COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000282 - Approving the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area by approving the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan, and the 17th amendment to the relocation plan which provide, inter alia, for additional land acquisitions for approximately 5 properties and provisions of certain relocation services required as by law. BILL 000337 - Amending Title Philadelphia Code provisions relating to penal and correctional institutions, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 000347 - Amending Title 14 of the Phila. Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1605, entitled "Regulated Uses," by expanding the list of regulated uses to include tattoo parlors and body piercing shops, as defined, all under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 6/13/00 - RULES COMMITTEE I N D E X Bill 000282 Herbert Wetzel, Redevelopment Authority. . . . Cardell Blue, Phila. Housing Authority . . . . Bill 000347 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission. . . . . M. Harty, Burholme Civic Assoc., Town Watch 8 Bill Logan, Greater Northeast. . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Joel Shipley, Eddie's Tattooing. . . . . . . . Bill 000337 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission. . . . . 19 11 Otis Haigler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 John McDougall, Defense Attorney and . . . . . 45 President, Min-Sec Corrections Corporation Reverend Leonard Smalls, President . . . . . . 63 Rescue and Find Incorporated Timothy O'Brien, Bail Commissioner . . . . . . 76 City of Philadelphia Paul Soult, Vice President . . . . . . . . . . 81 Business Development, Min-Sec 3 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. Mezzaroba to please read the title of Bill No. 282.
Bill No. 000282, an ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area by approving the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan, and the 17th amendment to the relocation plan which provide, inter alia, for additional land acquisitions for approximately 5 properties and provisions of certain relocation services required as by law.
Who will be testifying on this bill? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record 4 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282 and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel, I'm Executive Director of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. Madam Chairperson and members of the Rules of Council, I am Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I am requesting your approval of Bill No. 282, which authorizes the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan of the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area, Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. In the 2400 block of North College Avenue, five properties will be acquired on behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. These five properties will be combined with five other properties currently in PHA's inventory, one other property currently in the City of Philadelphia's inventory, and one other property being acquired separately. The resulting project will consist of 12 single-family lease purchased units to be added to PHA's inventory. The Planning Commission, at their 5 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282 meeting of April 20, 2000, approved the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan as set forth in this bill for the acquisition of the five properties. Bill No. 282 is consistent with the plan for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area and would result in a clear community enhancement. Therefore, I respectfully urge your favorable consideration of Bill No. 282 and request a suspension of the Council rules to allow for first reading at your June 15th meeting. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wetzel. Are any of the five properties that you mentioned occupied?
Yes. Two of the five are occupied, and relocations services will be provided to the residents of those properties.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.) 6 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282
Yes, Madam Chairman. I am Cardell Blue (ph.), the assistant general manager of the Philadelphia Housing Authority for Development, good morning.
I am here to testify in support of Bill 282, which will authorize the Redevelopment Authority to condemn five properties in the 2400 block of College Avenue for transfer to the Redevelopment Authority. This condemnation will enable PHA to build 12 units of new housing, which will be available for public-housing residents for home ownership opportunities. We believe that this will improve the quality of life for the public housing residents and the surrounding community in the location of the 2400 block of College Avenue. This activity also furthers our overall goal to continue improving our scattered-site inventory. We, therefore, urge you to recommend favorably Bill 282. 7 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, are you requesting a suspension of the rules?
Are there any questions from members of the committee of either one of the witnesses? (No questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill No. 282. (No response.)
Seeing none, the next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 347.
Bill 000347, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1605, entitled "Regulated Uses," by expanding the list of regulated uses to include tattoo parlors and body piercing shops, as defined, all under certain terms and conditions. 8 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, with the Planning Commission, here to speak on Bill No. 000347. This amends the Zoning Code by designating tattoo parlors and body piercing shops as regulated uses. Today they are currently permitted in most commercial zoning classifications as a matter of right. As the Council knows, the "Regulated Use" section of the Code is a section of the Code that was created to protect commercial and residential areas by limiting the concentration of certain types of uses that are found to be detrimental to the economics and the viability of the commercial and residential area if they're concentrated in large numbers. They sort of change the character. In the past, the Council has added uses like check-cashing agencies, most of the adult uses, drug paraphernalia stores. Today we're talking about tattoo parlors and body 9 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 piercing. This does not disallow the uses; it requires that if they desire to locate within 500 feet of a residence, a school, a playground, or within a thousand feet of another regulated use, they have to go through a Zoning Board public hearing process for a variance, at which time the nearby businesses and/or residents have an opportunity to appear before the Board. It forces them to a degree to work out with the community ahead of time how they're going to occupy the business, you know, in exchange for community support or business association support. This bill, for the record, was reviewed by the Planning Commission's meeting of June 1, 2000, and the Planning Commission recommend it be adopted. As a matter of course, generally, when the Members of Council think that a use becomes a problem and desirous of community -- some community or business input, we usually concur with that. We think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with giving the local businesses and communities an opportunity to participate in the location of certain types of what we call "problem 10 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 uses." Parenthetically, these particular uses, tattoo parlors, were originally in the -- this is all the result of a Supreme Court decision about years ago in a Detroit case about protecting 7 the economic viability of a neighborhood that the 8 Supreme Court reviewed and found to be 9 constitutional. One of the uses in that original 10 ordinance was tattoo parlors. That's just a 11 little bit of history I'm throwing in. 12 For the record, we recommend adoption 13 of the bill, and I'm here to answer any questions. 14
Thank you. 15 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 16
Who has the burden 17 of proof when the matter goes before the Zoning 18 Board? 19
The applicant does in 20 this case. This is more than a certificate. It's 21 a burden of proof on the protestants; it's a 22 burden of proof on the applicant. 23
That's right, the 11 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 applicant has to file the appeal and present the case --
A certificate assumes that the use is a permitted use, and the only thing challenge that can be mounted -- I'm simplifying this -- can be that it injures the public health, safety and welfare, and all evidence and testimony to that effect has to be produced by the protestants. And in the absence of that evidence, documented evidence, the board pretty much has to approve the certificate. There's a difference between a certificate and a -- whereas in the case of a variance, the applicant has to prove there is no other location they can find, there's no other appropriate building or store for what they want to do. And they have hardship if they can't go in that particular property, and the burden of proof is on the applicant. 12 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347
Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the table, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and Councilmembers of the Rules Committee. My name is Michael Harty (ph.), and I'm here representing the Burholme Civic Association and Town Watch. We ask for your support for Bill 347. We feel that it's appropriate that the community and the neighbors have an opportunity to discuss businesses that is come into their community, 13 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 particularly a tattoo parlor and body piercing shop.
Good morning my name is Bill Logan here represents greater Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce also local business owner Northeast Philadelphia. And I'm also a local business-owner up in Northeast Philadelphia and a longtime resident and business owner. I'm here in support of Bill 347 because I feel as if the community associations, the home and school associations, the business associations, and individual neighborhoods should have a voice at the Zoning Board of Adjustments in regards to the specific businesses becoming a part of their neighborhood. I enthusiastically urge the passing of this ordinance. And I thank you.
Do we have anyone else to testify? 14 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 Kindly approach the table, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Do we have anyone from L&I who will be testifying? (No response.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Joel Shipley (ph.), and I work for Philadelphia Eddie's Tattooing, which has been a business owner in Philadelphia since the '50s. We run professional shops, and we support the community's right to have an input on what they have in their community, but we want a voice and put on the record or objection that a tattoo parlor or a piercing business isn't necessarily a problem business. As you know, tattooing and piercing is about as mainstream as you can get at this point -- probably a little too mainstream. Most shops are run professionally, and the ones that aren't usually don't last and are usually not in business areas that are popular or thriving. The 15 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 concentration of tattoo shops that you have in Philadelphia now are on South Street, which is an area where it's always been a sort of alternative retail area.
Don't you think that's a thriving business area?
Oh, yeah, but it was always an alternative thriving business area, with businesses that couldn't make it on Market Street or Chestnut Street. For over a hundred years, South Street has been that way. Again, we support the community's right, and we've always worked with the community. We've never had any problems with our businesses, and we wanted to come and put it on the record that we don't see that tattooing or piercing are problem retail businesses if they're handled professionally, we do. But we do support the right of the community and the local businesses to control what they have, as long as, again, we're not regulated out of anything.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Just I have a 16 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 personal question. I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm wondering, are you wearing a hat for religious or other reasons?
Well, that's usually true in Council sessions and in courtrooms.
I was never in a courtroom either. I've spent my whole life pretty lucky.
Okay, very good. I was wondering. There are some people who, for religious reasons, where a hat.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments by members of the committee? (No further questions.) 17 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347
May we hear from L&I, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Council President Verna. My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., and I'm the Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 000347. The Department of Licenses and Inspections as an agency responsible for enforcement of the Zoning Code is prepared to implement the provisions of this bill if it is adopted by City Council. As the City Planning Commission is the agency responsible for promulgation of the Zoning Code, any questions of a substantive nature should be addressed by the 18 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 Planning Commission.
Thank you. Any questions from the members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 337.
Bill No. 000337, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-100, entitled "General Provisions," by amending Chapter 14-300, entitled "Commercial Districts," by amending Chapter 14-500, entitled "Industrial Districts," and by amending Chapter 23 16-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," all by amending various provisions relating to penal and correctional institutions, under certain terms and 19 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the rules of Council. My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission, here to speak in support of Bill No. 10 000337. As was indicated, this bill amends various sections of the Code that deal with penal and correctional institutions. Currently, penal and correctional institutions are permitted in the Zoning Code with a certificate in the C2 commercial, L4 and L5 limited industrial; under C4 and C5, G2 and LR, they are permitted as a matter of right. By designating private correctional institutions as a regulated use, in addition to complying with those requirements of the individual districts, these uses now would require a public hearing before the Zoning Board if, as in the previous case, the tattoo parlors, they are located within 500 feet of a residence, a church, 20 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 a playground, a school, various types of uses. " It's not necessarily a problem use, but uses that when they come in concentration raise themselves to a level that could sometimes create problems for the area residents or the area business. So this section 11 of the Code does not allow a concentration of these uses of -- like I said, adult uses, cabarets, amusement arcades, things like that. The reason for this bill grows out of a series of meetings. The City has had for years a group that meets on a regular basis called the Technical Advisory Committee on Zoning, and it's to deal with zoning interpretation and zoning problems. It's made up of the Planning Commission, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, and the Law Department. And in recent months, in the last six months or so, L&I has had an increasing concern about the number of private correctional institutions that are coming before them. And the 21 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 problem is that there's no clear direction in the Code. We have the term in the Code today "penal and correctional institution," but they're not defined. So if a provider comes in for a private facility and they have a properly that's zoned residential, they argue to L&I that they're a halfway house, they're a rooming house, they're a multifamily use and, therefore, should be permitted in the residential district. If have a commercial or an industrial property, they argue to L&I that they are a penal institution and should be permitted as a matter of right because they are a penal institution in an industrial district. And through this process, L&I told the committee that they've been told by providers and by others that there's an increasing number of these facilities, as not only the Pennsylvania prison, but other prison systems look to privatize the housing of prisoners. And L&I's concern is, without any direction in the Code, that they're going to be in the position of having to make this decision. Should they permit in them in 22 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 multifamily residential, or should they permit them in industrial as a matter of right? Today, a person can say, Well, you know, prisons are permitted as a matter of right, but public prisons go through a public process. They have to go through a funding process. If the prison below Linden Avenue, the City prison, wanted to expand, they're going to be before City Council or they're going to talk to the District Councilperson, they're going to have a capital program, an amendment to provide funding, they're going to be scrutinized by the local residents because of having to go through the process. So they go through a public process. And the decision -- or the recommendation on this bill is to make the private prisons also go through a public process on their location.
That being explained, what this bill 20 does, by making them a regulated use, it says that if they go into the industrial districts where they're permitted and they're not within 500 feet of a residence and they're not within 1,000 feet of another prison and they're not within 500 feet of a church, they still go in as a matter of 23 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 right. However, if they fall short of that, then they would be required to go to the Zoning Board for a variance, at which point there would be a public hearing and an opportunity for others in the community, whether the business community or residential community, to voice an opinion one way or another about whether this facility should locate in that particular location. And that's basically what this bill is all about. What this bill would result in is the public facilities continuing to be permitted in the districts they're permit it in and still require that they become a regulated use. In terms of the private facilities, it would only permit them in industrial districts as a regulated use. And that's basically what this bill will do. If you have any questions, I'm here to take them.
I think in your statement you've answered this question, but I would like the record to be crystal-clear as to what the purpose of having a distinction between public and private institutions is.
Okay. The distinction 24 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 was made because, as I said, a public institution is one that's either operated by the City, the State, or the federal government. If you will recall, when the federal prison when down at Independence Mall, it went through a very public process by the very fact that it was public and it was government-run. When the house of corrections expanded and went to their module units a number of years ago, they went through a very public process of hearings before Council for budgeting, for property bills for -- as being the nature that they're public, they go through a public process. The distinction is being made to indicate that the private ones do not go through the same kind of public process as the public ones do.
How about with the State, when they have some of their clients, let's say, come into a private type of institution, what process is there?
Uh-huh I. Really don't know of any -- 25 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
It's -- the public process is really -- it happens out in Harrisburg, at least the public --
But the residents of that particular community are not aware of it.
That's true, they're not aware of it, unless the State chooses to make it -- it depends on the policy of one administration to another. Some administrations go through a public process, even though they don't have to. Others do not. And, you're right, they do not. And the same thing with the federal government. They can choose not to go through the public process. However, when they did go into Independence Mall, they did go through a public process. And I think, generally, the federal government does choose to go through the public process rather than just getting permits across the counter. But to answer your question, neither one has to; being a higher authority, they don't have to go through the zoning. They do not have to allow themselves to go through the local review 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 process if they don't want to.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lombardo, are there many industrial areas within the City that are further than 500 feet from a residential district? I know the way the City industrial base has developed over the years that a lot of the industrial base had a residential community around it, that -- where the workers came from. So, I mean, if you have a larger dilapidated, kind of rundown industrial area, are there many areas in the City that have a much further than 500 feet distance from the residences to the industrial area?
I think there's -- basically along the River front, there is both -- if you can envision, you know, most of the -- especially as you start to get north of -- north of Spring Garden Street, there's a greater distance between the nearest residents, which are generally east of I-95 or east of -- west of I-95 27 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 or west of Front Street or -- and the industrial -- the distance is more than 500 feet to the River. That pretty much holds all the way up to the City facility above the -- up at Linden Avenue or up at --
I guess the other area is out by the airport area there?
Down by the airport, South Philadelphia, around the Naval Base.
Let me ask you a question about residentially zoned areas that may be don't have any houses around them at all. For example, areas where houses have been cleared, where there may be a rundown area that, you know, hasn't had any development or any life, would that apply to residences that are existing or simply residentially zoned?
No, it would apply to residentially -- let me -- let me -- let me qualify that.
'Cause I'm sure 28 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 there are residentially zoned areas where there's no houses.
Yeah. I think what the -- what the zoning -- what the district says is residentially zoned properties, but that can cut -- that can cut two ways. It was residentially zoned property if you have a zoning permit for a residence. And in a commercial area, it's residentially zoned property, though, its underlying zoning is commercial. And I'm sorry that. . . Residentially zoned district -- it carries -- it -- actually, the requirement's for both. So it's either it's a residential district or a residential property. So to answer your question, if it was a large vacant lot -- tract of land that had been cleared but was zoned residentially, it would apply. But then, I guess, the other side of that would be a -- if you made your case before the Zoning Board, you would demonstrate that there aren't really any residents in that 500-foot area, 500-foot distance.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Lombardo, does this bill redefine in any way penal institutions or correctional institutions?
Does it redefine it? They're not defined at all today. It defines it for the first time. Currently, that's one of dilemmas L&I has, is there is no definition in the Zoning Code today of penal and correctional institutions. So they have this sort of argument placed forth by the applicants that, Well, we're not really a penal or correctional institution, we're a halfway house. Or in some instances, we're not a residence, we're a penal or correctional institution. And in the absence of a definition, that creates a problem with L&I on how to interpret what these issues are. So what this ordinance does do is create a definition of penal and correctional institutions. Before this bill, there was -- there is no definition.
Could you tell us what those definitions are that it creates? 30 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
All right. A penal and correctional institution that is private is defined as "an institution operated by a private party under contract with the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the federal government for the confinement of offenders sentenced by a court and still under jurisdiction of the court. A penal or correctional institution, public, is defined as "an institution operated by the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the federal government for the confinement of offenders sentenced by a court and still under the jurisdiction of the court." That's the distinguished between people who have been paroled or released and are in some kind of a post-release program before they -- like a job training program or a drug rehabilitation program or some type of a program, but they're no 24 longer under the jurisdiction of the courts; they've served their sentence and now have been 31 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 released. That's to make that distinction between those two types of facilities.
And that's when they become correctional, when they're no longer under the jurisdiction of the --
No, the other way around. They're correctional when they're under the -- when they haven't been -- when they haven't been paroled, they haven't been released from their -- their -- their -- by the courts from their sentence, they're a correctional institution. Once they have, they're no longer considered a correctional institution.
Is there any specific definition of "a halfway house" anywhere in the Zoning Code?
No. A halfway house is treated like any kind of -- and I think that -- and I -- and I -- maybe someone from the Law Department can answer that, but I believe that's really because of the Fair Housing Act. You cannot make a distinction between any kind of a residence and a halfway house that's for special-needs people, people with special needs. 32 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 So there is no definition of a halfway house. It's treated like a boardinghouse, a multifamily use. But I believe that's a result of the Fair Housing Act, which says we cannot make a distinction between types of housing.
But in the minds of the community, if somebody is being released on -- and has to come back, can go out to work but has to come back at night to sleep --
-- for a period of time, say, a month to three months usually.
Well, if they're still under the jurisdiction of the court, that's a private correctional facility; that's not a halfway house. A halfway house is -- my understanding of it -- is when they're completely free to come and go.
I'm sorry. My understanding from my experience and knowledge of it is that when you have a specific curfew, you're 33 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 still under the court's jurisdiction, and that a boarding or a group home setting may be the next step from the halfway house into independence but if you're required to be in at a certain time and go to work and be their on the weekends, you're under court supervision.
I don't think we're saying different things. You know, what we've been told is -- though, maybe in the parlance, some people call those "halfway houses." As far as the law is concerned, they're still penal -- correctional facilities until they've been released by the courts.
Mr. Lombardo, this really doesn't address the halfway houses.
Not the halfway houses where someone has now served their sentence and has been -- they're no longer under curfew.
It's not a halfway house. 34 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
I don't think -- once you're off of court supervision, there's no 4 longer a halfway house. It may be a group home, boarding home, it may be some, you know, system -- it may be some group living arrangement.
That's right, I'm sorry. We're using a term that's really not defined. It's not a half -- when you -- right, they're -- actually, they're just any other type of group home, and under the Fair Housing Act, should be treated the same as any other type of a group home.
Aren't there situations in which community complaints arise from the fact that somebody going to L&I and says I want a permit for a private penal institution or a private correctional institution. And then what the community learns is that it may be what the community calls a halfway house, people perhaps suffering from some form of substance abuse. And the community, not knowing anything about it, not having -- no one's bothered to 35 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 discuss it with them, suddenly finds a group in the community that they're concerned about. Now -- and wasn't there a study made by the Planning Commission a number of years ago that showed over-concentration of these facilities in certain districts?
And I'm wondering whether that study is still considered valid and whether it's been updated.
Well (unintelligible) about that study, we had been asked by communities to look at certain types of residential-related uses, and we did find that there was a tendency to concentrate -- when there was an accepting community, there was a tendency of other facilities to go into that community, which the community accepted those types of facilities. The point what I want to make about it is, we no longer use that because of the -- basically because of the Fair Housing Act and we no longer keep records or track or do any kind of record keeping of those residential living facilities. 36 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
I don't understand why the Fair Housing Act would stop you from at least having some census of where these properties are located. The Fair Housing Act comes into play when an individual is recovering from substance abuse. If you have a residential treatment home where neighbors are complaining about obvious drug use on the sidewalk by the residents, they are no 13 longer under the protection of the Fair Housing Act, 'cause they are no longer recovering, they are now substance abusers, and that does not give them protection of the Fair Housing Act.
So I don't understand why federal law would have prohibited or stopped the Planning Commission or L&I or whoever from keeping track of where these facilities are and --
That's one type of facility, and you're right, and probably more -- better people to keep track if would be the Police 37 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Department 'cause we don't -- that's where we get the records. I'm just saying we were keeping track of all types of non- -- of group living arrangements at one point in time, whether it was for substance abusers or whether it was from people released from a private institution for the mentally disabled.
Because we were told we no longer could keep those records.
Are you going to join my -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
That's our law department. Well, I think we ought to -- 38 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
-- keep numbers on it and take a look at what the Law Department has told you to do. I mean, I can't believe that they would unilaterally tell you to stop keeping track of any of these properties. There was no evil intent in keeping track of them, it's always nice to know -- I mean, the Philadelphia Fire Department does a block check, they go and they check the properties, commercial, residential, institutional. I mean, what's -- I don't understand the big deal. There's some violation of federal law for just knowing where they are?
Well, apparently once they -- you -- this whole thing of allowing these facilities to come in as single-family residences under reasonable accommodations so you're basically obliged to -- and really, I wish we had someone from L&I or the Law Department around here. My understanding is, you put on blinders and you treat them as a single-family 39 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 residence; and, therefore, what they tell you is, you don't keep track of all the other single- family residences and how many people live there and what their comings and goings are; therefore, you shouldn't keep track of these facilities either.
Well, I'm not disputing you because I've you've been told not to do it, but I think that you have unrelated 11 males living in a single-family rowhouse, 4 or 5 12 to a room with a bathroom and a half, I think that's something we ought to keep track of. It's just -- I mean, what happens is, the reason where I disagree with you on the proliferation of these type of facilities has to do with the economics of it. It's only in neighborhoods where the property is worth investing in, jamming in 10 to 15 people, taking their disability checks, taking money from them for not doing drug rehab work that they're supposed to be doing as part of their, quote/unquote, program, that's where the abuse came in. And that's the reason why they're concentrated in Kensington and Harrogate and other 40 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 areas of North Philadelphia of the City because the property is worth it to the investor and the so-called drug treatment person or the drug-treatment operator because they'll make money there, as opposed to making money somewhere else, where the property is worth more and they'll make less. So I think the Law Department made a -- when did they tell you to stop doing that?
This was a number of -- I guess we haven't kept these records for a half a dozen years at least.
Mr. Lombardo, the bill before us is for incarceration, not for halfway houses or treatment centers.
That's right, it's only for -- it would only deal with those individuals who are still serving their sentence.
Good. Councilman Cohen, I don't think you've 41 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 finished your questioning?
Well, I just want to say that I think it's a good bill because it enlarges community participation in determining the composition of the neighborhood in which people live, but I think there are real and problems these kinds of institutions are badly needed. And it's true that communities feel that they are being overwhelmed with the number of institutionalized uses. And I think the City agencies that you referred to and perhaps others have a job to find some method for making sure that communities are fully involved. The worst thing that happens to a community is to have something which, in the mind of the community, has been imposed upon itself without the community's participation. And these are difficult problems. A community has rights, and I believe society requires these kinds of facilities, and they clash. But I think communities have an absolute right to be participants in the decision-making involving what's going to go into their communities. So I view this bill in this direction. 42 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 What we understand happens often -- and are you saying that it's unnecessary? -- that somebody goes in and says, I want a permit for a penal institution or a correctional institution; and, in fact, they have -- the place turns out to be used for halfway house living, even though, by your definition, it's not supposed to be.
No, I think what I'm saying -- what I said was that L&I -- that the dilemma they have is that when someone comes in and they have purchased a building that's legal for a 30-unit boarding home, which basically you can have up to 90 people in it, the applicant may make argument to L&I that we have a right to go in this facility as a residential facility. You call it a halfway house, they'll call it a multifamily residential facility. Conversely, the very same type of facility goes into -- now they have a building that's in Kensington and is zoned industrial, and they come in and they say, Oh, we're a penal and correctional institution and, therefore, should be permitted to go in as a matter of right, because penal correctional and institutions are zoned 43 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 general industrial, though both are the same type of facilities. And what L&I was saying is they needed guidance in terms of a definition to know how to treat these facilities. And that's the first -- And then the second thing they raise the issue of was that either way, there would be no community scrutiny. If you treated them as residential facilities, then there would be no 11 community scrutiny of 'em going in the residential areas. If you treated them as industrial facilities, there would be no scrutiny in the communities, as Councilman Kenney pointed out, where you -- in the older areas where you have industrial zoning sitting in the middle of the block of rowhomes.
Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Lombardo? (No further questions.)
Thank you. I would ask that you remain. Mr. John McDougall. 44 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 (Witness comes forward.)
Mr. McDougall, you can take the witness table. We'll have someone from L&I testify on this bill. (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Madam President. I believe my testimony will be brief. Good day, Madam President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Otis Haigler Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for L&I. I appear today to testify on Bill No. 14 000337. The Department of Licenses and Inspections as an agency responsible for the enforcement of the Zoning Code is prepared to implement the provisions of this bill if it is adopted by City Council. As the City Planning Commission is the agency responsible for promulgation of the Zoning Code, any questions of a substantive nature should be addressed to the Planning Commission. Thank you.
Thank you 45 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 very much, sir. Mr. McDougall, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, my name is John G. McDougall. I am the President of Min-Sec Corrections Corporation, a practicing criminal defense attorney for 34 years. Initially, I have trouble understanding a definition as presented by Mr. Lombardo as to the difference between penal and correctional institutions. I did not see any differentiation between "penal" and "correctional," as presented by Mr. Lombardo. The difference in the definition seemed to be only to between "private" and "public." With respect to the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, it is a regulated use that we and I, in our industry, find somewhat repulsive. I know that historically correctional -- community correctional facilities have been deemed to be harbors of evil people coming back to a community to rend bad things there. We're put into the same category as pool halls, massage 46 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 parlors, and that sort of thing. Madam Chairman, in Philadelphia, there are only 1200 beds for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. These are for men who have earned the opportunity to come out within one year of their minimum sentence, to have traditional help in going back to their homes, to get guidance and getting employment, to receive guidance in family matters when they have been away and have broken that family relationship, to have health and drug and alcohol abuse problems. These things are being given to men. Rather than coming cold from a prison, they're given an opportunity for more help. In Pennsylvania correctional institutions, 34 percent of our State prisoners come from the City of Philadelphia. They are coming back, either without the additional help or with it. By these regulated uses, you are placing the future of community correction probably as an impossibility in the City of Philadelphia. I do not understand the actions or the function of this committee, ma'am. It is my thought today, if possible, that this matter be 47 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 given to a subcommittee for the presentation of testimony not from people in the profit end like myself, and I will admit I may be held suspect because of that, but from, perhaps, the Department of Corrections or public agencies who need what we are doing on the private side, to convince this committee and eventually the Council that this is not a needed regulation 'cause you're going to prohibit a good thing coming into the community to help the young man who are coming back to do a better job. Thank you.
Min-Sec Corrections Corporation. We operate a facility in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and we have just built a 140-bed drug and alcohol rehabilitation center at D and Luzerne, in Councilman Mariano's district. We service there the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the City of 48 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Philadelphia, where men deemed to have drug and alcohol problems are sentenced from 90 to 100 days. From there, they go into a correctional facility -- a community facility to begin their transition back into employment.
My company, through a subsidiary, had an agreement, a lease agreement with the owner of the site on Island Avenue. We notified the State Representatives and Senators of what we intended to do. We met with the community, the community did not like what we were doing, even though, under zoning, we were a permitted use. As you know, Madam Chair, I think you had communications with the Secretary for Corrections, Martin F. Horn, who then told you if you object, he would not give us the contract to go to that area. In one sense, that satisfies Mr. Lombardo's concern of if there's a public meeting on this, is there a public proceeding to which one goes. We are required, anytime we wish to go 49 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 into a community, to notify the elected representative that we are coming there, what we do, and --
Well, Mr. McDougall, I consider myself an elected official in that community; I was never notified. And it was only through rumor that one of my constituents learned about the proposal.
The State regulations, ma'am, requires that you're notified by a State representative and senator. I agree, we should certainly look at the Council level as well, but I didn't, with all respect, write that regulation, but we honored it, ma'am.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. McDougall, aren't you also involved in another similar project in another part of the City -- as we politicians speak in terms of wards -- in the 11th Ward, at 1916 West Atlantic Street? You're going to a meeting tonight, I understand? 50 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
There is a meeting tonight. I was not going to be in attendance. That was with the community as well, to give them an understanding of what we are about and to seek comments from them as to what is taking place there. We have a lease agreement on that property, and that would be a similar operation if we are accepted.
And there, again, the local elected officials were not notified.
I was not involved with that directly. I doubt very much that we failed to notify them, sir. I rather believe that our marketing force did notify the State elected representatives.
If it was Council, sir, again, as I spoke to Madam Chairman, the regulations from the State DOC tell us whom we should notify, and that's what we followed. I agree again, sir, City Council should be on that list. I would ask the Department to amend their regulations. 51 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
Well, there's nothing that stops you from notifying -- the State regulation may require that you at least notify State officials, but there's nothing in the State regulation which says don't notify the City officials.
So that's a matter of your own choice, or your company's own choice, not to have notified anybody in the City.
I -- I would be -- would be surprised, sir, if having notified a State senator and State representative that they were not in communication with other interested elected officials from the area.
If I may, sir, I will ask the Department, although I have no power, to amend it, or I will take your suggestion and --
Councilman Cohen, if this bill were to be passed, then I believe the Councilpeople would be notified because they'd have to go before the Zoning Board, 52 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 and the people in the community would also have some knowledge of it.
But there have been more than one instance in my district where we have faced problems where they come in and maybe the State representatives are notified; District Councilpeople are not notified, and the area residents have no knowledge of it other than a rumor, and then we have to track down the rumor. Then we call a community meeting. I just think it's very unfair. Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilman Cohen has kindly yielded. I was listening to this testimony. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name.
Okay. You've made 53 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 reference on a couple of occasions to your strict adherence to these State regulations, although you're obviously conducting your business in the City of Philadelphia. Now, do you have to get any other licenses or permits to do what you do?
At the center at D and Luzerne, yes. We are licensed by the State Department of Alcohol and Drugs.
Okay. Do you have any other licenses or permits in the City of Philadelphia to do what you do?
I would not be in that part of the -- I'm in the marketing department, Mr. Nutter, and --
Okay. Did you get your business privilege from your State or State senator?
You got it from the 54 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 City, right?
So then doesn't it make sense that you would then notify the City elected officials, as doing business in the City?
With all respect, we're given a list of regulations and we run down and we file each of them. This is our first venture in the City of Philadelphia. In other areas, we've talked to the local representatives and we've met with all --
Sir, nothing. I apologize for not having notified Chairman Verna 55 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of having gone into her area. We notified Senator Williams and Representative Waters that we were there and what we were going to be doing. It's an oversight.
Councilman? Councilman Cohen, are you aware of something in your district for tonight?
May I ask the permission of the Chair, my direct executive assistant, Verna Brown, is in -- do I have the maiden name or the married name? I'm probably wrong whichever name I chose to use. But she's very much involved in the community there's that's been very upset. I'd like to ask the indulgence of the Chair to have her ask a question as to the nature of what is being propped proposed in the way of the project. Would that be all right with you, Madam Chair?
Hello. My name is Verna Brown-Tyner, and I am Councilman Cohen's executive assistant. Mr. McDougall, I would like to ask, your proposal for 1916 West Atlantic Street, I believe, states it's a correctional facility for drug and alcohol abuse?
We have a number of contracts with the State that we can place into a given facility. There are two that you've mentioned. One, the community correctional facility is where an individual comes from a correctional institution into a facility. From there, he receives counseling, goes to work each day, returns each evening. And from there, would be paroled back into society at large. The other is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center, where an individual remains on site for 90 to 120 days, with the exception of recreational tours or going out to do community work projects, receive intensive daily counseling, and go from there into a community correctional facility. We can place either one of those, 57 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 whichever is more acceptable to the community, into that facility.
And when you go to apply to the Zoning Board, you would apply for a penal institution for those two different uses?
No, I don't -- again, there's no definition in the Zoning Code for a penal or a correctional, and the one being offered today in this proposed amendment doesn't differentiate either, except between public and private. We consider ourselves a correctional institution.
Well, I would like to ask Mr. Lombardo to come up again because we just don't understand and the community doesn't understand what is being proposed.
I'm at a loss myself as to the definitional aspects of the proposal, sir. May I remain?
Please. (Mr. Lombardo returns to witness table.)
Good afternoon again. This bill was prepared in conjunction 58 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 with the Law Department. And, basically, the bill 3 only makes the distinction, and this gentleman may agree or disagree, that if the resident, if the person at the facility is still under the jurisdiction of the court, he still has not been paroled or released, is still serving his or her sentence, then it is considered a penal or correctional institution under the definition we are proposing to the Zoning Code. We thought that was a cleaner way and the Law Department -- that it was a cleaner way of doing it than having categories of released and not released and parole and various categories since the concern seemed to be expressed at the facility we've been made aware of that Council has from the residences when these -- when the people at these facilities are still serving their sentence and have to return at night and are under a curfew and an obligation to return, that seemed to be where the biggest concern rested. So that's the distinction -- the only distinction we've made. If you're -- have not been released from your sentence, then by this definition, the facility regards its, whether it's 59 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 public or private, would be considered a penal and correctional institution.
Well, you heard Mr. McDougall describe what his company is proposing at 1916 West Atlantic street?
By this definition, it would fit in as a penal correctional institution as long as they're still serving -- if they haven't been released from their sentence. And we tried to make it simple so that everybody would understand it without a, you know -- and a very simple thing for L&I to interpret and ask the straight forward question, will your residents -- have they been released from their sentence or are they still serving their sentence?
Could I ask you that question, Mr. McDougall? Will all of the people -- would you stay there, Mr. Lombardo. Mr. McDougall, will all of the people that you propose under both of your proposals for 60 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 this area at 1916 West Atlantic, will all of the people living there be subject to the jurisdiction of the court at the time they're there, or will some of them have been released from court control?
I don't want to be hyper-technical, but I have to be. Every man sentenced by a court, the judge loses jurisdiction 30 days after the imposed sentence. Therefore, every person going into a State correctional institution is no longer under the jurisdiction of any judge; he's under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Additionally, Councilman Cohen, not all individuals come from the corrections into our facility. Some have been on parole and are getting into trouble on the streets. Rather than send them back to prison, they send them to a community correctional facility for greater supervision, a little guidance in getting away from drugs and alcohol, how to work out your family and household matters. So some have even been on patrol, but none is under the jurisdiction 61 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of a court.
How would you deal with that, Mr. Lombardo? What should he be applying for?
He has mixed-use from what I understand. Some people are subject to some aspects of government control, it may or may not be a court, it may be the parole department, but some of them will be totally free from any court supervision or governmental authority supervision.
No, under your definition, how does he apply, and how does the community know what he's planning?
I guess under our definition -- I say it's my definition, it's as much the Law Department's definition as it is my definition. He would apply as a penal and correctional institution. I think in terms of jurisdiction of the court, it means they're still serving -- I mean, we can play with whose 62 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 jurisdiction -- they're still serving their sentence is what is meant by that definition, a court-set sentence.
Well, in whatever event, we can't solve all those questions now, but it seems useful to permit the fuller participation of the community, and I think this is, therefore, a step forward.
Mr. McDougall, do you have any other statement that you would like to make?
Any other questions for Mr. McDougall or Mr. Lombardo? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Smalls. Is Mr. Smalls in the -- (Witness comes forward.)
Is it 63 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 "Reverend Smalls"?
Good morning to you, Madam President, and good morning to the members of this committee. My name is Leonard Smalls. I am past president of the Pennsylvania Prison Chaplains Association. I represent, as President, Rescue and Find, Incorporated. It is a rehabilitation program approved by the Pennsylvania State Baptist Convention. I'm a Board member of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, retired chaplain from the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, and have been active in prisoner rehabilitation since 1959. And, so, when I heard of this legislation being put forth, Bill No. 000337, I was impelled to request an opportunity to testify because it has some awesome ramifications that I believe City Council should be aware of it. First of all, in my limited expertise, I find that this bill is ungrounded, it's biased, 64 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 it's discriminatory and unconstitutional in character. And, in fact, it appears to be rooted in some provincial phobia of the same ilk. The focus should be on quality care, the regulation of what goes on within these purported penal and correctional institutions, which is an improper definition. I don't know how many people here have been in jail, but there's a big difference between a jailhouse and an after-care unit. I've been on both sides. I've been a protester against large foreboding kinds of institutions being constructed in residential areas residential areas, springing up overnight without any information being shared with the population of residents. And I think that this practice has been modified considerably. Now, if we would just look at this definition, it says: "Penal and Correctional Institutions. " Now, when a person is paroled, they are 65 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 paroled to a community corrections center. There are only two State community -- State-run and operated community correctional centers in our immediate area. The rest of them are private. That person is on parole until they have met all of the requirements of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole until they are in total compliance. , and they then go home. The big problem that we have in Philadelphia is that we have 39,000 persons locked up in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have, however, in certain areas of the City of Philadelphia, which many of you represent, as many as 7,000 persons on probation and parole at any given time of the day. At Graterford, we have approximately 3,700. And now we've opened a new prison at SCI Chester. These men, in the main -- and I'm not talking about the female population, because 66 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 that's Muncy and we have another one in the further-most reaches of Pennsylvania -- where these persons, when they are released, must either go to a community correctional center for extended after-care treatment or they go directly home. Very few of them go home now. They go to community correctional centers. So the way this legislation is worded, it places a person in double jeopardy after they have done their best, after they have met requirements -- and, believe me, the requirements are rough and tough. The time comes for them to return home, they must prove themselves again in community but under curfew. And when they are released, they are still under probation and parole, but they're living in our neighborhoods, they are living next door to many of us. If we prevent, by this restrictive language, which does not distinguish between penal and correctional institutions, then we are holding persons in incarceration when they have met the minimum requirements for release and have been given release. The language of this bill is very poor. It's broad, it does not do what it's 67 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 supposed to do, and that is the protect the people.
The people are best protected when there is education, training, behavior and attitudinal development, job-readiness training, spiritual growth, those critical principals and programs that are essential to any of us, if we are to get along with our neighbors. Let me be very, very specific. The problem that the City has had has been one of size. The business of community corrections has become a mega industry, it's large. And one of the reasons why it's large is because you get a large building, you have large costs, you have a need for ACL requirements (American Correctional Congress), you've got certain specifics as to how many people per room, how many toilets, what kind of bars. The staff-client ratio is rather strict. And so they're talking now about at least 50. And 50 is not, I'm told, a profit-making level, so they're talking more about 100. Well, if that's the case, you are always going to be confronted with large quasi-prisons outside a prison. 68 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Rescue Find has been operating in Graterford for seven years, and now we're going to the State Correctional Institution at Chester. And one of the reasons why we've been operating with the support in these institutions is because rehabilitation has gone out of the window. I don't think that taxpayers are really concerned about where these institutions are located but how they are run and the impact upon their way of living, their pedestrian freedom. And that's why I raise to you the question, why not focus where it counts? Because the big problem that we have today is recidivism. Sixty-five percent of the persons who leave prison return, oftentimes within one year. Now, it costs the taxpayer $30,000 a year to incarcerate a person. So if they're coming back on a resolving-door process, it means that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to be bankrupt in the next 10 years or less because we are incarcerating persons, in the main, for drug use. Now, that's a bad thing. But on the other hand, it's a civilizing experience because 69 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 drug use is no longer a black problem, it's no 3 longer a Puerto Rican problem; it's now a national phenomenon. And so we have the ravages of drug use in middle-income areas, upper-middle income areas. The suburbs are having a heck of a problem dealing with drug use and their children. I don't know how they're going to handle the problem out there, but I've got a suggestion, and I think that this Council has always been amenable to beneficial education. And that is, we need to support communities that are willing to help persons who have left their communities to serve time in prison and are going to return to their communities to live. We need programs that will help them not, recidivate and to become reintegrated into the community. That's a proactive, not a negative position. This bill is totally negative. The definition is not well thought of. These are not community prisons unless they are run on a prison basis. Now, if you're getting $50 a day to house inmates, or more, and you need 100, which runs to $5,000 a day, and the equivalent staff, then 70 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 you're talking about big business. But if we're talking about taking some of these younger populations -- and this is the age that we're talking about, to 36. Now, let's just put this 6 on the slow burner for a moment. 7 The other ramifications of this bill 8 are sociological. With 26,000 parolees under the 9 supervision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 10 and Parole, the outlook demands the mustering of 11 all available resources and consideration of every 12 sound strategy to deal with this catastrophic and 13 costly crisis that now challenges the taxpayers 14 and their representatives.
15 The profile of the incarcerated 16 offender population is mainly youthful black males 17 between the ages of 18 to 36, and 76 percent of 18 them have a drug and alcohol problem, percent 19 of them read below the 4th-grade level. In 20 addition, among Hispanic youth, 41 percent have not achieved the GED or a high school diploma. More than one-third of these youth collectively were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Demographically, however, although African-Americans comprise less than 25 percent of 71 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 the Commonwealth's population, this group constitutes 65 percent of the incarcerated in the State correctional institutions. Instead of getting together and creating a restrictive model that's going to keep persons in jail without rehabilitation for longer periods of time, we ought to talk to the Law Department, L&I, and all of their ancillary organizations to sit down and talk together in one room on how they're going to protect the people of the City of Philadelphia so that they can have better pedestrian freedom -- well, you can't do it by building more prisons because the prisons are bankrupting the Commonwealth. What can we do together? I'm a clergyman, spent most of my time in Philadelphia for over the last almost 50 years pastoring. That's a long time. It's time for us to develop some proactive stances. I met with Council Chairwoman Verna some months ago with a pastor from South Philadelphia because we had been confronted by the Youth Study Center being overcrowded. They wanted churches to become involved in the rehabilitative process. 72 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 And so we first went to our City Councilperson. And after going to our City Councilperson, we went to our State representative. And then we talked to business persons around in the community. Because it's not a singular situation. Because you have a contract with the State, that doesn't mean that you've got a corner on rehabilitation. You can't rehabilitate people unless it's a collective thing. They have to have places to go, they have to feel comfortable when they're in there, they can't be walking around with a red badge on their back saying "I'm an ex-offender," they have to have an opportunity to become involved again. And I don't want to seem to be a weeping willow. I'm a jailhouse chaplain from death row to the very first days of a first offender's life behind bars. What I'm saying to you is that we've been getting tough on crime for a long time, but we've been getting tough on crime the wrong way. This is the United States of America. We cannot continually hold people under double jeopardy. And I just saw a little while ago a lot 73 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of kids coming in here. Let me tell you what happens in Graterford. I sometimes had to break the rules. I just retired not too long ago because the need for after-care is so great. I sometimes had to break the rules in bringing a father, a grandfather and a grandson together in the chapel, because they cannot be on the same blocks, living in the same quarters in State institutions, they have to be separate. And I have heard men who are still in jail, who've been in jail, who may have had a career in jail, admonishing their sons and grandsons who are behind bars just like them to wake up and get wise and get out of that jail and go back to their families and become supportive and constructive persons in our community. We are now locking up third-generation people. The other reason why I'm here is because I'm an African-American. And one of my dear friends was clobbered once in the newspapers not too long ago -- I say "dear friend" because I've always been an admirer of her. " 74 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Well, it appears like in the United States of America, with 2,800,000 persons under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice Department, that most of them are black and Hispanic.
And the profile for these kids is not that they're locked up, but most of them have come from poor housing, inadequate schools, and underemployed communities, and have had a lack of appropriate medical attention. The way we are going with legislation like this is that we're going to be locking up at a genocidal rate minorities, who, in a sense, are oftentimes victimized. And I say this in closing, if we're locking up most people on drug charges, let's examine that, because you can get less than 6 years for bringing in a 707 loaded with marijuana or cocaine and you can get 6 years for selling a few grams, deadly as they may be, on the corner, and when you go to a State prison, if you don't know it, I'll tell you, you may not ever get out, because when you go in, the big problem is tuberculosis and hepatitis and now AIDS. AIDS is not as great as it used to be. You have to pay 75 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 for medical attention. You're only making a buck a day, in many instances. They cut down on the number of educators. I left because I thought it was critical that if you're going to send these people back to Philadelphia and Philadelphia has 60 percent of all of the people locked up in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that come to Philadelphia County, they're coming back home, they're going to be living next to you. So what are you going to do about it? You going to write a little measly bit of legislation that doesn't distinguish between a prison and a halfway house? Better have some halfway houses, make 'em smaller. When a person goes to jail, they may not come out because they sometimes contract diseases. And if they are released on parole to halfway houses and they make a mistake, and that mistake must be only a technical mistake, and that is too many a drink -- you get a hot urine and it's detected, you go back to jail. So they are paroled to a halfway house if they get a shot of drugs -- marijuana is detectable in a hot urine -- 76 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 they go back to jail, at $30,000 a year. The time has come for us. And I thank you for your time and attention. The time has come for us to begin to deal with the real problem instead of the smoke screens about how close are they going to come to us. Thank you very much. I hope that what I've said has some impact on your judgment.
Thank you. We appreciate your patience and your testimony. And I think that at another time, we're going to certainly look at what we refer to as "halfway houses." Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you, Reverend. Is Mr. O'Brien here to testify? Please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 77 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
My name is Timothy O'Brien, O-'-B-R-I-E-N, Bail Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia. Good morning, Madam President.
I just want to start by making the record clear that I'm not n advocate here for or against this particular bill. Councilman James Kenney thought I could lead to some factual testimony that could would help the members of this committee in their decision-making process so he invited me here for that. I can tell you two things from my vantage point, which is in the front line of alleged crime in the city, and that is that: 1. As we know, there's definitely an overcrowding problem; 2. In my opinion, there is definitely a quality of life problem within the many neighborhoods in the City. What's abundantly clear to me is we seem to be attempting to alleviate the overcrowding problem right now by opening the back 78 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 door of the prison. In other words, when the prison gets to a certain level -- there's a program right now in effect, believe it or not, where people who have been sent to the prison on cash bail -- I'd like to say who have earned cash bail because of their recidivism, their repeat offenses probation violations, failures to appear, they're being left out and just sent into the streets -- basically, in some instances, right out on State Road, to find their way back to the neighborhoods they come from without satisfying the cash bail. So it appears to me that what's in effect now is definitely not working. And it's kind of to echo what the Reverend just got done saying about recidivism. And it appears to me that one is working against the other. The quality-of-life issue is being addressed by good police work-- Operation Sunrise, for example, that the Police Commissioner has instituted. And it seems to me that sometimes -- I'd like to use a hypothetical. It seems we hand the mop to Commissioner Timoney and we ask him to mop the floor, and then after the floor is mopped, we kick the bucket over. 79 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 He's bringing multiple arrests from the community in an effort to clean up, to respond to the people's cry for help. They come to the Bail Commissioner, the Bail Commissioner does his job. And then to alleviate overcrowding, we let them back out, as opposed to finding a new space. I personally can't think of a better situation than having additional space that at the same time addresses addictive behavior.
You have. And what's so harmful about coming before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the community being aware of a facility going into their neighborhood?
Okay. So are you in favor of this bill or opposed to it?
No, I just want to tell the distinguished members of this committee -- 80 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
I don't have a position on it. Just that we do need additional space, based on my experience. Up to o'clock last 7 night, 51 decisions I had to make, 42 of the 51 8 were repeat offenders that are committing crimes 9 on a continual basis in Council districts in this 10 city. So what I'm doing is just providing you 11 information that, yes, they should have to go through the community, but let's not abandon the need for space totally. That's all I'm saying.
Okay. Well, I was under the impression that Councilman Kenney said to me, can you tell us exactly what's happening? 'cause I see it day in and day out. So that the need for additional space is definitely there.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members 81 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of the committee? (No questions.)
Mr. Paul Soult? Is Mr. Paul Soult here? Please approach the witness table. And after Mr. Paul Soult, I believe we have Mr. Mark Niccoletti. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record. For the record.
My name is Paul Soult, and I am the Vice President of Business Development for Min-Sec Corrections Corporation. Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to speak on such short notice. There was a point in John McDougall's testimony that -- there was a gap in something that he was trying to explain to City Council, and I think I'd like to refer to that if I may. My job specifically with Min-Sec Corrections Corp. is to notify City 82 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Councilmembers, as well as other public officials in the City, of our intent to put a facility into a particular area that may fall within their district. In the case of Atlantic Street, I had actually -- now, if you'll allow me to backtrack just a bit. Min-Sec is relatively new to the Philadelphia market. It is a rather (unintelligible) process for us right now to determine exactly where certain districts fall and who has responsibility under -- what City Councilperson has responsibility over that particular area. As a result, it has been a very tough road for us to hoe, and I've been spending an inordinate amount of time trying to determine exactly what areas of the City we are best suited for and who is responsible for that particular district. The Atlantic Street facility, as far as we understood, fell under the leadership of Donna Reed Miller, as it is her Councilmatic District. I was in the CEO's office, who is Sean McDougall, John McDougall's son, when the letter was authored notifying the Councilwoman of our interest in the 83 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Atlantic Street facility. This letter, for the record, was distributed long before we had actually had any option on that building in place or before we had actually even considered that facility for this kind of use. It has never been our intention, and I would not allow it to happen, as a member of business development team, 'cause my reputation is on the line, that we would not notify City officials of our interest in any particular area or in a facility. In the case of Fels Naphtha, if I may, we had a very strong interest in that building, as you know. We were told by the owner of that facility that as far as the officials were concerned, he would handle that piece of it because of our newness in the Philadelphia market. At times, we rely on the word of certain individuals that say they have the ability to smooth the way for us. From a political standpoint, as far as hindsight being 20/20, this was a serious error in judgment, and for future reference, it will probably not be the tack that we'll take. 84 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 However, it was not done and it was the piece was missing. You were not notified, Madam President, and I do apologize for that.
No. And we were never contacted by you. And we wrote to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and I will just read one letter -- one sentence of their response. "Under our contract, the proposed operator, Sean McDougall, of Min-Sec Corporation, is expected to solicit input from the community, the City Councilmember, the State representative, and the State senator who represents the area." And we were never notified by anybody. And believe it or not, we had three different stories as to what would be going into that facility. That's not the way we handle the community.
And I agree wholeheartedly. And I think this needs to be a centralized process, it needs to be something that's handled specifically by our company, and it was not -- that was not handled properly.
And I truly 85 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 believe that this bill that's in front of us will give us as, elected officials, and the area residents an opportunity to, A, know what's going on at that proposed site; and, B, have a voice in that before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I think it has always been our intention to allow for that. I mean, we don't look at this as a sort of -- I mean, we're trying not to be an ogre of a company that walks into an area and tries to force a facility into that particular area.
I truly understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your comments, but it hasn't just happened with you; it has happened in the past, and I don't think we want to have this continually happen.
Okay, I understand that. But, if I may, it has always been the intention of Min-Sec Corrections, and we maybe we've been a little remiss at times, simply due to a lack of understanding of the process, but it has always been our intention to include all City officials, especially community members who are perhaps not elected officials and/or representing, 86 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 you know, some political office, it has always been our intention to let them know of our intentions.
And I think the area group, they have formed a committee in the Fels Naphtha area, and I'm sure that they would have been very, very willing to work with you, maybe not for this specific program, but for something that could have helped everybody also.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, sir, I didn't get your name.
Because they have some facilities in my district, and I assume they have them throughout the rest of the City. And as the Council President has pointed out, I had only found out about these things by rumors in the 87 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 community. And I was just wondering, what criteria do you use when you look for a building for your operation? I heard you say something to the effect that we look for suitable sites, and what is the criteria that you look for?
Because we know of the sensitivity to this sort of initiative, because we know the community will generally be disturbed by this kind of use, we often look for something in an innocuous area, if you will, what I can best describe as an industrial area, where there is blight, brownfields, perhaps, you know, a facility that has been sitting, like the Fels Naphtha site, for instance, sitting there for years or 17 20-some-odd years, with no use whatsoever. 18 And we try very, very diligently to 19 position these facilities far enough away from the 20 community so that it is not an issue, so that it 21 is not sitting within a residential section of 22 their particular community. 23 It is almost -- I mean, it's a very 24 difficult process, as I'm sure you can imagine. At times, you can find that description in a very 88 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 limited way. I mean, there's very, very few sites in the City of Philadelphia at this point in time that fit that description. But it -- really what it requires is that we are within the City limits, you know, especially if it's a work-release program, they have to have access to public transportation, they have to have the ability to get to and from the facility and to their job. But it has never been our intention to situate it right in a residential area.
You say you're required to place these facilities within the City limits; is that a State requirement?
No. It's only if there's a facility -- well, if the contract is released and it pertains specifically to prisoners who have gone into the system from the City of Philadelphia and are returning to the City of Philadelphia.
So that's really -- I mean, those decisions are made by way of policy or legislation that -- could those folks go to a facility outside of the City? Is it a choice that the system makes on behalf of the parolee? 89 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
Yes, sir. Generally, these are designed -- the contracts are designed to accommodate inmates -- or clients in an area where they have originated from. You know, if a prisoner has come from Philadelphia, they like to set up a contract so that it serves a former Philadelphia resident to be returned to Philadelphia.
It's probably not a question for you. I was always wondering why would we want to put people back in an environment from which they came from, and given the numbers that have been testified to today, where recidivism is up like 65 percent, why would anyone -- and, again, this may not be the question for you, but I wonder, why would you want to put somebody back into a blighted community? As you said, you look for places that are industrial sites that are blighted, put 'em back in the community from where they first got into trouble, maybe time and time again, not look for a facility that maybe is different from where they came from, to give them a different a sense of what life has to offer. Places that have enough space, where 90 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 you can have some onsite recreation facility. I mean, the 1260 Corporation does something similar to what you. Do they have purchased about eight houses in a contiguous row along Pine Street, at Ninth and Pine, with probably a 10-foot deep yard at maximum. I always wondered why they wouldn't pick a site maybe in the suburbs where you could build a new facility, not have to take an existing building and put all of the extra money into retrofitting the building, and design a building that has some facility and space around it for the "clients," as we referred to, have a totally different environment from where they originally came from that gets them into trouble all the time? Because I have to assume, based on the numbers that have been presented today, that even people -- the clients who go through your type of facility wind up back in the system again anyway. Because I don't think they all come out of these facilities totally rehabilitated, and these are going to be the best clients leaving. Not all of them, but 60 or 65 percent eventually wind up back in the system anyway. And if you put somebody 91 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 back at Eighth and Butler, where they've been arrested time and time again, and they're going to be in close proximity to their neighborhood, chances are, based on statistics, that they're going to wind up in trouble again trouble again.
Well, if I may. These are community correctional initiatives. And the intent of the program primarily is to return the individual to the community from which he has come. A lot of these individuals, mind you, a lot of the folks who have gone into the prison system have come from a family-type situation in a particular community. To return them to an area where there isn't that element, I would believe, in theory, would probably not work. You're also taking them -- if you were to put them into this ideal setting, you're putting them into unfamiliar surroundings, you're putting them into an area where there is the unlikelihood of success. What you're trying to do is you're bringing them back to a community --
The success rate of going back into the community from where they came from isn't doing much good for them either. 92 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
Without these programs, sir, the recidivism rate will be much greater. These programs are designed specifically to give drug and alcohol treatment and training programs to the individuals who do not have that sort of program available to them, you know, just in the regular community. These programs are designed specifically to get people out of the system; they're not designed to enhance recidivism.
I'm not suggesting that that's what they're designed for, but it appears that that is what the result is, and I would disagree that if you put 'em in a different environment that the rate of recidivism would be higher. I just can't imagine that.
Well, the idea basically is to try to bring them back to their families.
We haven't tried that, so no one knows. I mean, that's just -- we really haven't tried that.
That would be a State issue, sir. I, of course, don't write policy for these contracts.
No further 93 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 questions.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from other members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? I believe Mr. Niccoletti wanted to testify? Is he still here? Okay, do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public meeting. We have to wait for the Councilmen to go into our -- to close our public hearing. This concludes our public hearing, we will go into our public meeting as soon as we get a quorum. - - - 94 6/13/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Okay, the Rules Committee is now in its public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 000282.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000282 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 000282 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 000347.
Madam Chair, I move 95 6/13/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING that Bill No. 000347 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000347 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it, and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 000337.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000337 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.) 96 6/13/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000337 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it, and the motion is carried. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 12:10 p.m.) - - - 97 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, June 2000, were 8 reported fully and accurately by me, and that this 9 is a correct transcript of same. 10 11 12 13 RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 000282, 000337, 000347 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter