in hours in advance, not 15 2 hours in advance. It's very helpful if we have 16 the testimony in advance and we can actually figure 17 out where things are going and get people lined in 18 the appropriate fashion. So I would just 19 appreciate it for anything that we might have to 20 do, if we can get the testimony in 24 hours in 21 advance, I'd appreciate it. 22
I understand that, and I 23 generally try to do that, but just wasn't able to 24 this time.
Okay, thank you. 167 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Now, in your testimony -- I only have a couple questions -- you made reference to the word "agreement" eight times in the testimony. Can you provide the committee with a copy of the agreement to which you make reference?
I don't have an exact date; we are still working out some of the details on the language, and I do hope to be able to do that shortly.
This was the agreement that was reached back on December 21st of 2001?
That's correct. It was in broad parameters, and as you know, when it comes to putting something down in writing, there are just certain details that we need to work out.
There are various drafts and memos that I have. 168 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
There are various drafts that we have, but nothing that it would be right to issue. We want to make sure that the final agreement is ready.
Okay. Just so I understand, five weeks after the, quote/unquote, agreement was reached, there is still no written agreement as to the agreement that you make reference to eight times in your testimony.
Okay. So how do we know what the agreement is, if it's not written?
I just told you, and my testimony says what some of the highlights are, and there will be some more details when it is issued in final form.
Okay. And who all knows what all of the particulars of the agreement are? Who are the parties that have knowledge and information about the agreement?
The Governor and the Mayor, 169 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 the State Secretary of Education, myself, and various members of our respective administrations.
Okay. And no one else knows the details of the agreement?
I don't believe so, but I could be wrong about that. We, as you know, had briefed members of City Council with, again, some of these highlights shortly after the new year.
Okay. Now, is it true or not true that the agreement, unwritten as it may be, of December 21, 2001 is what set into motion, actually, the creation of the SRC, pursuant to either Act 46 or Act 83, which came subsequent to the Education Secretary's declaration of distress; is that's correct?
Again, nothing in the agreement established that body; the agreement could not do that.
The agreement allowed that to go forward, though; isn't that correct? 170 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
It didn't allow it because it could have gone forward no matter what. What the secretary did was issue a finding that the School District of Philadelphia was in financial distress according to the terms of, as you referenced, Act 46 or Act 83.
Right. And the Secretary could have found that distress at any time; is that correct?
At any time when he thought, in his judgment, that the District met those criteria, right
But part of the agreement between the Mayor and the Governor was, until we reach agreement, the Secretary of Education will not find the District in distress until we have an agreement; isn't that correct?
As I said in my testimony, the Mayor concluded that since this situation was essentially inevitable because the School District --
I understand that. I'm not asking what was in the Mayor's mind; I'm asking you about a series of factual things that 171 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 happened. Isn't it true that as a result of the Mayor and the Governor reaching agreement, the Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania then found the District in distress and would not have found the District in distress until those two executives reached agreement. Isn't that correct?
I don't know that the second part is true, I don't know that he would not have found the District in distress. It is true that upon reaching that agreement, the Secretary issued a declaration of distress.
Okay, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary could make that finding at any time point in time but, I mean, your testimony is not that it was sheer coincidence, that the finding of distress came subsequent to the reaching of agreement between the two executives as opposed to at any other point in time.
I am not saying it's sheer coincidence. I am saying that he could have done it at any other time, and it was not a result.
Okay. On , it 172 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 is somewhat intriguing, you talked about the potential cash crisis and that as a result, the District was under threat of takeover since the General Assembly enacted Act 46 in 1998. Now, is it true that the General Assembly was, I guess, to some extent pushed into creating Act 46 as a result of a previous decision that had been made that the District would just run and run and run until it ran out of money and possibly shut down. Isn't that the fact pattern of how Act 46 was created?
Again, not being in the mind of the legislators who voted for Act 46, but I do think we could conclude that that was a result or a consequence of the situation here in Philadelphia, as well as other factors probably.
I understand. Your testimony also talks about, Nor does the City/State school partnership agreement -- that word again -- authorize the, quote, private administration, management, or operation of any school, as stated in the bill. We've had the discussion about how we arrived at the declaration of distress, the 173 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 creation of the School Reform Commission, and we don't need to go back over that territory. But isn't it, in fact, true that as a result of Act 46, Act 83, or the declaration of distress, the creation of the School Reform Commission and all of its new powers will be able to (inaudible). Isn't that true?
As a result of Act 83, they can. There's nothing in the agreement that says there will be -- that the Mayor would not have the ability to commit the School Reform Commission to that action anyway.
Okay, all right. I mean, you're going to stand on the very close side of the line in your argument that because the Mayor did not have explicit authority to agree or not agree to certain things, and notwithstanding the fact that the Mayor and the Governor can reach whatever agreement they want to, which then leads to a declaration of distress being declared, which then leads to the imposition of Act 46 and Act 83, which leads to the creation of the School Reform Commission, which then has the power to contract with education management organizations, providers, 174 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 lead providers, education consultants, issue RFGs, and the like, you want to stand on the side of the line that says that the Mayor actually had nothing to do with that because he didn't have the power to do any of those things. Is that your argument?
Well, I think it goes beyond that. The fact of the matter is that the Mayor --
The answer is no, because the argument -- the Mayor did not write Act 46, and he, in fact, even is on record as having opposed and advised that Act 83 not take place.
We did not do this. What has brought us to this situation is the horrible financial situation of the School District, the chronic underfunding, and the fact that the City cannot alone afford to keep the School District afloat. That's what's brought us to this situation.
Right, I understand. Okay, thank you. 175 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 My last question is, you indicated that you think that the agreement will be ready soon. Do you have a date?
Can you give me an estimate -- a week, a month, somewhere in between?
I will not be the final say on that, but I think somewhere in that time frame.
You just said a week or a month, and it's probably somewhere in between there.
Okay. What are some of the details still to be worked out?
I mean, how do you have an agreement and then you can't have it in five weeks?
Point of order, 176 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Councilman. Councilman Cohen.
I was just trying to understand how you have an agreement but then you can't put it in writing; I'm just intrigued by that.
Well, I'm obviously not going to go into the details because then I would have had the agreement here with me to share. Certain things like -- and this already had been reported when we had talked about the fact that the super majority, that four votes would be required for certain important actions that the School District -- that the School Reform Commission would be taking. We also had agreed in principle that some type of impasse language could accompany those so that we could prevent impasse and real stalemate. 177 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 We're just looking at some of the different ways in which that might be accomplished so that those could be shared with members of the School Reform Commission.
All right, I think that really is all that I might have for you. I was intrigued about the -- you made reference to the super majority issue. I thought the various acts that you made reference to actually talked about that decisions would be made by a majority. You're saying the agreement might be able to supersede some of the provisions of either Act 46 or Act 83? I was left with the impression that one or both of those acts, as they were constructed, talked about decisions by the SRC being by a majority vote.
What -- as I believe has been previously reported, we did say that certain actions could be done by a super majority in certain, you know, in critical areas. But we were also very sensitive to the fact that we did not quote parties in the discussions, did not want to create a stalemate situation, so that after certain 178 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 periods of reasonable time and effort, that the votes could instead be taken by a majority.
I understand. I guess what I'm trying to understand is, in Section 6 6-696, it looks like b.7(b)(1), the statute reads: "Actions of the School Reform Commission shall be by a majority vote." You're saying that the agreement may be able to supersede the --
The agreement already says, as you know, that -- I'm sorry, the statute already says that four of the appointees shall be the Governor's and one shall be the Mayor's, and of course, the agreement was that the Mayor could have two appointees.
So it may be that certain things can be done by agreement that way. That's another area that we're looking into, and it might be that certain things might have to be changed legislatively. So we are also looking into those 179 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 issues.
Okay. So my last question is, where is the super majority issue; is there one or is there not one?
As I thought I had explained, there is an agreement on certain actions. We have agreed in principle that in certain actions, a super majority would prevail, but we have also agreed that it should be accompanied by a procedure by which the impasse could be broken.
That's one of the few things that you're still trying to work through?
At the request of Councilman Cohen to yield, I'm going to recognize Councilmember Ortiz first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Kahn, this hearing is about things that -- and trying to give the people of Philadelphia a say in what is going to happen in the public school system. Is the Mayor or you aware of all of the discussions that are happening? 180 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 And in fact, actually, that decisions have been made about -- or let me rephrase that. How many districts or systems are we going to have in Philadelphia; one, three, four, five? Are we going to have one in North Philly and one in West Philadelphia and one in Northwest and one Southwest Philly to be run by different organizations?
There are -- there were not, when the Governor originally presented his plan, and as far as I am aware, not now any absolute --
I said that there were not, when the Governor originally presented his plan to the Mayor back in October, and nor are there now that I'm aware of, any detailed plans that would lay out how any of these -- and I believe what you were referring to are any of these partnership schools or anything of that nature. But as far as I'm aware, I have also never heard of any discussions that would actually change what is the legal structure of the School District of Philadelphia. So that it would actually be -- and I'm, 181 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 you know, just completely making this up -- the School District of Philadelphia, East School District of Philadelphia, West, you know, as separate legal entities.
I said I have not heard, you know, any discussions remotely like that.
Well, I think some people out in the community and organizations are already either hiring people and making plans and really in in-depth discussions, it seems, with some of the individuals in the Governor's Commission.
There are. I mean, I can't tell you that I'm aware of every discussion, you know, that's occurred and that's underway. And I do think that people are generating ideas and plans, some of which is probably healthy because it's good for people to be thinking about how it is that we can do a better job in public education. But there are not, from everything that I have been told, any commitments to anyone or any agreements, and I certainly know that our representatives on the School Reform Commission, 182 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 when the time comes for them to deliberate and take a very hard look at any of these proposals, whether they're for management functions or school operations, they will be very thorough, it will be responsive to public concerns, and they will make their decisions accordingly.
But the only people that are not within these discussions are the parents of kids that go to those schools. I mean, there are discussions about creating 30, 40 or 35 up in the North Philadelphia, the Latino area. I have not heard of any parent or any school association that has been brought into the discussion with the Commission on any of these issues.
And that's not right. And as far as I know, those discussions are not Commission-generated. I mean, I think that the Commission will need to, you know, speak for itself on these very important issues.
Well, what is the role of your office and the Mayor on this? I mean, you gave this and negotiated this structure in which you almost are saying in essence, like Pontius 183 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Pilot, you're washing your hands of the system, and the responsibility lies somewhere else. I think the responsibility lies in your office.
I don't know how that conclusion can be drawn when throughout this entire testimony, I've referred to this as a partnership. What I am saying is that I'm aware of many discussions and many conversations, as you point out, going on throughout the City about different ideas and different ways to operate schools. I am not aware that any of those are Commission-sanctioned. In fact, just recently, the School Reform Commission issued an RFQ looking for information and qualifications, and I think today's the date by which interested parties need to make their expressions of interest known about entities that think that they want to operate schools. So, so far, that's been generated, there's been a whole lot of discussion, a whole lot of assumptions, but I don't know that there's a whole lot of authorized action.
I'm going to 184 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 recognize Councilman Cohen in a second. The problem we have, obviously, is one of time. We have a very lengthy hearing that ws supposed to start at 1 o'clock, and it's now a quarter of 2. And with that in mind, I now recognize Councilmember Cohen.
Thank you. Those warnings usually work in the opposite direction. Those warning usually result in opposite results. Did you state a view with the Mayor with respect to these two bills, Miss Kahn? In your testimony, have you given us the Mayor's opinion as to whether he will approve these bills or whether he's opposed to them?
I have not had a direct conversation with him as to whether -- what action he might take if they end up being approved by Council. But what I did do was point out some of our concerns and questions, frankly, from a legal standpoint.
So that it would be fair to say that as of this time, the Mayor has no 25 position on these bills? 185 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
If the position is a pure "Would he uphold them or veto them?" I have not had that direct conversation with him, but I certainly think that he would support the comments that I made today.
I missed the part where you said you certainly think he would... and then I didn't get the rest of it.
That he would support the comments that you made today?
And then what are your comments with respect to the bill? Do you favor the passage of the bill or do you oppose the passage of these two bills?
Depending on what the full intent of these bills is. In the first instance, if it's about affirming that Council has the right, and the only right, to appropriate funds, we agree with that. We think that right already exists in the law and there's no reason for additional legislation. 186 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Other than that, if in fact these ordinances are intending to be binding on the School Reform Commission, for example, or any State officials, then we just don't think -- the legal advice that I have is that Council cannot do that. So they would not result in having the impact that I think everyone else who's testified here today believes that they would.
How would I classify that as an answer to the question of whether you or the Mayor support the bills?
He was here yesterday. In his speech, he voiced agreement with every complaint that those of us have who are opposed to the State takeover. He said it wasn't a solution, he said he was opposed to so many aspects of it; I think he outnumbered the aspects that he was opposed to as against those that I have listed in my general opposition. Is it difficult for him to state that he would be in support of the proposals of this bill? He said he wanted the people of Philadelphia to 187 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 have a greater voice than they ever had before and he believed they would have that greater voice. I don't know how he came to that conclusion, but that's what he said
What he said was that the people of Philadelphia would continue to have a strong voice, that his preference is absolutely, continues to be, exclusive local control of public schools, local schools, but because of the financial situation that we are in, that preference -- it just simply isn't possible to have that preferred situation.
Why not? He has a lawsuit in the federal courts in Philadelphia which would call upon the State to give the appropriate amount of financing so that we could maintain both local control and adequate funding for the schools. Yet it's the Mayor who requested the court to hold up action on that suit. So it just isn't a fact to say that the City had no ability to deal with the situation.
The fact is that that lawsuit, even though -- and lawyers can speak to it, but as I understand it, certain decisions have come down 188 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 that have, you know, made that suit more questionable about its ability to go forward. But beyond that, there's no question that we could not have gotten a result from that lawsuit in a quick enough time to keep schools open, to keep the cash coming that would enable all of our children, our hundreds of thousands of children, to attend school uninterrupted.
Well, I don't understand what result it is the Mayor thinks he's gotten. What I understand from what little has been publicized about the agreements is that Philadelphia for the next 30 years is going to throw down the drain some $25 million of tax money each year to pay the interest on bonds that would pay off only the current debt and would not relate at all to these basic structural needs of the School District. That to me seems like a terrible waste of Philadelphia school -- of Philadelphia tax dollars. It also -- isn't it a fact that it was the Mayor who demanded that the State take over the schools at the beginning of the negotiations some months ago when he said that unless we arrive at an 189 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 agreement that's satisfactory to both the State and the Mayor, that he will insist that the State take over the schools?
Again, I repeat that this take-over was coming. It was inevitable because of the legislation that was already on the books and because of the financial situation of the School District. We did not last year --
Well, why was it inevitable? It wasn't the Mayor's decision; it would be the State's decision under Act 46.
And the School District would have been out of cash, our schools would have closed, and part of what --
No, not if the Mayor had been willing to go through with the lawsuit that had pressure on the State. The State was terribly afraid of what the result would be and it was the State that initiated the requests for the case not to be heard, and the Mayor quickly joined in. It was the Mayor who demanded that the State take over the schools from the beginning. Is it your opinion that the Mayor had the legal authority to say that he has taken away 190 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 control of the schools from Philadelphians and turning it over to the State? Are you saying that the Mayor had that power?
How could he do that when we have a supplement to the Home Rule Charter relating to the schools? Can you cite any provision which says that the Mayor has the authority whenever in his judgment he wishes to turn over control to somebody else?
The responsibility that the Mayor has from the Home Rule Charter is to exercise to the best of his judgment --
Two years ago, the people of Philadelphia voted to give the Mayor total control and responsibility for the conduct of the schools; they didn't vote to permit the Mayor to divorce himself from that responsibility by turning it over to the State or to some private school systems, private profit corporation. The Mayor had no authority to do that.
We think that a partnership is not about abdicating responsibility. We will be in 191 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 the School District by virtue of the governing body having dual appointments by the Governor and the Mayor, that we will be in partnership making the hard decisions, attempting to get the financing that's needed to be able to keep our schools open and to be able to make the educational improvements that --
Wouldn't it be a fair conclusion, Miss Kahn, that since the negotiations were considered secret between Governor Schweiker and the Mayor and the next thing that happened was that the one-person School Reform Commission issued these $675,000 worth of contracts? (Applause.)
Would it be a fair to say that that was the subject of the negotiations between Governor Schweiker and Mayor Street?
It would be completely unfair and untrue. We had no knowledge of those actions. That provision in the law that gives the interim chair full authority was the change that was made. And, again, I go on record as saying that we advised against making those changes in Act 46 in the fall. 192 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
You mean it was the chairman and the sole member of that commission that had all the information about the political interconnections of the people chosen for those contracts and Mayor Street?
No one, no one from the City Administration was involved in any of those discussions.
Well, we'll have to let the public make judgment on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're welcome. Thank you very much. There's no further questions for this witness and there's no one else to testify on these bills. We have two quick zoning bills to take care of: Bill No. 010560, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Poplar Street, Ninth Street, Percy Street, Brown Street, Tenth Street, Fairmount Avenue, and 12th Street. Would you please come forward and 193 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 identify yourself for the record and proceed. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Cardell Blue. I represent the Philadelphia Housing Authority and I'm here to testify in favor of Bill 7 No. 010560. This bill will enable 178 units of public housing to be built at the Richard Allen Housing Development. We respectfully urge that the committee support the bill and also that the rules be suspended.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of Development Planning for the City Planning Commission, here today to testify on Bill No. 21 010560. This bill amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of the area bounded by Poplar Street, Percy Street, Brown Street, Tenth Street, Fairmount Avenue, and 12th 194 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 Street. This rezoning will facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the site of the Richard Allen Homes. The existing pattern of the zoning designations is mixed and is not consistent with the plan of proposed development. These changes will allow for the construction of the 178 new homes in this area. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 18, 2001, considered this bill and recommended that it be approved. Thank you.
I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. Would you commit yourself, if we approved this legislation to a zoning change, to give to this committee the percentages of Philadelphia residents who will be involved in the building of these structures -- the percentage of black, Latino, and women that will be involved in the building of these structures; the percentage of Philadelphia residents and minorities that are from here in the skill areas of construction; and the 195 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 hours that each have worked on these projects. I want to be able to have in this committee a summary of that and maybe even a census of that, because it's a lot of money in the neighborhood construction and I'd like to see where the Philadelphia residents and the Philadelphia minorities are going to be involved in it -- not just in the rhetorical aspect but in the overall.
Councilman, may I understand your request? Are you asking for employees who have already worked on this project, or are you asking percentages of people who, in fact, will be working when the construction starts?
I want, when the construction starts, the number of Philadelphia -- percentage, a number, a number and what percentage they make up that are Philadelphia residents, the number that are minorities, the number that are actually working, and the hours by census, the hours that they actually work in the overall process.
All right. To the extent that that information is available, I --
Why wouldn't it be 196 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 available? Why would it not be available?
Well, what I'm saying is that I don't know that it is available, nor do I know about the apparatus to actually gather it. I can say that all --
You would not know how many people are working on your project?
At this time, the information in terms of how many people will be working will certainly be known, but when you ask the question about the census tracts --
Zip codes is usually -- that's usually done through the Greater Urban Affairs Coalition that monitors projects and provides zip codes.
I want to know the percentage of Philadelphia minorities that are not just laborers working in the construction. Laborers, skill trades by hours, Philadelphia residents, and by ethnic composition. I want a 197 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 commitment.
Hold it, there's a point of information. Councilman DiCicco.
Have the contracts been yet let? Has there been an RFP?
No, the contracts have not been let as of yet, but we are required to comply with all requirements of regulations, laws, affirmative action, and so forth. And that information --
Let me rephrase it. Has the general contractor or contractors been selected yet?
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill?
Is this bill covered by any federal, state, or local law with respect to the labor costs, prevailing wage? Is that a factor 198 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 in this construction or not?
Yes. The construction funds which are used are federal funds, and to that extent, federal law (inaudible).
Would there be any way at some point in time for you to have a chart indicating what the labor costs are for this development being built in Philadelphia as against what the labor costs would be if the same construction took place in the suburbs?
We certainly will have information about what the costs are of labor here in Philadelphia. With respect to what the costs are in the suburbs, of course that information would have to be made available in order for us to make that kind of comparison, but certainly we can give the information as it relates to the workers on this job and their wages and the labor and so forth.
Under the prevailing-wage requirements, would you be able to furnish us with the Philadelphia --
Well, we could get the 199 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 others from the Labor Department. We're concerned about the fact that we're constantly met with the fact that there's so much more residential construction outside the City than within the City. We in Council are blamed, the people in Philadelphia are blamed, everybody has a sort of blame. We're told that when a building is constructed, say, of residential housing that would go normally at the market place for $100,000, as soon as it's built in Philadelphia, it's only worth 50,000; therefore, that's why private developers can't do it, but that in the suburbs, it might only cost them 50 or $75,000, and that they could get it built for the market rate. And we're just interested in finding out, is there a discrepancy between the costs between Philadelphia and the suburbs? If so, what are the causes -- labor, material, a combination of regulations? What is it that puts Philadelphia at such a disadvantage? And so you will be giving us a very important piece, Mr. Blue, if you give us the Philadelphia costs.
Thank you very much are there any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if this question was asked. Mr. Blue, good afternoon.
Mr. Blue, can you talk to me briefly about the neighborhood participation program from an employment and additionally from the contracting aspect? I know in some of the prior development sites that you did, you actually created companies as a result of large-scale initiatives, one in Raymond Rosen and I think there was a company formed that ended up being a drywall construction company. Is that in place in this particular development?
Yes. We -- as a matter of policy at PHA what we try to do with all of our developments is, in fact, to hire as many residents of public housing as well as residents of the 201 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 surrounding neighborhoods where the development is taking place. We also encourage the residents to participate in partnerships where possible and they demonstrate the capacity to do so that.
What's the process? I'm a guy at 12th and Girard, I see trailers moving up on the site, I have a little bit of construction knowledge and I want to get a job over there; what do I do?
Well, at this point, the contact would be made with the contractor who is working on the particular job, and that information would be given at that time -- it's normally given to surrounding organizations who are involved with PHA as well as the resident Council at the particular development or in the scattered sites, as the case may be.
In the solicitation for general contractor, is that language in the solicitation whereas they understand that if they bid on this project, they know that they're going to have to have reasonable neighborhood participation both on the contracting side and on 202 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 the employment side?
That is correct because they are responsible to adhere to Section 3 requirements, they are responsible to hire public housing residents where possible, and they are responsible to do an outreach and a plan prior to each job that we do is in fact approved by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, where it is demonstrated how they will do the outreach in order to attract these people.
All right, last question on the issue. Is there a mechanism or is there a department in place where there's an individual who's responsible for monitoring that activity?
'Cause I don't want to simply leave that to the contractor.
Right, we do have a department at PHA who is responsible for administering that outreach and also responsible for reviewing the plans that are submitted by the contractor.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 203 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010632
Thank you very much. Any more questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
We thank you very much for your testimony. The next bill is Bill No. 010632, which is an ordinance to amend Philadelphia Zoning Maps of by changing the zoning designations of certain areas located within an area generally bounded by Redwing Place, Meadowlark Place, Lapwing Place, and Longspur Place, and in the general vicinity of the northeast corner of Island Avenue and Lindbergh Boulevard. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Tom Chapman here to testify on Bill No. 010632. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell and amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of a 7.74-acre parcel of land from the existing R9-A residential to class recreational. A previous bill, Bill No. 204 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010743 010631, authorized the City to acquire the subject property from the Redevelopment Authority. This rezoning and acquisition would facilitate the use of this property as a passive parkland for this residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 15, 2001, considered Bill No. 010632 and recommended that it be approved.
Thank you very much Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. The last bill to be considered today is Bill No. 010743, which is an ordinance amending Chapter 2600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Standards of Conduct and Ethics," by adding anti-nepotism provisions prohibiting City officers or employees from taking or recommending certain personnel actions affecting family members, all under certain terms and conditions. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the discussion that took place at 205 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010743 the last meeting and further discussions that I've had with Councilman Nutter, I am respectfully requesting that Councilman Nutter agree to hold no 5 hearing today on this matter and to have it just recessed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I think Councilman Clarke also wants to be recognized.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Cohen, I'd just like to add to that also. I've had some discussions with Councilman Nutter with respect to this bill. We've come a long way as it relates to some of our concerns so we've actually come to some agreement, and the Councilman has indicated that he will share some of the concerns with some of the other members of this Council. And I assume that we're going do hold that today and I would respectfully ask the Councilman to hold that so that we can continue the fruitful discussion that we've been having.
Thank you, Councilman 206 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010743 Clarke. I appreciate the use of the term "fruitful." Both to Councilman Cohen and Councilman Clarke, based on the discussion and the request, I will hold this bill in committee pending further discussion.
Thank you very much. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee public hearing. - - - 207 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We are now in a Rules Committee public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill No. 010125.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendments that have been read into the record by the Planning Commission as it relates to Bill No. 010215 be approved (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. The amendments to Bill No. 010125 have been approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on the amended bill.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 010125, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. 208 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010125, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember for a motion on Bill No. 010126.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010126 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010126 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 209 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Bill No. 010305 will be held. Bill No. 010392 has received a request for withdrawal. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 010617 to amend.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are some amendments to this bill 10 based on both the testimony today as well as earlier discussions. There were both technical issues with this bill, as well as this -- bill was introduced back on October 25, 2001; since that time, additional information has been made available with regard to the agreement that's been reached between the City and the State and the creation of the School Reform Commission and other entities that have been the subject of discussion as well as requests for qualifications. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I wish to put forward amendments to Bill 010617 as well as 010666 to make those bills more up-to-date and direct as to their actions. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quickly read the amendments into the record, and I'll naturally 210 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING answer any questions. With regard to Bill 010617... (Councilman Nutter reads proposed amendment to Bill No. 6 010617, full text of which is attached hereto.)
The proposed amendment to Bill No. 010666... (Councilman Nutter reads proposed amendment to Bill No. 12 010666, full text of which is attached hereto.)
... and those are the amendments to the two bills, Mr. Chairman.
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. The amendments to Bill No.'s 010617 and 010666 are approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended bills 010617 and 010666. 211 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 010617, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and to the sponsor, I just want to speak to Bill No. 617 and 666, and I've actually had earlier discussions with the sponsor of the bill. I have some, as I said earlier in that discussion, have some reservations about both of these bills, centering around the legality of those bills and the ultimate State support as it relates to the funding of those particular schools, and as a result of that, I have some concerns. But in spite of that, I'm prepared to offer my support in committee today 'cause I think it could potentially be a catalyst to have the 212 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING appropriate discussion with the SRC Committee and the State and actually expedite the SRC's charts to get the appropriate agreement together so we can have a sense of what our involvement and the citizens' involvement will be. And I truly agree with the intent of the bill, that I think that it, particularly in City Council, if we're going to be asked to it support to the tune of $45 million annually, I think that we should have a true participatory role in this process. So I would just like to say I offer my support, but I do have some reservations, and hopefully, we will be able to resolve those issues as we move ahead.
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010617, as amended, be reported out of this with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Moved and seconded. 213 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010617, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember for a Nutter motion on the amended Bill No. 010666.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010660 , as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in fair favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010666, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 214 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Bill No. 010660 will be held The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 010745.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010745 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010745 will be reported out of this committee, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 010560.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010560 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and a request for suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. 215 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010560 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 010632.
I move that Bill No. 11 010632 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010632 will be reported out of this committee favorable, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a recommendation on Bill No. 010718.
Mr. Chairman, I move 216 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING that Bill No. 010718, the amendments be adopted as presented by the Planning Commission and the map. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. The amendment to Bill No. 010718 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended Bill No. 010718.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 010718, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010718, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 217 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your patience The Committee of the Whole will start immediately. (Proceedings end at 2:20 p.m.) - - - 218 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Rules Committee of Wednesday, January 30, 2002, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Bill No.'s: 010125, 010126, 010560, 010617 010632, 010666, 010718, 010745 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)