COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, 3/12/01 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000629 - Amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," 9 by amending Chapter 14-1800 entitled "Zoning Board of Adjustment," by amending Section 14-1807, 10 entitled "Appeals to the Court" by amending language regarding appeals, under certain terms 11 and conditions. 12 BILL 010100 - Approving the new plan, estimated cost, and proposed method of charges of the 13 Frankford Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and 14 administrative services to the Frankford Avenue business district of the City of Philadelphia. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILWOMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 3/12/01 - RULES COMMITTEE I N D E X Page Bill 010100 Robert Collazo, Commerce Department . . . . . 4 Sloan Fokes, Director of Economic Development 5 Frankford Group Ministries CDC Bill 000629 Joanne Phillips, Managing Director's Office 9 Otis Haigler, Jr., L&I. . . . . . . . . . . . 98 10 Joe Beller, Esq., Spring Garden Civic Assoc. 101 11 John DiGiorgio, SPCCA, UNICO Village. . . . . 124 12 Stephen Pollack, Concerned Taxpayer . . . . . 127 13 Nick Miglino, Italian Market Civic Assoc. . . 135 14 Barbara Capozzi, Packer Park Civic Assoc. . . 136 15 Mary Tracy, SCRUB Founder . . . . . . . . . . 158 16 Arnold Bradburd, Businessman. . . . . . . . . 197 17 Colleen Puckett, Queen Village Neighbors. . . 200 18 Marie LaChat, Chestnut Hill Community Assoc. 222 19 Carolyn Sutton, East Falls Development Corp. 241 20 Julia Camburn, East Falls Business Assoc. . . 253 21 Joseph Warren, Eastwick PAC . . . . . . . . . 257 22 Lois Shaup, Eastwick PAC. . . . . . . . . . . 258 23 Jack Minnis, Powelton Village Civic Assoc. 259 Janet Benedetto, Overbrook Farms Club . . . . 263 3 3/12/01 - RULES COMMITTEE (Index, cont'd.) (Bill No. 000629, cont'd.) Elizabeth Armor, Society Hill Resident. . . . 273 John Furey, Broad Street West Civic Assoc. 276 Judith Eden, Center City Resident . . . . . . 279 Janet Potter, Foundation for Architecture . . 284 Stanley Krakower, Esq., Zoning Law Practice 319 Louis Incognito, East Mt. Airy Neighbors. . . 370 Joseph Walker, Residents of Shawmont Valley 375 Beth McConnell, PENNPIRG. . . . . . . . . . . 385 Fred Maurer, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . . . 388 Tina Nelsen, CEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 L. Brill, Upper Northwood Community Council 396 Jane Glenn, Manayunk Neighborhood Council . . 404 R. Fisher, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition 426 Yvonne Hicks, " " " 426 Robert Jaffe, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 City Council Technical Staff Attorney 4 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 010100 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Rules public hearing I would as Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 010100.
Bill No. 010100, an ordinance approving the new plan, estimated cost, and proposed method of charges of the Frankford Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and administrative services to the Frankford Avenue business district of the City of Philadelphia. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Bob Collazo from the Commerce Department. Members of the Rules Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify about this bill, which would approve a new plan and other improvements for the Frankford Special Services District. 5 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 010100 The Commerce Department supports this legislation. Previously, the Commerce Department has assisted the Special Services District to become established and to be successful. And in closing, our department has an ongoing relationship to the revitalization and economic growth of Frankford area. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Committee of Rules of City Council. My name is Sloan Fokes (ph.), and I'm the Director of Economic Development for the Community Development Corporation of Frankford Group Ministries. I'm here today on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Frankford Special Services District to present testimony in support of Bill No. 10100, the reauthorization of the Frankford Special Services District. The Community Development Corporation of Frankford Group Ministries manages the day-to-day operations of the district, and after reading the testimony into the record, I'll be able to answer any questions that you may have. 6 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 010100
Thank you. I would like the record to reflect that I have received a letter from Councilman Mariano, which indicates as follows: "As the sponsor of the legislation, I am asking that the bill be reported out with a favorable recommendation. The Frankford Special Services District has had a profound effect on my district. Vacancy rates on Frankford Avenue have dropped from 40 percent to percent, and the 12 avenue is safer and cleaner than it has been in 13 years. In addition, new arts and hospitality- 14 related businesses are opening in Frankford." 15 And, again, he is asking for a 16 favorable recommendation, and he looks forward to 17 another positive five years of work on the avenue. 18 Are there any questions of these 19 witnesses from members of the committee? 20 (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you both for coming in to testify. 7 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The next bill 4 to be considered is Bill No. 000629. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 000629, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 9 Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending 10 Chapter 14-1800 entitled "Zoning Board of 11 Adjustment," by amending Section 14-1807, entitled 12 "Appeals to the Court," by amending language 13 regarding appeals, under certain terms and 14 conditions.
Thank you. Before we start the hearing on this bill, Councilman DiCicco would like to make a statement.
Thank you, Madam President. I usually adlib my statements, but I have some prepared comments this morning because I understand the importance of what we're here to talk about today on this bill. And my office has received numerous letters of either opposition and 8 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 support, believe it or not. And as someone who has -- I guess I consider myself a community activist, having been the founder and past president of a civic association and the founder and past president of another nonprofit, known as the Citizens Alliance for Better Neighborhoods. I founded a Civic Association back in 1989 in the neighborhood in which I have resided for years and still reside in, at 11th and Federal. And the reason I created that Civic Association was because I was considered about overdevelopment. A number of properties were going up for sale. Properties for a number of years that were going up and had been sold were being converted into multifamily dwellings, and we recognized in our community that something needed to be done. So I just want to put to rest any notion for those of you who don't me or don't know anything about me, that I am not one who is, quote/unquote, pro-business pro-development at any cost. For those of you who have known me as a Councilperson who I have worked with in my 9 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 district for the last five and a half years, I don't think there's a community group in my district that could say that there has been any zoning matter that came before you your community, regardless of the size of that development, that I did not partake in a discussion with the developers, with the community to try to find some resolution. And when the community, in the end, after all of those discussions, decided that it was a development that they could not support, I was on the side of the community. And I'll give you one or two brief examples. About three a half, four years ago, when then-Mayor Ed Rendell selected a developer for the entertainment center along Columbus Boulevard, it was at my insistence that I would not proceed with any legislation to support that development unless it was done on my terms, and my terms were basically community involvement. It was at my direction that approximately ten community groups that would have immediately been affected by that development met for the better part of a year and a half to two years along with the developer to discuss all of the issues 10 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 pertaining to that development. Thirty people from the various communities participated in those discussions. ) that is just outside the boundaries of the Queen Village Civic Association. And it was at my insistence and my direction that that developer meet with the community to discuss a whole host of issues that I thought would be important to them. And mind you, the developer did not need to go to the community. There was no need for a variance for height, for anything, because, by right, the developer could have built that luxury high-rise as high and as large and as big as he wanted to without any need for community support. I am one that includes communities in everything that goes on in my district, as I'm certain that the other Councilpeople who are here today have done the same. It has been traditional in the City of Philadelphia for developers to negotiate with local, civic, or community groups in deciding how 11 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 best to advance projects of any consequence or significance. The people who reside in the immediate area of the proposed project are truly stakeholders, who must be accommodated, as they know best the needs of their community and will ultimately have to live with a project if approved, or live with the current state of the property if the project is protested and ultimately denied.
From time to time, developers and neighborhood groups have reached a consensus on how best to deal with development, only to find that their compromise is challenged by third parties residing outside of the community -- and in some cases, outside of the City of Philadelphia -- because those are folks who happen to be taxpayers but not even live in the City of Philadelphia, and they're taxpayers because they have a job here and they pay wage taxes, and they have had standing, and in some instances, have stood in the way of those compromises that the immediate community has agreed to with the developer. These individuals or activist groups 12 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 are typically driven by a single issue, and they do not have the same interests in the community, which the neighbors have, which usually provides some sense of balance. These third parties rely upon taxpayer status, which does not otherwise exist outside the City of Philadelphia. Therefore, a person may appeal a zoning decision on a property or a project miles and miles from their home, because they pay taxes to the City of Philadelphia. They have the right to do this, even in the face of community support for a project. In some cases, people may decide to challenge a project supported by the community due to a desire to stop competition or for other reasons which are related to the zoning land use. This happened, by the way, in my district with the development of the Fresh Fields at Tenth and South. Although the person who protested the Zoning Board decision to grant the variance for that development did, in fact, live in close proximity to the Fresh Fields, the lady was actually put up to the appeal because a competitor who had a business along South Street didn't want 13 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Fresh Fields to be built. The lady just happened to live there, but this competitor could have chosen anyone who paid taxes in the City of Philadelphia to protest the development of the Fresh Fields along South Street because he did not want the competition. So it is not an unusual thing, and I'm certain that there will be testimony today to the fact that these things don't happen. They have happened, and I'm sure they will continue to happen unless we do something about the current law as it relates to appeals with the Zoning Board. In some cases, people may decide to challenge a project supported by the community due to a desire to stop the competition or other reasons, which are unrelated to the zoning and land use. Those which seek to stifle competition for their own economic purposes are able to use their employees or other individuals residing far outside the immediate neighborhood of the project due to the taxpayer status. The net result may be to lock projects welcomed in the community, such as a Fresh Fields supermarket or a another type of 14 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 development. Accordingly, the Zoning Code should be amended to permit real parties and interests, like property owners and local community groups to appeal zoning cases and to eliminate taxpayer status, which allows third parties to defeat the will of the real neighbors and community groups. I believe that this will bring Philadelphia in line with the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and avoid the mischief created by a court case which interpreted our local zoning ordinance to allow for purely taxpayer statuses. And with that, Council President, I am going to introduce an amendment, and for those of you who had received an amendment from our office late last week, what I'm going to read into the record is actually a re-amendment to that amendment, because there was some concern about the language of "significant constituency," and we have removed that language.
The amendment reads as follows: Any person, or persons, jointly or severely aggrieved by any decision of the Board -- and take out "or any taxpayer" -- including as a 15 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 member of right a community or neighborhood group or organization as defined in Subsection (7)(c) or any officer, department, et cetera. )
I'm just being urged by my chief of staff that I might want to read that subsection of the code (7)(c). For the purposes of this paragraph, a community or neighborhood group or organization shall be a group or organization composed primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal. It shall not include groups or organizations which are composed primarily of members who represent commercial or business enterprises. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Does the stenographer have a copy of the amendment? (Copy of amendment attached hereto.)
Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes 16 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to state the other side of the case, the case on behalf of community organizations, the case on behalf of the right of people to participate in the process of decision-making by voicing their views; by saying that Philadelphia, while a city of neighborhoods, is not a city of separate governments; that every taxpayer, every resident, in fact, has a common interest; that what occurs in one neighborhood vitally affects probably every other neighborhood in many cases; that the air, the sky, the water, all belong to all of the people; that no one in any part of the City, for example, has the right to prevent anybody from parking in their street because they live in a different part of the City. We're one city. People have rights of discussion. When communities voice their views and their views are heard by those who make the decisions, it is not taking away any rights from anybody. The citizens groups do not make 17 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decisions; what they do is to voice the views of the people they represent. What this amendment seeks to do is to quiet the voices, to shut them out of participation in the democratic processes of government. The ones that make the decision are in zoning matters, for example, zoning boards, and later on, in the courts. And the purpose of this amendment is to prevent people from being heard because it is no way affects those who make the decision. The same decision-makers make those decisions, but this is an effort to shut out the voices of the people. And, you know, that happens only when those who make the decisions are not felt to be qualified or when people are afraid to hear the voices of the people. This, in my opinion, is a very dangerous bill, a bill that moves directly in the wrong direction. Instead of enlarging the rights of citizens, whether they be taxpayers or not, it takes away their rights from even participating, from having a voice that can express their point of view, whether or not the decision-makers will heed those voices, we don't know in any given 18 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 case. When something occurs that blocks the view of the sky, it affects everybody, no matter where they live, because wherever they live, they may be passing by. When a neighborhood faces a particular problem, other neighborhoods are involved, because later on, the decision as to what happened in that neighborhood may well be used as a precedent against other neighborhoods. This amendment moves to see futilize, rather than to spread and broaden, the concept the democracy. I think it is a wrong amendment, it goes in the wrong direction because it stills the voice of democracy instead of enlarging it. If on the merits, the decision ought to be one way or the other, let all of the voices be heard. Incidently, this bill is not aimed, I would respectfully say to Councilman DiCicco, at commercial interests; this bill is aimed at the community voices that have been active in this decision. The decision referred to involved particularly two groups of people. It involves basically an organization known as SCRUB, an organization that has devoted itself many years to 19 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 protecting everybody's right to see the sky unopposed, to fight the blight of billboards. That's the organization that won the right to standing in the courts to have the right to appear before the Zoning Board and have its views expressed and the right to appear in court. The other groups affected are Councilmembers. In one case, President Verna, and in another case, myself, have appeared as parties in a dispute involving different zoning matters, and the courts have accorded standing to every Councilmember on the ground that the Councilmember fits the definition of a "taxpayer" as well as the definition of the SCRUB. This SCRUB is not a commercial competitor of anybody; it speaks for the communities.
Fresh Fields was apparently built anyway, despite the commercial opposition. This bill has nothing whatever to do with commercial developers; it does have to do with quieting and eliminating the voice of the citizens and the right of everybody to be heard on any issue of importance. Philadelphia is one city that ought to remain one city and not a series of separate 20 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 little communities that feel not affected by what happens in any other community because that's just not the fact. Every community is affected by many things that occur throughout the City. When there's trouble in Grays Ferry or in Northeast High or in Northwest Philadelphia, wherever it is, it affects the people in Philadelphia. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment, no matter what the intention, is an ill-advised amendment and ought to be defeated. Thank you. )
Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair, my colleague and I, Councilman DiCicco, have not had an opportunity to have any discussion about this particular bill. We did send a memo around -- I think it was on Friday -- with regard to a proposed amendment, then he made mention of somewhat of a variation on the proposed amendment, I think, trying to give some further clarity to it. 21 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Just for the record, Madam Chair, Councilman DiCicco and I have worked on a number of very high-profile, controversial matters in our time here together. And I think in almost every situation, we were on the same side, trying to get something good done for the citizens of this city, or whatever the matter that was in front of us. There are a lot of groups here to testify, many of whom are residents of my district. And while we have a difference of opinion on this particular matter, we haven't had a chance to share views and opinion in regard to Bill 629. I did want to ask one question just from a procedural standpoint for my colleague. I know that the amendment was read into the record; I don't know whether at this point in time you wish to have any questions about components of the amendment based on your determination or whether testimony will just go forward and we'll pick up things in the course of the hearing, but I did have a couple questions with regard to the amendment before any possible action might be taken on it.
I think testimony 22 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would be helpful, and then we can discuss the amendment, because I know one of the questions will be, what are the boundaries? who decides? I mean, the Liquor Control Board, as you know, generally takes testimony from folks who live within 500 feet of the proposed site of where the license will be placed, so I'm not certain of that either. I'm willing to discuss that and be as reasonable as I can.
But just one other thing before we go further, Madam Chair. With all due respect to Councilman Cohen, when he mentioned the fact -- about the right of people to be able to park on City streets, in case he's not aware of it, there are many communities in this city who have established permanent parking zones. And technically, I guess, you can park there for maybe an hour or two, but you can't park there all day. So there is some precedent as to what taxpayers' rights are. Not everyone can park in Center City or in some places of South Philadelphia where there is 23 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 residential parking permits all day long. You have restrictions. So I just wanted to bring that to his attention. Thank you.
Thank you. Our first witness is Joanne Phillips, from the Managing Director's Office. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President and members of the committee. My name is Joanne Phillips, and I'm the Special Assistant to the Managing Director. The Managing Director's Office would like to offer the following testimony on Bill 000629. Many projects that are developed in the City of Philadelphia require zoning relief to be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Philadelphia Code, Title 14, Section 1805-8 provides that any party may appear before the ZBA. The ZBA traditionally grants wide latitude to 24 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 permit citizens, businesses, and civic associations the opportunity to be heard by the Board and for their concerns to be considered as part of any decision. Typically, the Board requires that applicants meet with neighbors and civic associations in an attempt to reach an agreement with respect to any issues. In the event that an agreement is achieved, the Board typically incorporates that agreement into the decision in the form of a proviso or a condition to any grant of any zoning relief. Developers are well aware of the need to address community concerns when they go to the Board, and they recognize the impact that community opposition has on a project. The change being proposed by Bill No. 19 000629 does not affect the provision that applies to appearances before the Board, but affects the standing of parties to bring an appeal of the decision by the Board to the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas acts as an appellate court to review zoning decisions that are challenged by applicants or protestants. 25 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Under Pennsylvania law, it has been traditionally held that any person aggrieved by a decision of a local agency and who has an interest in the matter had a right to appeal that decision. This typically means that someone that is affected by a decision is because of the impact created by that decision and they have standing to appeal. Normally, a party lives, rents, or owns property in proximity to a proposed development or property and is, therefore, affected by the proposal. These impacts are typically considered by the Board and are addressed by the code, and these impacts are generally related to the land use such as traffic congestion, loss of light and air, or other health and safety impacts. The standard for being an aggrieved party has been well-defined by the courts based and is on a 1975 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of William Penn Parking Garage versus the City of Pittsburgh. In that case, the court held that an aggrieved party is someone who suffers injury to a direct interest that is substantial, immediate, and not a remote consequence of the decision. Under this standard, 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a party needs to have an interest in the outcome of the decision and cannot simply own property within a municipality. This standard has been applied throughout the Commonwealth pursuant to the local agency law, the municipality's planning code, which governs zoning in the surrounding counties and in Philadelphia. The language in the current Philadelphia Code concerning standing debris appeals is slightly different than the local agency law and the and the MPC. Title 14-18071, which governs appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, provides that any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the Board or any taxpayers or any officer, department, board, or bureau of the city may appeal a decision. For many years, this provision was interpreted in a way that was consistent with the local agency law and William Penn, so that a person bringing a court action had to show how they would be affected by a decision. Under this interpretation, citizens, businesses, and civic associations could bring appeals in the Court of Common Pleas to challenge decisions of the Board.
27 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Developers and applicants needed to address community concerns or face opposition to their application by community groups. However, someone with bare taxpayer status alone, such someone from outside a neighborhood or an area, without any other connection to a property or a project, did not have standing to bring a court action to challenge a land use decision. However, in a relatively recent Commonwealth Court decision, SCRUB versus the City of Philadelphia, the court interpreted the taxpayer language in Section 14-18071 literally, and held that a taxpayer, without any other interest in a proposal, could bring an appeal. The court found that the code incorporates aggrieved person standard but also noted that the code included the word "taxpayer" as well. The court, relying entirely on the fact that that the word "taxpayer" is included in the section and that City Council has the authority to enact such an ordinance under the Home Rule Charter, declined to apply the William Penn standard and held that under the code, as currently drafted, any taxpayer can bring an 28 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 appeal. " The benefits of adopting the bill are as follows: First, it's important to understand what the bill will not do. It will not strip any civic association with an interest in the matter of the right to appear before the Board or to bring an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. These groups had those rights before the Commonwealth Court decision and would continue to have that right. Civic groups have always had standing if they are, in fact, affected by a decision, or if they represent members that are affected. This has been the law in Pennsylvania for some time. This bill will not change the right of civic associations to appear or to appeal. Notably, most civic associations are not tax-paying entities and do not benefit from the taxpayer language directly. What the bill will do is bring a level of certainty and consistency to developing property in the City of Philadelphia. If the 29 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taxpayer language remains in the code, applicants and developers are susceptible to challenges from people or groups that have no direct or immediate interest in the particular use of land or construction of a development. Developers should be able to identify and deal with the residents and groups that represent the residents that live near a proposed development and address those concerns. The taxpayer language, as interpreted by the Commonwealth Court, opens the door to a standard so broad that the developer may not even be able to identify who might challenge a particular proposal or know how to negotiate an agreement with neighbors directly affected, as opposed to taxpayers that are not physically located near a project. We have some further concern that without the modification proposed by Bill No. 21 000629 that there may be a negative effect on the ability of neighbors and community groups to negotiate agreements that address the immediate concerns because of transference from outside groups or individuals. Moreover, the "taxpayer" 30 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 designation in the code is not limited to Philadelphia residents, and there are certainly many taxes paid in the City of Philadelphia by nonresidents, and the judge's decision did not limit that taxpayer status to Philadelphia residents. Finally, each ordinance that adds a layer of uncertainty to the development process detracts from the City's ability to attract new development and construction. Developers are well aware of the adverse effects an appeal to the court means for the project: it can mean years of litigation, an inordinate increase in cost, and an inability to deliver a project in a timely manner. This bill will return the law to the way it was interpreted before 1999 and make it consistent with the standards that apply throughout the Commonwealth.
For a business or developer wishing to bring a project or development to the City, it is important that there be a consistent process and an ability to identify and address concerns on a neighborhood level. 31 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
May I ask, how would you propose to protect environmental issues? For example, do we in Philadelphia have any right to be concerned about the drilling of oil wells in Alaska, the cutting down of the timberlands in California?
Or is it only the people in the Alaska who are concerned about the protection of Alaska or the protection of the great forests in California? What about all of the natural treasures?
I think in those cases, which, I think, are different from the Zoning Code, but I think we rely on our government to enforce the law.
Well, the fact is that this whole matter involves an environmental matter. There isn't a single matter that I know of that involves standing -- concerning any commercial development at all. 32 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The issue arose in the case that's being talked about by billboards being erected, and an environment group, SCRUB, concerned about the issue of billboards, protecting the rights of all people to see the sky and not have it blighted by billboards, as in a number of states where all billboards are banned. That's the group that was involved. Now, tell me how your proposal to the Managing Director protects that kind of environmental interest?
Again, I'm going to focus back to a zoning issue, to the extent that there are environmental permits that are needed, there are other processes that are covered. But with respect to a zoning issue, I think what a group like SCRUB would do would be basically what they have done in the past, which was to partner with other neighborhood associations, have individual members that were within that area, or take, as in the SCRUB case, which the court never decided, to have a standing on its own effect to show that it was aggrieved. The court never reached that decision 33 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 in the SCRUB case because it relied solely on the taxpayer status, and it didn't need to address that. I think it would be open for SCRUB to make the case that they are aggrieved or that they are -- you know, they have the right to do that because their members are aggrieved.
But under Pennsylvania law, environmental matters are handled generally through zoning laws, and this amendment does not differ; it deals with a broad brush. In fact, the emphasis by the principal sponsor was economic development, and economic development had nothing whatever to do with the issue that was before the court. The court had an environmental issue. Billboards were being planned in areas throughout the City. Sixteen billboards by one developer.
And this citywide group, SCRUB, concerned about the environment throughout the entire City of Philadelphia, raised an objection before the Zoning Board and went on and pursued the matter in the court. The issue was raised in court that you don't have any right, 34 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you're not (indiscernible) by the billboards billboards.
You're correct in that case, but it's also my understanding that SCRUB has brought many other cases where the taxpayer status was not used or relied on because they had members that were directly affected by a proposal. And it's my understanding that there have been many SCRUB cases that have been taken up and that SCRUB was not told that it did not have standing. In this case, they were relying on taxpayer status alone, and that's all the court addressed. It didn't even address whether they might have other types of standing under any other theory.
What this amendments does, in addition to all of its other elements, is it introduces a whole new series of new questions. When is somebody aggrieved? Do you have to live within 200 feet, 300 feet, 500 feet, 1,000 feet? We say it ought to be if you live in the City or are a taxpayer in the City. That ought to give you the right to have your voice 35 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 heard. Let those who make the decision decide on the merits of the case. What is anybody afraid of? Why do you have to quiet people? Why do you have to prevent them from being heard? Thank you.
It's our view that this ordinance with the amendment does not quiet anyone, and that community groups and neighbors and residents will have the right to be heard. In fact, what will happen is that the right people will be heard, which are the people that are directly affected by a decision. And in all due respect, I think the term "aggrievement" is not something that people don't understand. It's been well-defined by case law. It is true, it is defined in case law, but as much of the Zoning Code is, lots of things are developed by case law. Over time, the people understand what those terms mean. And, finally, just going to the geographic area, I don't think there is a geographic area. You can't designate that it's a hundred feet or a mile because, depending on the development, a person can come in and make the 36 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 statement that I'm going to have increased traffic that will cause congestion here, and that person will have standing because they're showing an impact. So, with all due respect, it is our position that we're not silencing people's voices, that the community groups have those rights and will continue to have those rights.
In a court case in a Commonwealth Court spread over two days last week, the argument was made by a man who wishes to build billboards, 16 faces around FDR Park in South 14 Philadelphia, and the argument of those attorneys 15 was that President Verna, Councilman Cohen, and 16 community groups that were not near this really had no right to be heard, and the only reason they were given standing was because of the language "taxpayer." Now, it seems to me that those of us who are concerned about matters that don't have a local origin -- there is a difference, as you point out, between a local economic development about somebody wanting to build a store somewhere and somebody dealing with environmental matters. 37 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Yet this amendment makes no difference whatever. The effort is to prevent environmental groups from being heard. The economic development story is just a fabric of imagination. No case I know of has ever been risen in the circumstance mentioned by Councilman DiCicco. The only time this has been an issue, to my knowledge, and I believe that my knowledge is complete in this area, but as far as I know, the only time it's ever been raised is in the one case of environmental issues because there is someone who wants to build billboards on City property. And so far, he has not been able to do it. And never had billboards on City property. And he is fearful that SCRUB will oppose it because SCRUB apparently did oppose the group, and I believe I opposed that action, and I think in FDR Park, the citizens group of FDR Park, which has nobody living right in the area of FDR Park, and the attorneys wanted to eliminate these groups. Now, that's the only situation in which a taxpayer situation has developed. So the cloak of interference with economic development just 38 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 doesn't exist.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Miss Phillips, I had a question, and it maybe have to be asked of both yourself and Councilman DiCicco with respects to organization. I'll kind of give you a little history to tell you why I'm asking this question. Some years back, as a young tyke, I got involved in politics, and I got involved as a result of someone wanting to put a junk yard in our community, and at that time, we didn't have any representation by a community organization; we were just, you know, a close-knit community. And there was a zoning hearing that was coming up, and we were advised that if we lost at the zoning hearing, there was the potential for an appeal process, but we didn't have an organization. So we formed an organization that day, and people looked around and said, Who was going to be in charge? and the next thing I know, I was 39 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the only one standing up front 'cause everybody kind of stepped back. And we were told we needed a lawyer, and we hired this guy, his name was John Street, who at the time was just a lawyer. He wasn't an elected official or anything; he was just a guy with a lot of hair on his head.
Yeah, we did, we actually did. We didn't know it at the time, but he turned out to be a good lawyer. And the reason why we were able to obtain him as a lawyer because we were an organization. Called ourselves "The Strawberry Mansion Community Association," and we went out and sought the support of a lawyer. My question has to do with this. In your page -- I guess it's of your testimony, when you talk to civic organizations, and in Councilman DiCicco's amendment, he talks about a neighborhood group or organization, and I guess I'm want to have a sense of the definition of those. I understand that, Councilman, you have dropped "establish," which I didn't, in fact, have 40 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a concern about. But I want to get a sense of what's the definition of a "civic organization" or a "neighborhood group." Can it just be people who kind of did like we did? We saw a problem and we got together, pushed somebody out in front and said they were in charge and went out and got a lawyer to represent them. Can you give me a definition of that?.
Sure. I'm not sure that there is one definition. I think the typical -- there's a whole range of types of groups. There can be actual incorporated nonprofits, there can be actual associations created under State law, there can be just neighbors that get together and form a loose-knit organization that doesn't have any real legal status under State law as a corporation. So I think there's a whole range of what would be a community group.
Who makes that determination? I mean, in your view, who would make that determination at the time of either the zoning or the appeal process? 41 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Right now. The Board typically, if there is a legal entity or if people have been, you know, operating with a group name, they enter their appearance in the name of the group, as well typically, good practice has been to enter in the name of an individual that lives in the area, in case there's some challenge to an organization. But I'm not sure that there is a well-defined -- that there's a defined term that's applied right now at the Board. What typically happens, I guess, is if something goes up on appeal and someone wants to challenge a neighborhood group, they start looking to see what is their organization, are they a corporation, are they an association, or something else. But there's no legal status. I think you probably need to protect -- the community group probably needs to protect itself by coming in the name of an individual as well.
Okay. Understanding that in the political world, sometimes it's difficult for an individual to get the representation, the pro bono representation, in that particular case of a lawyer who has a 42 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 sense of the Zoning Board process, without having that organizational the structure behind it. I mean, a lot of these lawyers have political aspirations, as in the case of our particular lawyer at that time. And I'm just concerned that, you know, this whole issue about what is an organization is a little concerning to me people, because in some communities, people just don't have the wherewithal to go out and get their 501(c.)(3) status.
Frankly speaking, just don't want to go over and get any long-term organization, but they form that organization for that specific issue at that specific time, and I'm concerned about their ability to do that.
I think that often happens, and probably a lot of it depends on what the desire of the neighbors are, whether they want to have an ongoing civic association or whether they do come together for just one matter, but it's good practice, if there is no legal entity under State law, that the people come as 43 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 individuals, and then they are also there as residents, and you don't need the civic group umbrella to protect you because you can be there as an individual, a resident, a neighbor, or someone that lives in the area, and you will have standing to bring that case along with your neighbors.
All right, I understand that, but my concern is the ability to get that pro bono assistance. Most individuals would probably opt against hiring a lawyer. I mean, that's just a reality, you know, to appeal a certain case, even if they disagreed with the Zoning Board's ruling. So I'm just concerned about, you know, the --
Well, often Councilpeople are helpful in helping civic associations get pro bono counsel of some kind.
Well, that was actually my next question with respects to a Councilperson. As a Councilperson who represents an extremely diverse district, I found myself being put in a position to represent those individuals as zoning cases, and my question, I 44 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 guess, is, will a Councilperson have standing for a particular appeal process?
I don't know the answer to that question. I've never researched that question because I guess I've normally dealt with just with the typical practice is, which is except for Councilman Cohen, who, through Robert Jaffe, often enters an appearance as a party. Most of the Councilpeople seem to weigh in with testimony, send letters, send their staff people to make the views of the neighborhood known. So I've never done research on that issue. You know, in this section of the code, it does state that City bureaus and departments do have standing to bring an appeal. So I don't know that that question's actually been answered, and it may be that someone else would need to address that. I've never looked at that issue.
I mean, that's important to me 'cause I obviously don't live in all sections of the district, but at some point in time, I'm assuming that I will be expected to participate in some appeal process as a Councilperson, and if that taxpayer standing is 45 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taken out of the existing language, I'd just like to know where I stand as a Councilperson for an area. I live in Strawberry Mansion. (Applause.)
So I just need to have a sense as to whether or not I can appeal something down in Center City or something.
I will say until Councilman Cohen talked about a recent case, I was not aware of any Councilperson being granted standing by the taxpayer status, so I don't think it's something that's been typically used, although other people may be aware of other cases.
Yes, I just wanted to get (inaudible), I just simply don't know. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Just from a District Council perspective, it would seem to me that the request for Councilmember involvement in 46 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the district would come from the residents in the area where the project's being proposed; therefore, they make a request to their District Councilperson, who then becomes involved, and those residents around the project are the ones both aggrieved, or perceived to be aggrieved, and the ones asking for Councilmembers who represent them as a District Councilperson would also be involved. So I don't think it necessarily -- I know every case is different, but I don't think you necessarily jump into a zoning issue from a District Council perspective unless you are asked. I mean, normally, it's not something that you do without -- if the neighbors aren't unhappy with it, you normally don't jump in to be against it, I wouldn't think. I'm not a District Councilperson so I don't know. And the fact that I'm not a District Councilperson, I don't deal with this every day, but I do -- I'm aware of a couple instances in my immediate neighborhood, where, for example, an individual wanted to build a Burger King in South Philadelphia, and the neighbors were extremely 47 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opposed to it. And I think Councilmember DiCicco may have been involved and the president of the civic association, which is an elected civic association. I think that's also a little bit different too from my perspective that civic associations that are long-standing, who have annual or biannual elections, who have an elected board, an elected presidency, is sometimes in my different than those who just kind of just create a civic association. I know in areas where there's large commercial activity, you'll have two or three established civic associations where the people are elected annually and represent specific geographical districts. And then often you have a group that kind of just exists, is created, and kind of overlays the same area that's been represented for a long time. And a lot of times, those people who kind of create that organization are the people who didn't win the election in the established civic association. So what you have is, Well, I'm a civic group. Well, you are, I guess, in theory, but you 48 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 haven't been elected by anyone, and it's not been a long-standing situation, so you've kind of come up as a result of not winning an election in the established group. So I'm not saying that their opinion shouldn't be taken into account, but it seems that in some areas where there's a lot of commercial activity, there's more groups than you can ever believe. And you try to figure out who it actually is that represents who. But I want to go back to Burger King for a minute. The one on Water Street, yeah, in South Philadelphia. The civic association, along with the District Councilperson, sat down after a period of opposition with the proposed developers of that facility. People were concerned about traffic; trash; hours of operation; originally, the operator wanted to be open hours a day and 20 the neighbors didn't want it; signage; which area 21 of the street they would come in and out of. 22 And over a period of time they went 23 through that whole process and came up with an 24 agreement, and the agreement included give-backs to the community, certain concessions, and also 49 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 perhaps some revenue stream for the local athletic association or church group or whatever. All of that had been designed and agreed to. This did not happen in this case.
But as I understand it now, if I were a member of the civic group or health group in Northeast Philadelphia and I didn't like fatty hamburgers, I would have standing as a taxpayer to be able to come into that situation and become an aggrieved or claim to be an aggrieved party, even though the people who live there and the District Councilpeople represent, the elected civic association people who represent those neighbors all negotiated and agreed to a deal. I would still have standing on that as a taxpayer to stop that project from happening.
Now, let me go to the billboard issue 'cause this seems to be part and parcel of what --
Excuse me, Councilman. If you were a taxpayer of New Jersey, a resident, but a taxpayer in Philadelphia, he would still have standing? 50 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Under the literal reading of the code as it stands right now, yes.
And not necessarily Washington Township, right? (Laughter.)
I would never bring that name up again if I were you. On the billboard issue, though, and I know this becomes an issue of aesthetics and an issue of people's view on what is aesthetically pleasing and what isn't. You have situations in areas of the City where there seems to be a potential compatible use for this kind of advertising and a civic need and a civic activity. For example, if you have an athletic field or an athletic association that's close to interstate 95 or close to interstate 76, and the billboard people or the owner of the company comes and engages this community group, this civic association, the athletic group, the people that live in the neighborhood, the elected officials who represent them, and sit down and work out an 51 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 arrangement where a certain stream of revenue based on the concession of allowing the billboard to be built on their property, not City property, privately owned property, and that revenue stream goes into that civic association, into that athletic group, into that neighborhood is agreed to by the community -- many meetings in the neighborhood, many back-and-forth concerns, concessions, everything is worked out and it's finally come to a conclusion, and everybody who lives in that particular neighborhood is happy, where the theory that someone who just doesn't like that type of advertising has the ability or the legal standing to blow up that arrangement because of a philosophical difference in aesthetics, not in practicality, in aesthetics, it seems to me to be unfair to that neighborhood who worked through that process and was willing to accept that particular intrusion for the benefit of being able to recreate more children, being able to keep their fields in better shape, being able to make the neighborhood a better place to live, even though that pole and that board may be offensive to some people, it doesn't seem to be 52 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 offensive to the people who agreed to have it on their property, for the purposes of bettering their neighborhood generally. And that's -- I guess when people testify from the civic side either for or against this, I, as a Councilmember who has to make a decision on this, would like to know what their opinion is on that, that if you're willing, through the democratic process in your neighborhood, with the help of your civic and elected officials, to come up with an arrangement that makes sense for you as a neighborhood, what right does anyone else have within the City or outside the City to alter or intrude or obstruct that arrangement?
I think you're raising an issue that is of concern, and I think the way that plays out is that if somebody doesn't agree with that land use -- 'cause I really -- you know, these are land use decisions, and if you have some philosophical difference about fatty foods or something, you know, it shouldn't be in a land use forum that you raise those issues. But in the case where it's a land use 53 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 such as a billboard, I mean, I think that the burden is on someone to show that they're aggrieved. And I guess typically in the past, they have substantial -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But offended sensibility, is than an aggrievance? And these are questions I'm asking 'cause as people who are either violently opposed to this or concerned about it or in favor of it can explain that how -- what is the real right of someone who doesn't live in that particular neighborhood, who hasn't participated in the process, and who has not made the value judgment that this revenue stream, these concessions, this opportunity is good for our neighborhood as a whole. I mean, I'll give you a good example, and I'm not suggesting that there's one there. I mean, I live in South Philadelphia, 11th Street, 54 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 but I grew up around Front and Second Street. There's an athletic field there, Edward O'Malley Athletic Association, and no one's proposing a billboard there, so this is just hypothetical. If someone approached them because of their proximity to 95, and understand that the people who live in that neighborhood have had to put up with I-95 for 30 years. So their life has been intruded upon by the federal government through the Highway Act that allowed all of these highways to be built through their neighborhood. So if they believe, with the advice, consent, and cooperation of the industry, the collective officials that this is good for them because it will allow the revenue necessary to keep that field green and active and more and more kids playing on it, which makes their neighborhood a better place, despite the fact that there may be a pole there that's offensive to some people, in the overall scheme of things, they may have the right, or should have the right, or could have the right, to decide what's better for their neighborhood, as opposed to someone who may have to drive that billboard maybe once a month on the 55 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 highway. And I guess that's what I need to hear from people who feel offended from this effort as to how that affects them in the scheme of things.
I have a sense that there are some people here that are going to be able to explain about billboards, and I just want to make the point, this goes far beyond billboards, which you understand, but it does. I mean, it goes beyond that.
I mean, the City made a deal with the Water Department to put a billboard on a property on Pattison Avenue, which is far south of Pattison Avenue, near the train yard down -- as you go down -- if you go to the First Union Center or the Spectrum, down Pattison Avenue and around that bend, beyond south of the Walt Whitman Bridge, I mean, there's no one that lives anywhere near there. And the money that would have been generated from that use would have gone into the City General Fund for a five- or seven- or ten-year period, whatever the arrangement was. And I guess what I have trouble 56 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 understanding is where is the aggrievance is. I understand the offended sensibility, I understand that people simply just hate billboards, as I hate handbill advertising. I can't stop the person from putting that handbill on my door. I can stop them from doing it in a haphazard way, but I can't stop 'em from coming to my door every Friday or Saturday morning. My point is that when you start weighing things, you know, who really is offended at Pattison Avenue south of the Walt Whitman Bridge. I don't think anybody's ever going to live there. And if the City and the Recreation Department or the Health Department or some other department in the City could benefit from that kind of revenue stream, in the balance, I guess we have to figure out where we're going, but I would really like people who are going to testify to explain that particular point that I've raised here. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Good morning, Miss 57 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Phillips.
Let me ask a couple -- just ask a couple informational questions first. Councilman Clarke had raised an issue about standing with regard to Councilmembers. I've spent a little bit of time over at the Zoning Board from time to time or my staff does. I'm involved in a couple of situations where I'm actually the plaintiff in a couple cases, and I was able to attain that status as a member of City Council, both by taking an action here within the Council, but I do not live anywhere near, nor am I a member of a civic organization. My nexus to this is that it's in the district that I represent, my constituents are concerned about it. They did not hire counsel in that particular matter, and so I am the plaintiff and represented by Council, as approved by the City of Philadelphia. Under this particular standard, I would not be able to represent my constituents adequately, from my perspective. 58 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I think your testimony made reference to concern about transactions falling apart or deals falling apart because of, quote/unquote, outside people taking action. Now, first, in many of the instances with regard to the developers who are trying to do whatever it is that they're doing -- some are naturally good and some are bad. Most of the developers are probably from outside the particular area that they're trying to develop; is that correct?
They may be, they may not be. Ultimately, they're going to be in that area because they're going to buy property there, so they'll be a part of the neighborhood.
But in any event, they're going to be taxpayers, right?
Okay. And they don't necessarily live at or near or in the vicinity of all of their property, right? 59 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Okay. So you have outside people trying to do development activity where people live. And so under some of the discussion that took place earlier, the concern was about outside people expressing a view or an interest, when, in fact, in most cases, for large development, it's an outside person trying to develop the particular property. Isn't that right?
I'm not sure. I'd have to -- I'd be making a guess if I -- I believe about 1500, but I --
I don't have that information. 60 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Okay. Of the ones that are appealed, do you have any information or data that indicates whether the appeal was made by a neighborhood person or an outside person?
When was the "or other taxpayer" provision put in the Philadelphia Code?
I don't know when that was put in, but the reason that I say that it really isn't relevant as to when it was put in is that the courts always interpreted --
With all due respect -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
With all due respect, Miss Phillips -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And, therefore, 61 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 it's relevant to me.
I'd have to pull my Zoning Code out and look at when the amendment was, sir. (Applause.)
Okay. Now, would it surprise you to know that since at least 1956, that phraseology has been in the Philadelphia Code?
Okay. And so it's been in the code for 45 years. And would you say that we've had, in addition to a tremendous population loss, would you say that we've had a fair amount of development in the City of Philadelphia since 1945 -- 1956, rather?
I guess so. I can -- I 62 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 know since I've been practicing in Philadelphia since 1987, I've seen a fair amount. So, yes. I don't know what happened before that.
Okay. Now, how many times has it happened that deals or transactions with developments have fallen apart because of this outside appeal influence?
I can't put a number on how many have fallen apart. I can tell you from my experience, when you're counseling people that want to do business in the City, you need to lay out the legislative, the approval process, how it works, who you need to deal with, what the time periods are for approvals, when an appeal can be taken, who can bring an appeal. And all of those things are parts of a decision to come to the City or to stay in the City to build something or do something. And it could be a corner store or it could be something big.
So I can't say whether there's been people that just change their mind and say, I don't want to deal with that, or 63 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 there's people that stick it out and litigate something until they reach an agreement.
And lots of things are built without having any zoning approval at all.
Lots of things are done without needing to go to the Board.
Well, of the cases that you're familiar with, how many times have people who were, quote/unquote, outside -- I don't necessarily know for the moment that we have a definition of "outside," but whatever your definition may be and for whatever it is that you're testifying to, how many people from the outside have engaged in an appeal or entered as a party to an appeal in a zoning case?
I can't say that. You can't look at -- I mean, there are lots of zoning cases. First of all, the issue of standing is something that has to be brought up by a party and raised as an issue. If it's not brought up, then 64 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 people stay in the case.
Right. I'm just trying to quantify and understand the situation. I mean, you know, we've done a few things together and I know that you are an attorney. So, I mean, I have this little quirk about me which gets into a little bit of the details, can you quantify so I can understand how many, what size, how long, all of those kinds of issues. So I'm trying to understand the problem.
And so, that's why I'm asking, if you tell me that we had 1600 cases and there were 200 appeals, and out of 200 appeals, 199 of the people were from outside of the particular area where the variance was emanating from, then I would be able to understand the size and magnitude of the problem. I haven't heard any of that information, so I'm trying to understand what problem it is we're trying to solve here.
Well, I may not be able to help you to quantify the magnitude. I can only tell you that since this decision in 1999, this is 65 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 an issue that has been looked at by people that practice in this area. It is a concern, it's something that you have to tell people doing business that it is a concern. It hasn't been around for very long, so we don't know what will happen. I mean --
But the reason that I told you I wasn't surprised that it was in there is because in my experience, in what was considered the standard was that although you could be a taxpayer, the court still looked for you to be aggrieved somehow. In the Court of Common Pleas, we're applying the William Penn standard along with the taxpayer status, and those cases may never have gone up on appeal, so we never saw a decision by 66 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Commonwealth Court to clarify that until the SCRUB case. And when the SCRUB case got there, the court said, taxpayers in there, that's enough, I don't need to look any further.
Mm-hmm. So let me again, I guess, go back. What information or data or research do we have that indicates how many times this has happened in some number of cases or in the course of a year or so or even since that time.
I guess we could talk to the Zoning Board administrator or then we'd have to look and see what went up on appeal, or the Law Department.
Well, why don't we have them come and tell us what the current situation is?
I mean, someone must know the answer to these questions, right? I 67 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 mean, I'm not chastising you for not necessarily knowing because you're from the Managing Director's Office, and it's not the direct area of your purview. But, I mean, someone in the zoning section should be able -- I mean, they actually know how many appeals happen, they certainly know all of the ones that go up on appeal because the City then has to step in and defend the actions of the Zoning Board, so they know all of the plaintiffs, all the defendants, all the issues that have been raised, and we could get that information from Zoning, couldn't we? Or from the code Enforcement Unit. (Ms. Phillips confers with Otis Haigler off the record.).
I'm sure we can get that you information, but even if there wasn't one single case, I would still stand by my testimony that going forward in the future --
Okay. And I will be happy to -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over 68 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
I'm asking a question and I think I'm entitled to an answer.
Okay. I appreciate your statement. You know, you got your story and you're going to stick to it. I understand you have your testimony and that's the way it's going to be. I'm just trying to understand the parameters of what drives that.
Now, tell me how many economic development projects fell apart as a result of this occurrence that you're concerned about.
I think to the extent that you want to ask me any questions about the exact number of a project, I am not going to be able to answer that to your satisfaction, and I'll be happy to try and track down that information. But what my view is on this, my testimony really relates to the legal implications of having that word in there, and I don't think I could satisfy 69 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you on terms of numbers.
And the concern is, again, that someone -- I mean, we could very, very easily -- probably with the insertion of a word, we could very easily remove, I'm sure, the concern that if someone was concerned about it -- Well, let me ask this before I ask that question. Are you aware generally if anyone from either New Jersey, the State of New Jersey, or the counties of Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, or Chester are intervening in a Philadelphia zoning case?
No, but I think that's a case you could -- that would be the next case to happen.
Okay. And so if that were a concern, for instance, if anyone had that concern, I might have that concern, we could probably eliminate that very easily by where it says -- what's the phraseology, "or any taxpayer"? You could probably say "or any resident taxpayer," right?
That would 70 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 eliminate New Jersey, Delaware, New York and all of the four counties around us.
Okay. Now, tell us a little bit about standing. Aren't there different standards for standing as it relates to what happens at the Zoning Board versus what happens in court? Are there different standards for standing?
There may be different standards before the two. The Board --
I think that's an open issue that maybe has never been decided by the courts in Philadelphia. And this is sort of information that gets discussed at a CLE course for zoning lawyers. The reason I say that is, any party can appear before the Board, any person can come. They can speak their piece, they can make their complaints, they can speak in favor of something.
It's not entirely clear legally whether that alone whether, just coming to the hearing, would be enough to give you standing to bring an appeal. That's the caveat I'm saying. It's not entirely clear to me just by showing up in favor of something or against something.
Showing up at the Zoning Board. I mean, you need to be aggrieved. It's two different places, and you can come to the --
My experience has been -- I mean, the Board will pretty much allow anyone to fill out one of the little appearance slips, and when your case is called, at some point, they'll say, you know, does anybody else have anything to say? I mean, I think they're, you know, fairly open --
-- in terms of allowing people to speak their piece, but that's a different standard over at the Board where, I mean, some of it just, you know, the common courtesy extended to people who take the time to 72 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 show up and get through the security people down at One Parkway and all of that versus over at Common Pleas Court.
You're right. And what would happen is that people could appear at the Board, they would fill out their paper. If there was an appeal, they would get a notice saying that you can intervene as a matter of right, but I think -- I'm just being honest with you -- once get to that point, if there were lawyers that wanted to try or clients that wanted to keep you out of something, they would look to see whether you met the aggrieved party standard and whether, even though you appeared at the Board, you may not live anywhere near that. And at the Court of Common Pleas, it might be possible that you would not have standing to go forward at that forum.
Okay. Let me ask this question. One of the proposed changes to the originally proposed amendment -- I'll say "the originally amendment" was something that was circulated but not read into the record, and then a new amendment was read into the record. And I think the Councilman tried to remove, as I said 73 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 earlier, some lack of clarity around what was a community-based organization and very adroitly moved to another section of the code, (7)(c), in Section 14-807, I believe it is, that talks about what a community group is and what a community group is not. Now, under this definition in (7)(c), what would be the status of the Preservation Alliance or the Foundation for Architecture, under this proposal?
I think what they would do is, they would show their interest in that area and how they're aggrieved. They would have to show what their interest in the decision is.
Well, but I'm just -- again, I'm just trying to understand, and I know you're an attorney and I'm not, and I mean, I don't want you trying to take advantage of me from a legal standpoint.
The section reads, "For the purposes of this paragraph, a community or neighborhood group or organization shall be a 74 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 group or organization composed primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal." Now, how would either of those two groups prove that they are covered by that standard?
What they would do is show that their members live in that vicinity. It's a derivative standing. They represent members that live in that vicinity.
Well, I understand that. See, then -- now you want to use the law against me.
But at that point, is the organization allowed to appeal or do they have to have the individual members in their individual capacities? 75 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
It's my view that the organization would have standing to appeal because their members live in the vicinity.
Suppose they don't have any members that live in the vicinity?
Then they would have to show how they were impacted by a decision as an aggrieved party.
Because it's their work, it's their life mission to look after or architecture or, I mean, whatever the purpose of the group or organization is. All I'm asking is -- I mean, I guess --
We don't have to dispute, I guess, the legitimacy of either the Preservation Alliance or Foundation for Architecture. I mean, can we agree and kind of stipulate for the record that they are two valid, legitimate groups that have expressed an interest in the ongoings of matters in Philadelphia for however long they've been around? And you're saying that in the one instance, under this definition, if they could show and prove that they had members who were either tenants or property owners in one particular case, they would have standing; but if in the event that somehow, some way, one of their members wasn't smart enough to buy a piece of property in this other situation, the same group would not have standing in another case? Is that your testimony?
No, that's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they would be able to make the case that their organization alone was impacted by a decision, but it would be a decision that would have to be determined by a court -- if somebody raised the 77 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 standing and objected to their involvement in the case on the basis of standing.
Let me ask this question. Were you around for the Liberty Place debate in 1984?
No, I was in law school at that point. I read about it in the paper.
Right, I know. It's probably in some history books by now. There was a big debate, height standard, breaking Billy Penn, and all of that. In this scenario -- now, I don't live anywhere near Center City, but I do have some particular views about the issue. Are you saying 78 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that as a resident of Wynnefield, I should have no 3 right whatsoever to weigh in on that particular discussion, which is of a large, citywide, generally controversial perspective, and that because I don't own a piece of property on 17th Street, I don't get a voice in that matter?
The way that I think you would weigh in on that -- the way that I think a citizen would weigh in on that would be through their Council representatives and through the Mayor's Office.
And at the time, I wasn't in City Council, so I'm asking you as an individual. Suppose -- I mean, maybe my Councilperson doesn't like me, which I could understand, back in 1984. (Laughter.)
Or said, you know, 79 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 "Very interesting, good-bye." I'm asking, what right do I have as a citizen, taxpayer, and resident of the City of Philadelphia to weigh in on large, controversial, important matters in this city, in that particular situation? I don't belong to a civic organization, I don't own a piece of property, I don't belong to a large group like Foundation for Architecture or Preservation Alliance or any other group or organization. I'm just a Joe Schmoe who rides into town every day and I'm trying to figure out, what are we going to do now with a 60-story building? For the record, I supported the One Liberty Place project as a resident having no 17 particular involvement directly with the government.
My view on that is that you would not have -- you would not have standing or a right to appear at the Zoning Board for that case, but what you would have is your voice through your elected representatives to pass whatever laws were needed to either permit that building or development or to not permit that 80 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 building or development. And that's the essence of the democratic process, is that we act through our representatives and that's --
There have been circumstances and situations, not only in this city but in this country where the elected representatives were not representing the interests of the people. (Applause.)
And more poignantly, whether it's in the law or in our representation -- I mean, you talked about a new interpretation from the William Penn case in 1975, and now there's been an interpretation in 1999 by the Commonwealth Court. Well, I don't have to preach to you that the law is a live and fluid thing; it changes over time. Had there not been a different interpretation of the Constitution at some point in time, I wouldn't be doing this job, I'd still be picking cotton somewhere. 81 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 So, I mean, change happens. (Applause.)
And we don't always get -- and you don't always get redress directly through the representatives, which is why different groups and organizations and individuals have had to take it upon themselves to get redress or go to court or voice their views in many circumstances and situations. So I'm just trying to understand, again, why we want to have, I guess, a lesser standard or a lesser amount of rights for people in our town -- and the President's been very understanding -- and only understand that in the context of what has happened or what does someone think may happen that will cause some demise of our present situation, which is why I asked for the data and the information. I mean, again, I'm a reasonable person. If the information is out there that this stuff has been going on, that the town is on the verge of implosion because of people abusing the system -- I believe in a whole lot of rights, I do not believe in abuse of rights and of the system. 82 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And so if I had that data and information, I'd be able to better to understand the circumstance and situation. Madam Chair, I do have a number of other questions, but you have --
I'd just like to let my colleagues know that we have approximately 42 witnesses who would like to be heard. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, ma'am. I think Councilman Nutter really touched on a lot of the issues that I was talking about, but developers usually come into the City, and it seems like the only mention I've heard today is about developers, and usually the underlying aspect about this is about billboards and the impact they have on the environment, and that's been unsaid. But I think that this is also about 83 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 money and the impact that money has on legislation. And developers come from, as Michael said, from all over, especially from outside, and projects are usually in neighborhoods, and taxpayers pay for those projects. And they are not distinguished. If there is a project in Delaware Avenue that is taxpayer-funded by tax abatements, by tax relief, by the giving of land, we don't say only the taxpayers that live around Delaware Avenue are going to be the only ones that are going to pay for that, do we?
So it's all of the taxpayers across the City who pay for it.
When there is economic assistance, again, that's something that is typically run through the Council and elected officials for their voice.
In what instances? If a tax abatement is given by the City, every 84 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taxpayer of the City is given that tax abatement, not just a segment of it, is it not?
The abatement would stop the increase in taxes but still is a base tax being paid by that property.
It means that income is not coming into the City; it means that the individual is not paying taxes, it means that we're not contributing to the school system. So it means that we are denying ourselves as a city, as a city, of the taxpayer -- the taxes that this individual is going to pay. And we're denying the children all across the City of the tax money that should be going to the school. Is it not?
I -- I can't really speak totally tax abatement but what I would say is --
Answer me this -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
No, but the question 85 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 is, that is all of the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia that are hurt or --
No, I don't think that's true necessarily because what you've decided by giving the tax abatement is that there are other economic benefits in terms of wage tax and other things like that.
But, again, every taxpayer of the City either benefits or does not benefit, not just one small segment of it.
The word "taxpayers" in any ordinance is there because we're all citizens of one area. We're not a Balkanized city. What this legislation tries to do is Balkanize the City, and I think if it goes through, it's going to be the most hurtful -- and I hope that it would be overturned -- type of legislation that can pass. You will be putting neighborhood against neighborhood, community organization against community organization. And community organizations generally are going to be -- 86 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Applause.)
Sometimes a community organization may act against its interest because it can't get money, and some big and deep-pocket corporation comes in says, You know, we're going to blight your neighborhood; however, we're going to give you $50,000 so you can buy skates and gloves and so on, but we are going to affect the rest of the area, but your organization is going to be benefitting. But we are not a city just of neighborhoods; we are a city that is impacted by every decision that is made. And if you eliminate the word "taxpayers," you're eliminating the citizens of this city, and you're saying that one neighborhood may have more power than any other citizen or one taxpayer who lives two blocks away. And I don't -- I don't think when there's the issue of citywide interest, it isn't about just a street-corner cop; this decision will affect citywide zoning decisions. (Applause.)
When the issue of 87 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 placing the stadium in South Philadelphia is not a decision of the South Philadelphians alone; that impacts on the whole city because all of the taxpayers of the City are paying for it. When it was Chinatown, it was because all of the citizens -- it wasn't just the Chinese community that was impacted; it was every citizen of the City. The neighborhoods in South Philly or Chinatown may have some interest in terms of noise and other traffic and so on, but in terms of overall investment and commitment of taxpayers' money and the decision about eliminating any taxpayers can only -- and we've been trying to fight the influence of money in this Council now and tried to fight -- and put in campaign finance reform so that we could limit the influence of money. And this is about the influence of money, and one segment of one industry trying to be able to eliminate the opposition that is preventing them from blighting the City with billboards all across the City. If we had had this legislation, North Philadelphia -- the fight against billboards in North Philly against the liquor industry would not 88 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have been possible, because the liquor industry was willing to put as much money as possible in order to have their billboards in black and Latino neighborhoods. If this legislation was in place, that fight would have been incredibly harder, probably impossible, because they would have been able to give to community organizations. The liquor industry, just like Phillip Morris today is giving to national Latino organizations, just like Phillip Morris, just to prevent them from going ahead and opposing tobacco across the board. Eliminate the taxpayers and you eliminate the citizens of Philadelphia from City interests. Everything that happens in this city affects every one of us. It prevents us from becoming a city. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam 89 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Chair. With all due respect to Councilman Ortiz, and I understand his concern and his enthusiasm against this bill. I coach youth ice hockey and have been doing it for a number of years. I'm also involved in raising money for a number of athletic associations within the City, in my neighborhood and outside. There is a billboard deal that was done with the Rizzo Rink and the Pennsport Civic Association on a billboard east of I-95, on the property adjacent to the rink. There are about 200 kids who are now engaged in athletics in that community that couldn't afford the equipment, that couldn't afford to be a part of the organization, a part of the group, that are off the street corner every night of the week in the wintertime, that have someplace to go, that are learning from others learning from others, that are learning from adult coaches. To discount the ability of neighborhoods to help themselves create a better quality of life when they agree to accept an intrusion, when they agree-- they had to agree to 90 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 accept an intrusion, or the intrusion wouldn't have happened. That overall benefit for that community group, that civic association, that athletic group, and the 200 additional, additional, children that are recreated through that program is not something that should simply be dismissed, because it's very important, it's very real, and it makes the neighborhood there a much better place. You said, Well, these billboard people and these companies will buy these people off with $50,000 to shut them up. Well, let me tell you something, the revenue generated from that billboard that goes to that group has a direct, real impact in the lives of those kids on a daily basis, because if not, they'd be standing on the corner drinking beer and graffiti-ing up the neighborhood. Now, if you want to be against billboards, that's fine, but you cannot say that this does not have in some way an overall positive on that neighborhood, that that neighborhood made that decision. It wasn't jammed to them: there were community meetings, there was a vote taken by 91 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the board, along with the rest of the community. And maybe if some people don't like the billboard, that's fine. I'll tell you what I like: I like going on a Saturday morning and watch a couple hundred kids fully outfitted in ice hockey equipment, doing something productive and positive in their neighborhood. And I'll tell you what, if that's the kind of deals we have to make 'cause government can't afford to provide that service for us, then that's the deal we're going to have to make. And I'll tell you something else -- (Applause.)
From Councilwoman Verna's perspective, that South Philadelphia site for baseball or football wouldn't have happened if the people of South Philadelphia didn't want it to happen. They agreed to it and that's the reason why it's there. Because if they weren't accommodated, if things weren't done for them that were necessary, if she didn't insist on the things that were necessary to keep that neighborhood at least somewhat happy, they would be putting those 92 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 two stadiums somewhere else other than South Philadelphia. So to argue that the immediate neighborhood that's affected, you say, by traffic (inaudible) come were with me on a Saturday morning to the Rizzo rink or to the (indiscernible) Association Gym or to any of those areas that have benefitted because of that, and I'll show you a positive quality of life, billboards aside. I don't like 'em either, but you know what, what are you going to do, what are you going to do about it? I mean, they're all over the place, and if I can get some benefit to those kids directly because of that arrangement, then I think a positive thing and I think we're doing our job. (Applause.)
(Not fully audible, initially off-mic.) Is it an aggrievement against everybody who goes by? I mean, and neighborhoods can make --
Let me ask you a question: How often do you ride be Front and 93 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Washington Avenue on 95?
Not every day, but often enough. But it is a thing of coming into this city, it's how this city represents itself and how it looks to everybody that comes into our area.
And we are big into that, I mean, how we present ourselves as an image to the City. And we should not. Kids in this city -- like I said, I raised it from the corporate sector, you raised it from the corporate sector. And hopefully, we don't have to raise it by selling and creating blight across the City. (Applause.)
You may call it "blight," but -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You had your say, you had your say. (Applause.) 94 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
(Speaking over applause.) The last time we had clapping to try to shut people up was during the stadium fight, so if people want to do the same thing that was done during the stadium argument by clapping so that people can't talk, then go right ahead, that's your democratic right.
Let me tell you something, it's not your decision to make for that neighborhood that that is blight. It's that neighborhood's decision to make.
You're not a citizen of Pennsport. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I don't think that my colleagues should -- 95 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You are not a citizen of Pennsport. They made that decision; it's their right to make it.
-- that affects me as a citizen of Philadelphia by any community. (Applause.)
Because it affects the overall environment of the City of Philadelphia.
How does that affect you at Front and Washington Avenue?
In your opinion, but not in the opinion of the people who live there. That's the difference. 96 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I have an opinion. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But the democracy usually works that most of the people who want something get it.
But there is 1.5 million Philadelphians and they cannot be Balkanized into neighborhoods.
Come with me Saturday morning to Rizzo Rink, I'll show you a good neighborhood.
Miss Phillips, Miss Phillips, let me just ask you a question. You heard about the proposed billboards at FDR Park. Under the new bill, the Friends of FDR Park and the Packer Park Civic Association would still be able to fight this, would they not? 97 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
They would have the right -- they had the right before. The amendment doesn't affect that right. In fact, with the language change, it just clarifies it.
Fine, thank you. As I indicated, we do have 43 witnesses to testify, and in order to give everyone a chance to testify, we will give every witness three minutes. Are there any further questions of Miss Phillips? (No further questions.)
Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that to the Managing Director's Office and the Administration, the involvement of the communities is of utmost 98 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 importance, and I just want to leave with that note. We do it all the time and we want to continue to do it.
Thank you very much. Otis Haigler, Jr. from L&I. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. I'll be very brief. Good day, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 000629, which, if enacted, will amend Section 14-1807 by deleting the phrase "or any taxpayer" from this section. Since the bill will not impact on the Department of Licenses and Inspections's ability to enforce its provisions, the Department offers no objections to its enactment. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any question you may have at this time. 99 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you very much, Mr. Haigler. I don't believe there are any questions. Thank you. Oh, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
This may not necessarily -- Miss Phillips, maybe you can answer this. I just wanted some clarity on a question I asked earlier about a Councilperson's standing. In the code, in Subsection 14-1807, it's -- it states that a person or persons jointly or severely aggrieved by any decision of the Board or any taxpayer or any officer. . . And my question is, is "any officer" referencing Councilmembers or elected officials of the City of Philadelphia?
I really don't know that. I really wouldn't be able to answer that. That seems like a legal interpretation, and that's something for --
Miss Phillips, would you please take the witness table 100 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and perhaps you can respond to this question. (Miss Phillips returns to the witness table.
Councilman Clarke, I don't think that Miss Phillips heard your question. Do you mind repeating it?
It was with respects to the question I had asked earlier about the Councilperson's standing in a particular appellate case. And in Section 14-1807 of the code, number 1, it says: "Any person or persons jointly or severely aggrieved by any decision of the Board or any taxpayer or any officer. . . " And my question is, does any officer represent an elected official?
I've been advised that the Law Department has spoken about this issue while I was here, and it is their understanding that an officer would be a Councilperson that would have standing, based on that language.
Okay, all right. Thank you. 101 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 All right, thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of either witness? (No further questions.)
Thank you both very much. Joe Beller, Spring Garden Civic Association. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you, Madam President and members of the committee. I am Joseph Beller. I am an attorney in the City of Philadelphia, and I've been asked by Spring Garden Civic to voice its approval of this bill. We feel that it strengthens the position of the neighborhood associations, that the neighborhood associations will continue and, in fact, under the amendment, completely and clearly have the power. The obvious reason for it being that when something happens in a neighborhood covered by a civic association, whether it be our civic association or some other, that those are the folks that have the most direct 102 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 interest in it. And I heard the word "Balkanization," and I hope that that's not what it means. This city is divided --
-- into different Councilmatic District. And each Councilman, by Charter, not by nastiness and not by legislation, but by the City Charter, has certain prerogatives. I cannot ask you to do certain -- well, as president, maybe you can, but certainly, I couldn't ask Councilman Clarke to rule on something that would happen in Councilman Nutter's district under the City Charter, like electrification of newsstands -- I've been here on that issue before, but it's his prerogative in his direct and only his prerogative, and no other Councilman can step on his to. So we do have ample evidence that neighborhoods are important and civic associations are important, and that's why we're (indiscernible). It's not to cut down people's rights. I believe that any person can appear. 103 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The Zoning Board is very liberal, and if they have something to say that should be taken into consideration that's overall important, it will be heard, because it says -- and, you know, the question -- this is a question of appeals. Appeals are costly. You then get into the question of -- suppose some taxpayer, this person, whoever it is, this mythical person we talked about who doesn't really live in the neighborhood, doesn't have direct concern, the association is for it, the neighbors are for it, and this person is against it. He creates an organization, and I've seen some of those. Does he now get a free record, which may cost 2, 3, or $400 that the City Council and every taxpayer pays for? He takes his appeal up, and the City Council has to hire someone to do findings of fact, conclusion of law. And while that's happening, the citizen taxpayer who's asking to use this property may have to wait, and it may waste a year or two. And in many of those cases, these are properties that are vacant and not producing income in the sense of not helping people. 104 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 So we feel that it's very, very important that the neighborhoods and the neighborhood associations and the people who live there get the paramount, and that they're not competing against an organization that doesn't have anything to do with the neighborhood.
Thank you, Mr. Beller. Any questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Wait, before you leave, you represent the Newsstand Association in the City of Philadelphia.
And we had some legislation before this Council -- which is still on hold, by the way -- in which we discussed basically creating a more uniform and, in my opinion, a much more attractive newsstand.
And during those hearings, much of the opposition had to do with the fact that in order to get these newsstands built and installed and to continue to be maintained -- meaning graffiti removal, damages repaired, et cetera -- would have required for a certain amount of space on the newsstand to be provided for advertising.
And there was a significant amount of opposition -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- to that proposal because, I guess, quote/unquote, people were offended by advertising, or they don't believe that we should have any more advertising in the City. And that was one of the issues that we had to deal with.
And from our point of view, one of the major problems with why it's being stalled -- because, frankly, these stands cost a lot of money, like $20,000, in that range, or more, and particularly if they have heat and light and air-conditioning. 106 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And the fact that people have objected to that is why we can't go forward, because no 4 outside interest -- when I say "outside," I'm talking about people in the City, advertisers in the City -- businesses in the City can't utilize them, and as a matter of fact, that --
Even though advertising is permitted on newsstands today.
And without any regulation as to the size and the amount of advertising on that newsstand. And what we were in effect doing was basically reducing the number of advertisements that could be placed on a newsstand anywhere from as much as they can hold now down to three.
The attempt was by you and by us to make it manageable and not unsightly. And, of course, it was still argued that it was a blight and, therefore, certain members wouldn't go for it.
And my point is, if the residents and business or property owners in the vicinity of Fourth and Chestnut were to 107 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 agree that the new newsstand, which is out there and has been there about a year, 'cause it was one of the prototypes --
That it was okay and it was something acceptable to them. Someone from the other part of the City could come in now and appeal the Zoning Board decision because they particularly, or not particularly, warm to the idea of additional advertising.
Absolutely. The way that the act is presently written, any taxpayer means "any taxpayer" -- that's what the court said. There is one problem, and I hope that I'm correct. I don't know of any other governmental organization, whether it's a municipality or a city of the second or third class or first class -- we're the only first-class city, but I don't know if Pittsburgh -- I don't know of any other jurisdiction that has the taxpayer in it. It's got the aggrieved. Now, I may be wrong, but I've seen 15 or 20 different zoning codes, and in the not-too-far past, I've gone into other counties in 108 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Pennsylvania, and none of them have that protection, by the way, and those places don't fall apart because of that, especially with the way -- as I said before, especially with the way our zoning board works. Anybody can come in -- I think Councilman Nutter said -- and fill out the little appearance slip, and they will listen to anyone who wants to speak, whether he's from the neighborhood or he's not from the neighborhoods. And if he has a valid point, they will consider it. This is really a question of just the appeals and a question, as I say, from a Civic association's point of view of someone's that come in from outside the area having as much say or as much right to appeal. So a civic association might vote for something, whether for the reasons Councilman Kenney spoke about, or just because they like it, it's a part of their overall development. And someone else could appeal it. You could hold up, in some cases, the construction of homes. Forget billboards, I mean, that's a button that people push. 109 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You could come in and decide -- if I had to go as an attorney and I asked for a variance from the City because you require 144 square feet behind a home for a single family and 100 square feet for every family thereafter, in a lot of places, in old Philadelphia and in a lot of places in Philadelphia, you might have 220, you might have 140, you might have a 3-foot alleyway and almost no rear yard, and the Board grants that variance. Anybody from -- no matter where he or she or it, being an organization, lives could appeal that to the courts and hold me up because I'm not going to let a client of mine build a house and have someone say rip it down two years from now. And that's the problem. And we are told before we go before the Board -- for those of us who practice before the Zoning Board, and I'm privileged to do that, we know that we always say to our people, because we're going to be asked, check in with your local Councilperson. Someone called Councilwoman 110 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Krajewski's office last week to find out where the civic association was, or should we talk to someone specific, because that's where we know the Zoning Board is going to key in on generally. They're going to want to know, have we made the neighbors happy or at least less than unhappy. And in some cases, you can't do it and you keep fighting, and in some cases you walk away. But the truth of the matter is that's the focus, and when you take something like this and you give standing to appeal to any person who happens to pay taxes in the City, you take the focus away. And as I said before, the City Charter set up the districts. Well, I wouldn't go in her district and tell her what to do if I were you.
Your testimony is very interesting, but your three minutes has been up a long time ago. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. Did you want ask a question?
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Beller, I apologize. I missed the beginning of your testimony. Now, did I understand that you're today representing a civic group?
Okay. And to your credit, you did mention that you do practice at the Zoning Board. We've, I think, worked on a couple matters together.
And in that capacity, you represent both, I guess, civic groups and individuals. Have you ever had a case to represent like a developer? 112 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
As long as there's no 6 conflict, I would work both, but I --
I understand, but in terms of today's testimony, I mean, you do have a couple of different hats.
I'm speaking for the association, but I'm also trying to add a little of my own experience. I've been appearing before the Board for, I guess, close to 40 years now. I've been through a number of reincarnations over at the Board, so --
Right, right, you've seen a few things. Now, did I also understand you to say that you wanted to preserve the notion that I guess the local group, you know, kind of had their say and that, again, this concept of the outsider or the "any person," as you made reference to my earlier statement, anybody can come in and fill out their appearance slip, and the Board will hear them. 113 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
All right. What's -- to the best of your knowledge and information, what's the Board approval rate of appeals to the Zoning Board?
Very -- the Zoning Board is sustained, I would make a venture to guess that -- and there are some others who are going to speak who may have a slight difference. I would guess that the Zoning Board is upheld 80-some percent of the time.
A person makes application and they're denied by L&I, they have to appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
For how many of those cases does the Zoning Board ultimately approve? Just a percentage. Do you have a sense of it?
Yeah, I have a sense, just 114 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 from having been there. I would say the majority but not the vast majority. And there's a reason for that --
Well, it's my understanding that it's in the 90 percentile range.
Well, the reason I say that is that I have been there on many a day where certain particular types of use, which are very, very vocally disputed and fought by neighborhood groups just don't get a chance.
Well, I mean, it's not a complaint, it's not a judgment. It's just -- again, it's in the realm of factual 115 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 information. There are -- I believe --
-- this information was gleaned by the Department of a review on an annual basis of all of the appeals that go over there and what the approval rate is, and it is in excess of 90 percent.
Councilman, I'm sorry. How many are withdrawn prior to that final approval or disapproval because they are on a sure route to disaster?
Those are adjudicated cases. I'm talking about actions actually taken by the Board. If you walk up and realized that you're about to get your but the kicked and you withdraw case, it doesn't count. I'm talking about some testimony, heard the case, people said whatever they said, decision made. In cases where they make a decision, they are over 90 percent approval of whatever the person came in and asked for. Now -- but this person, this outside, 116 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 inside neighborhood, vicinity, in the vicinity, not in the vicinity, whatever, they show up, they give their say. As a practicing attorney, just because someone has a say, it doesn't mean that they have a good case, correct?
So when the case goes up on appeal, do you think the court should be more interested in where the person came from or where they happen to live or do they have property or not, or are they looking at the law? What's the standard for the appellate court when a case comes up from ZBA through the Common Pleas Court.
What they look to see is whether the Zoning Board has abused its discretion, and by that, they look to see --
Do they take into 117 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 consideration where the person came from? Or do they look at the law and see how it applies to that particular case?
Let me take you down the path. The Zoning Board says yes. They now find what is called "findings of fact," and they find as a fact that Mr. Smith, this person you're talking about, said that any tower over 37 feet will fall down if you sneeze at it. Now, if they make that finding, they've abused the discretion scientifically one would think, but you've got to sets of problems. In the first place, it's the reasonable standard: that is what a reasonable person looking at what the Board looked at, conclude what the Board, not what you judged -- making you a judge now, not what you approve of it. That's number one. Number two, the Commonwealth Court has said over and over and over again, the issue of credibility is before the Board 'cause they saw that person.
And I can say to you that a person who is not connected as closely as maybe a neighbor is or whatever, his say -- if they adopt his say, yes, it would be influential. It's hard to know what the Board is looking at, and I --
But we're not at the Board -- we've passed the Board. The Board said yes, they wrote up their findings of fact, they ended up in Common Pleas Court, and the Common Pleas Court agreed with the Board, the person appeals, they go to Commonwealth Court. What happens more often times than not? The Commonwealth Court looks to see whether the Board abused their discretion or made a violation of law. The question here is, does the person have a case, not whether do they have a right to stand there or say what they say or do they know what they know or do they live three blocks away or do they live three miles away? The question is, did the Board and the lower court follow the law?
And if you live next door and have no case, you will lose, right?
See, I disagree with that, because if you live next door and you go to your Councilperson, and that Councilperson takes an active role and two other neighbors support you or four other neighbors support you, and I'm talking about two and four, that Board will very often go with the neighbors.
Mr. Beller, I'm not talking about the Zoning Board. We're not here talking about the Zoning Board; we're talking about appeals to court.
The court will overturn only those that they feel were an abuse of discretion. And I don't know the percentage of --
The law, as they 120 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 understand at that time, yes.
And so your proximity to the location is less important as compared to whether you have a legitimate case.
That's the only issue that I'm raising here. If you live next door and you're on appeal --
If you're saying this is de minimis, I'm saying to you that if you're the one that's waiting two years or three years to build or to construct or to buy, you're going to say good-bye, if you have a contingency in your account. What you're doing if you leave "taxpayer" in, and that's your prerogative, you're the Councilman. If you leave "taxpayer" in, I'm not suggesting you give nobody the right to appeal, but when you were out of the room, the question was raised whether Councilpeople are officers in the meaning and the answer is yes. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
If you give an appeal to 121 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 someone who, in my opinion, only connection, only connection with the matter is that they're a taxpayer, you're giving a weapon to someone that can hurt my client. That's what I'm saying to you. And I'm saying to you that --
One, it's been around for 45 years, at least 45 years; and two, in the other matter that you made reference to, why don't you just change the zoning?
Why don't you just change the zoning, why don't you just seek redress from your representative and go to the government and have the zoning change so you didn't have to go to the Zoning Board at all?
But there's a thing called "spot zoning." I would love to have zoning changed in some areas throughout the City, and if you introduced it in your district, other people, including any taxpayer, could come in and say that 122 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 what you've done was -- you've done a too limited area, and he would want you to do a whole comprehensive plan, and I don't have to tell you how long that takes to get a comprehensive plan changed.
And more than likely, I would exercise some level of discretion as to how big the area was, how small the area was, or anything else.
Sometimes the only place to go is to the Zoning Board. Sometimes that's the only place to go.
But what you do by throwing "taxpayer" in, and which I said no other county in Pennsylvania that I know of --
There is no other 123 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 county like the County of Philadelphia, there is no other city of the first class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well you know. (Applause.)
That doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean that it's right or wrong because it's the only one like it.
It's not a right or a wrong issue. I mean, you know, it is what it is.
It's an issue. Frankly, if I were Council, I'd make another amendment. I'd put the word "Councilman" in it. I wouldn't rely on the word "officer," 'cause --
'Cause some judge might interpret "officer." So I'd put the word "Councilman" in it.
I appreciate that. Thank you. 124 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Mr. Beller. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Our next witness is John DiGiorgio from SPCCA and UNICO Village. (Witness comes forward.)
I am now wearing two hats today Mr. John Palmieri, who is a vice president of SPCCA was here also to testify on behalf of the amendment and had to leave because of the press of other business. SPCCA and UNICO Village have both requested that I appear in support of the amendment because of experiences that both of those organizations have had in attempting to voice their position with regard to zoning issues and finding that their positions were not the 125 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 determining factor in legal issues, and that actually the determining factor was an organization, or organizations, that were not from our neighborhood, that did not include the residents from our neighborhood, that had a specific agenda -- in this particular case, an opposition to outdoor advertising -- that didn't affect us. We were asked on two occasions to state a position with regard to outdoor advertising near the bridge, on Pattison Avenue, I think the one that Councilman Kenney referred to, and also with regard to an area adjacent to I-95 in Eastwick. Our -- we studied the issues, we determined that the advertisement itself was going to be strictly controlled in terms of a prohibition of non-advertisement of alcohol or cigarettes, that the displays were not going to be near any residences, that no residences would be affected. Thirdly, that because these were leases from the City of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia would be profiting from the arrangements by virtue of a percentage of the income realized. 126 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 We voiced our support or non-opposition to these particular projects, and were surprised to learn that it appeared that the real controlling force were interlopers, an organization with a specific aesthetic agenda that didn't interest -- that didn't affect our own neighborhood interest, and our position was defeated. The other example I would like to cite to the committee is an example that I've learned of secondhand, and that is a Presbyterian minister in the Germantown area reached an arrangement in which a billboard was to be erected upon a church property. This special-interest organization intervened and nearly squelched a deal in which the church was to realize revenue from the advertising. Fortunately, the clergyman was able to succeed, but it is an example of how these special-interest groups can intervene in issues that don't affect them that are peculiarly pertinent to the interests of the neighborhood and its residents and can frustrate the intentions of the residents.
Thank you. 127 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Perfect timing. Your three minutes are up. Any comments or questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Our next witness is Malcolm Lazen, Society Hill Civic Association. (No response.)
Oh, we do have a letter in our possession from Mr. Lazen indicating that the Society Hill Civic Association would not object to amending Section 14-1807, Appeals to the Court, from a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment if the above-referenced bill were amended as passed. A copy of that will be made available to the stenographer. (Copy of Mr. Lazen's testimony was not ultimately provided to the stenographer and, therefore, is not attached hereto.)
Our next witness is Stephen Pollack, Somerton Civic Association. 128 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Witness comes forward.)
Madam President, I just note that Mr. Lazen is a developer in the City.
Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Stephen Pollack, Council President Verna, but I am not here on behalf of the Somerton Civic Association. I think that's what you said.
And I'm just really here as a taxpayer in the City of Philadelphia and who has represented the Somerton Civic Association in years past and Bustleton Civic League and helped found the South Street Neighborhood Association many years ago, and who has represented both applicants before the Board and has represented civic associations in fighting developments that they don't want. ), over the years we've been publishers 129 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of the blue version of the Philadelphia Zoning Code when there was a time when you couldn't get the Zoning Code published in this city, so we just have an interest in what's going on with regard to the preservation of the code. And I have a -- the concern that I have always had is to be on the side of protecting everybody to come in front of the Zoning Hearing Board or Zoning Board of Adjustment. And as been pointed out, my concern was always to take it -- we've always talked about this in development with our hypotheticals, but if you take somebody who is on top of a deck collapsed and they live in South Philadelphia, and now if somebody wants to, on Barlow Street, up in the very far Northeast, put a new deck up on their property, you might have something where somebody from a different section 19 who has something against decks could come in and be against decks. You have that result, which may sound absurd, but then, again, when we go to the Fresh Fields project, and I represented the developers with regard to the Fresh Fields project at Ninth and South, we had a situation where we had 130 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 extended litigation, and the potential was there, we have learned, that after the citizen group that was formed, it was -- I know Councilman Clarke has left now, but an ad hoc civic group was formed because the major civic associations in the area were supportive of the organization, that after they had been -- a compromise had been worked out, that lurking in the wing, because SuperFresh still hadn't given up the fight was that they had a part-time meat cutter who worked for them, who lived up in the far Northeast, who was ready to take an appeal and continue the appeal to Common Pleas Court. Now, we may have it that quantifiably that maybe this happens in one cases or two cases or whatever. I know that in jurisprudence, we've always said that in the criminal law, better one man goes free -- you know, that one guilty man goes free than one free man found guilty. So that we try and err with regard to trying to bring these things to bear. I know that I have always in my practice for civic associations, tried to not only have the civic association, but I will always -- 131 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and in the Ridge Park Civic Association matter, we've been fighting Gary Barbera, and in Councilman Nutter's district, I actually used two residents' names besides the civic association as part of the people that were taking the appeal, because standing really deals with who can take the appeal from the Zoning Board, not who's going to testify in front of the Zoning Board. And I've done that. Now, I actually one time, to show you what happens, because everybody thinks it's unscrupulous developers, and I'm not saying this is unscrupulous, but if you know what the rules are, you can learn to move with the rules, and it depends on what injustice you feel is happening. I once got recruited to fight a battle for an AFSCME union in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Why? They were moving the headquarters of the AFSCME local office, which was a Social Security (indiscernible) -- an Unemployment Compensation Office, rather, from one part of Lancaster to another part of Lancaster that the union didn't really want, since it was a highly-charged matter and nobody would touch it from -- a local lawyer 132 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 wouldn't touch it from Lancaster. I got recruited from Philadelphia to represent AFSCME local, but we didn't our appearance on behalf of the AFSCME local.
What we did was, we were able to find an individual in the area who was willing to stand up with regard to that entrance and fight it, and they didn't have a taxpayer standard, but it was, you know, an interest aggrieved. And this was something where the Mayor of Lancaster sat in front of the Zoning Board and stared at the Zoning Board while we had the hearing, and we were able win and defeat the move. But, you know, ostensibly, who was I there for? I was really, you know, there and recruited by an AFSCME local union that didn't want something to move from one location to another because they didn't feel it was justified. So I guess what I'm saying is, the taxpayer issue, I don't think, can cut a lot of different ways, but it doesn't cut off civic groups. Civic groups are there, even groups that grow up over a single issue, especially if you're affected by that. I think that what you also have in 133 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Philadelphia is a situation where, under the existing code, the City could always take an appeal, or some other officer or department could always take an appeal. I know that Philadelphia's totally unique and different, but if you go out through the rest of the State, it's not unusual for the --
Mr. Pollack, I'm sorry, you're going to have to summarize.
Okay. It's just not unusual for legislators themselves to take an appeal of an action. So that I believe civic associations will still be empowered by this language. I think that the City Council has to take a look at what their role is with regard to how they could step in with regard to taking appeals. And I also think what you also have to look at is this: that you have a situation where the City Solicitor represents the Zoning Board. There isn't a separate solicitor for the Zoning Board. If you had a separate City Solicitor for the Zoning Board or a solicitor for the Zoning Board, and then a separate solicitor for the City 134 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that could take an appeal that they feel is against City interests or against community interests, then you might be able to do something, because all right now what happens now under our system is the City Solicitor's Office is there to protect the Board's decision as opposed to where, under this, as we've seen, you could be an advocate and have your solicitor or an attorney represent the City's interest or the Councilman's interest and fight that interest. That's --
Nick Miglino, Italian Market Association? (Witness comes forward.)
And Barbara Capozzi will be next. Come up to the witness table so that we can save some time, please. 135 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Witness comes forward.)
Madam Chair, I just had one statement for the record. I heard Mr. Pollack's testimony and I appreciate all of the good work that he's done both on the Zoning Code as well as in representing constituents, but I'm particularly appreciative that he identified himself in his testimony as coming to the witness table as a taxpayer of the City, and I think that his testimony should be viewed in that light. And we're glad to accept your testimony as a taxpayer of the City of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Nicholas Miglino. I'm the President of the Italian Market Civic Association. Just here in support of Bill 22 629.
Thank you. Is there anything you would like to add or?
No. I just echo some of the comments that I've heard in support of the bill.
My name's Barbara Capozzi. I'm the President of Packer Park Civic Association, and I'm also an area resident there and a business owner. Established community groups and neighborhood residents, those most immediately impacted, must have preference over other groups, well-meaning though they may be, who have a much broader interest. The ordinance, if passed, must have the amendment to clarify and confirm, and I appreciate -- we did lobby Councilman DiCicco's office the last few days to make sure that that was included. The neighborhood community groups, as of right, must have that clarifying language. And I do agree with Mr. Beller's testimony that if 137 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 we're at all concerned that "officer" means "Councilperson," throw that in also, because Councilpersons are very important to us. I am concerned that community groups will be pitted against community groups, and I see some people that I've worked well with here, who I think today are on the other side of the table. I'm in support of the ordinance as long as it has the amendment. I am concerned that groups might be pitted against each other, but in that regard, I think the same rule has to apply that applies in Council: that those most immediately impacted -- for example, the District Councilperson is the person who has the most say in their district. No 17 other Councilperson would come in and propose an ordinance that would immediately impact the District Councilperson's neighborhood if the District Councilperson was against it. And I think that's the way the civic associations and the community groups should work. And that's the way we do work in South Philadelphia. If there's one issue that's -- I try to defer to groups that are closer to and are 138 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 more immediately impacted, and they likewise do for us. The immediate neighbors know all too well the specific thing that could occur, and if they have sat down and spent hours and hours with whoever it is that wants to come in, I think their opinion should take deference. While there's lots of people that may feel affected and concerned about the stadiums, for example, there's a huge difference between being concerned and being actually impacted in the immediate area the way my particular association and four other groups are. And the other civic associations have let us take the lead in those regards. So I see this amendment as actually strengthening the core groups that are closer to the action and most immediately impacted, and that's why I'm for it. This subcommittee -- particularly this subcommittee is steadfast as community representatives. I mean, they're easily accessible and very well known to their constituents for having meetings and coming to 139 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 meetings, et cetera. So I'm going to defer to your opinion in that regard. We've leaned heavily on our Council President and Councilman DiCicco and Kenney during the stadium negotiations. So you know what our concerns are, and I will assume that you will do everything to protect them. Thank you.
In your opinion, when the trash-to-steam development occurred, was that only the concern of people in South Philadelphia?
That was before my time. I know there was other groups involved, but the main lead was taken by the immediate area, so that area should always have the preference.
Well, we don't know 140 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 what that --
We did appreciate the help of all of the other groups. I'm not saying that other groups can't help, but if that immediate area couldn't step up to the plate and take that appeal, then I don't think anyone else should be able to. If that immediate area didn't care enough to take an appeal or wasn't strong enough to stop it before it got to appeal, then there was a problem.
But you said you thought other groups should be permitted to help. How can they help if they don't have any voice? (Applause.)
They have to take their voice to the most immediately impacted people.
Did you think, when they talked about the stadium in Chinatown, did you think only Chinatown had an interest in that? There were South Philadelphia groups here speaking their view against Chinatown. Were they wrong? Should South Philadelphia be shut out of the discussion?
I didn't say they were 141 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 wrong, but if the immediate area is effective, they will be able to take the appeal, they don't need -- they should be the -- they should take the lead, and the lead has to come from the people most immediately affected. I couldn't tell Chinatown what to do.
Well, there's nothing in the bill about taking the lead one way or the other. All we're talking about is the ability to participate, to voice their view. That's all we're talking about. (Applause.)
If the people in the immediate area are heard, then the other groups should take their lead through the people in the immediate area. I certainly don't want to argue with you, Councilman Cohen, because --
Well, no, I'm 142 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 concerned because the strength of community groups is to work together.
And I hope nobody here tried to set us up to fight with each other, because that would be terrible. But, again, the immediate neighbors should be the ones that are taking the appeal, whether it's pro or con. They should be the ones to take the appeal, and their concerns should be the most prominent. If the other people want --
And the other people should be shut out from being able to do that?
They're not shut out if they're working with the local group.
Mrs. Capozzi is not saying that. 143 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Could I make a comment on that since I represent Chinatown? And for the record, the City contribution, financial contribution aside, I would have not taken into consideration what people who live outside of the Chinatown or the proposed stadium site in Chinatown would have had to say about that development. If the Chinatown community and the other folks in the Beaux Arts Loft and the Loft Apartments who are in the immediate vicinity of that proposed stadium would have supported the stadium, those were the people whose interest I would have taken into consideration. I certainly wouldn't have cared -- meaning no disrespect -- for someone who lived in Northeast Philadelphia objecting to the stadium being placed at 12th and Vine.
If you were on the Board, the Zoning Board, or in the courts, then you would have the right to make a decision on the merits. All we're talking about is having evidence presented to those who make the decision. Usually the purpose of excluding testimony is because you feel that testimony will 144 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be harmful. That's the reason folks who are developers don't want anybody opposing their views.
No, but see, I think the difference -- and you being an attorney, maybe you can clear it up for me, is that no one is suggesting that you can't be heard at the Zoning Board. Everyone has the right to testify. It is the standing as to the appeal of the Zoning Board decision which I think should be left up to the court. Everybody can stand in that Zoning Board meeting room and say what he or she feels about any development.
And then when a board makes a decision, there's always the basis for an appeal.
And you're shutting the appeal out so the Zoning Board --
So the Zoning Board knows that these people will not have any impact 145 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 on the court.
What I'm suggesting is that if the people in Whitman in South Philadelphia decide that a billboard is something that will not be offensive to that community, it is something that they --
Let me -- Councilman, if I could just finish my point.
If I can finish my point. And they accept that billboard because they see some economic billboard or whatever -- it doesn't even have to be a billboard; it could be a housing development. Just last week, I conducted a meeting with the Whitman Council in relationship to a proposed day care center. The community opposes the day care center because of traffic conditions 146 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and other issues. I support their opposition, but there may -- and by the way, they were talking about doing this -- building this day care center on a site that's been sitting vacant for over ten years and is a nuisance to the community. Conversely, they may have decided to support it, even though it would have created a hardship in terms of density and vehicular traffic as to the clients who would be coming in and out all day because they wanted to get rid of the blight. See, you see everything as blight; I see it as an opportunity in some cases to remove blight. So if the people in Whitman decide that that billboard is okay, I understand that you're going to say, Well, I drive 95 and I don't like billboards. I would say to you respectfully, 'cause I know what your answer to me, Councilman Cohen, would be if I said I was offended by a news reporter or a newscaster or a radio station personality who uses offensive language, you'd say to either turn the radio off or move to another channel, and I would respectfully say if that billboard offends you, then take another way home. (Laughter.) 147 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I mean, there are other ways of getting from one point to another point.
There are large groups of citizens who feel that it is wrong for private interests to block the view of the sky. I happen to be one of those. (Applause.)
Now, let me finish. There are large groups who believe it's wrong to pollute the water. That's why there are environmental groups all over the country, all over the world that fight for pure water. Throughout entire United States, there are people that fight against the drilling in Alaska because they think it's important to preserve wildlife. People throughout the world think it's important to preserve forests and the natural environment and the earth. 148 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 So that if people have a general universal interest, they ought to be heard. (Applause.)
I'm not saying they make the decision. There are boards and courts, but why are you afraid to have their voice heard? (Applause.)
I am not afraid of hearing their voices. I conduct more meetings than I would care to conduct. I mean, I'm out just about every night of the week listening to concerns of community groups for a whole host of reasons, most of which have to do with zoning. And when you talk about the blight or the obstruction of the views and the sky, I am a proponent of murals. When you talk about billboards, 'cause that seems to be the buzz word, and the media obviously made it that way, as being offensive or distracting, it takes a lot more time to study a mural than it does to study a billboard for the message. Now, I'm not suggesting that I would be against murals because I just attended a 149 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 fund-raiser at Judith Eden's house to support a mural, but mural are advertisements of a sort. They take up more space in general than billboards. My point is, everyone could be heard and should be heard. I just don't think that somebody from the other part of town or another municipality should have any say in what I decide is best for my neighborhood -- "my neighborhood," meaning the people who are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed application, be it a high-rise luxury apartment building, be it a day care center, be it a recreation facility, be it a billboard. The people who are impacted the most are the people would who live, work, and own property in that community, and they should have the final say.
I didn't say they should only be heard; they should have the final say. (Unintelligible, parties talking over 150 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
But not as to things that affect all people, and that's the issue here.
One other point I'd like to make. For those of you who may have forgotten, a few years ago, I led the charge to limit the number of communication towers and antennae that were going to be installed in this city because I believe that the communities in which those towers and antennae were being proposed to be installed should have a say in that process. So for anybody out there who got this e-mail or whatever you got over the weekend and says it's the doomsday legislation and your voices won't be heard, I have to repeat what I said earlier this morning: I'm an advocate of people's rights. I just don't agree that this net should be cast as far as it can be cast as it relates to opposition. If a community group decides that the school in their neighborhood, it's okay to put antennae on the smoke stack of that school because 151 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that school will generate revenue on an annual basis that will help that school pay for whatever activities they have going on there or help pay for school books for kids, it should be okay, that that's what they want. It shouldn't be okay for somebody who lives miles away to say, I'm opposed to antennae and I don't think it should be on there and I'm going to appeal that Zoning Board decision. Because I think -- and Councilman Kenney very eloquently spoke on this, I think, a couple of times today -- there's an economic benefit to this. Don't just shut the door because you don't like something, because it may not necessarily be offensive to everyone. But you can be heard. Go to the Zoning Board, say your piece, speak your piece, get it on the record. But ultimately, the decision on the appeal should lie with the people who are most immediately aggrieved by that application.
Thank you. The next witness is Mary Tracy. (Witness comes forward.)
Just -- I did want to add to the record as a follow-up to Councilman Cohen's comments and Councilman DiCicco. The issue still, though, comes down to whether it's a nearby group or a non-nearby group, when you get to the appeal stage and you're in the courts, the matter is whether or not the thing that you're appealing for is legal or not and does it meet the hardship test. And regardless of where the person lives or doesn't live, nearby or not nearby, the court makes a decision based on those criteria that are in the Zoning Code and are the established case law tenets. And one of the fundamental tenets in a variance case is, did the applicant demonstrate a hardship -- not an economic hardship but a hardship that will make their property virtually useless. And in many cases, they're losing in Commonwealth Court or in the Supreme Court because even though the Zoning Board may have approved the variance, even though the Common Pleas Court may have sustained the Zoning Board's decision, if they're not meeting the standard, generally 153 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 they're going to lose. It has nothing to do with proximity of protestant.
Isn't part of the issue, then also delay, the time that that period of time takes, which could put potentially the project in jeopardy? I'll give you an example.
We went through a very lengthy hearing, I guess, of the Rules Committee relative to the project on Venice Island. And it seemed, though, that most of the people who were in severe opposition to it weren't necessarily residents but people who were concerned about environmental issues like flood plane and other things.
We had a whole lot -- there were a whole lot of groups and organizations that testified, but there were a whole lot of people who were from the neighborhood, who have taken as their right to appeal. My colleague to my right, you know, whether I liked it or not, whether I was happy about it or not, exercised his right as an 154 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 at-large member to represent and continue the interests of people who cared very deeply about that particular issue. And the neighborhood people, I believe, have filed appeals in both of those cases, but they are neighborhood people. I don't know what the Sierra group did as it relates to Venice Island, but I know what Manayunk Neighborhood Council did.
Theoretically, if during the course of that discussion and process, if the neighborhood residents had been convinced that, in fact, all of their issues were addressed and then had signed off on it, there would still be an opportunity for the Sierra, or whoever, to oppose that project, but also the delay involved could potentially make the developer say, Well, you know, there's cost involved with that delay and perhaps I should think about looking somewhere else; and, therefore, would have that ability to oppose, even though the neighbors around it agreed, would have a potential injurious effect to the developer's decision whether to proceed or not. 155 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And I think part of the problem here is the ability to continue to delay things, even after the neighbors have agreed that it's okay.
I understand that, but I believe that not only in this wondrous city of the first class, but just about everywhere else probably in the United States of America, if you decide to go through the zoning process, there is an automatic appeal right by certain parties, and that's the chance you take, I think, when you go through the zoning process. You can either go that route or, as I suggested to Mr. Beller, there are certainly situations, especially for larger projects, where you can enter into a discussion about what's the current zoning, what's forcing you to go to the Zoning Board to get whatever relief you need to get, and if it's of the appropriate size or people decide to go in that particular direction, you can in fact change the zoning. Now, you know, as we all know, what does that require? Well, that's a bill, that's a public hearing. I mean, it's all process for people. But whether we like these projects or 156 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 not, people do have some certain rights. You know, the folks -- Councilman DiCicco has cornered the market on the New Jersey situation. So with all respect to people at least outside of the City of Philadelphia, I mean, there probably is not a whole lot of debate about any proposed change in that regard. Hadn't thought about it, has never been an issue for me so far, but, you know, if we're trying to head off something for the future, I'd be entertained by that discussion. But with the present matter and specifically with regard to the billboards, I mean, one of the problems is that the industry seems to not want to follow the law here in Philadelphia. They are not, in many instances, even in compliance. And if they would, you know, I probably say somewhat simplistically, if they would basically get their act together, they probably wouldn't be having a lot of the problems that they're having today, but they've decided not to fall law. We've had limited to no enforcement over the past eight, nine, ten years. And, I mean, that's a big part of what this whole matter 157 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 is about before us today. And, I mean, groups and organizations cut deals all the time. I mean, let no one be naive about that. But whatever your deal may be, and as good as it may be and whatever your opposition was and now it's reduced to nothing because you cut a good deal, if the deal doesn't go forward, the items that you were negotiating for are still important items, but I didn't think that we were setting up a system where, as people come to get something from the government, you go and cut a deal with them, and now their project is eminently important because of the benefits to derive. I mean, if a ballpark needs the grass cut or needs a new fence or needs to be expanded or something else like that, I thought that that was the government's responsibility, not necessary the responsibility of the developer that you just recently cut your deal with.
It may be the government's responsibility on publicly-owned parcels.
But when you're dealing with community groups that run their own operations and their own athletic groups and sometimes actually recreate more kids than the Recreation Department does, or at least as many --
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. " And I apologize for my voice. We were talking a lot about losing the legal voice, and it seems today that I'm losing my physical voice, so please bear with me as I read 159 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 my testimony. SCRUB is a citywide organization with a mission to protect and improve the visual environment of Philadelphia. We worked very hard to get a law passed here in City Council and took great pride and joy in the passage of that, and I've been desperately seeking the enforcement of that law across the City for the past ten years. We've reviewed Bill No. 00629 and strongly opposed the proposed changes that would delete the words "or any taxpayer" from the existing code. Approval of this bill will dismantle the long-standing legal rights of taxpayers and groups of taxpayers from fully participating in hearings before the Zoning Board. And when we say "fully," there's a lot of talk here about how anybody can go down and talk before the Zoning Board, but if you don't have any muscle to say, Well, if the Zoning Board is not making the right decision in your mind and you can't appeal that decision, then your talk is worth nothing. Because despite a law that says that you can't put bills within 500 feet of 160 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 another billboard and within 660 feet of historic areas and on the rooftop of another billboard within 500 feet let alone on the rooftop across from an historic district. I mean, there are so many specific regulations in this code that are being routinely overlooked. Then what recourse would an organization such as SCRUB have but to appeal that decision to seek justice in a higher court? And many times -- most times, I try to engage the local community. It is not SCRUB's -- we neither have the desire to force something that nobody really wants. But I think to go back to the example that's been used a number of times today with the recreation centers, I mean, I think if that sign was only viewed by the people in that neighborhood, well, then perhaps that would be something that could be talked about, but that's a sign that's being put on an 85-foot pole that's in a gateway area of our city that's within 500 feet of other signs, that's too close to the ingress and egress of I-95 that oftentimes even violates federal law and State law, let alone our local law. 161 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I think when we come here and get a law enforced, we expect, unless there's some unique hardship, for it to be enforced. And I think with our community groups, we are frustrated many, many times by the Zoning Board's lack of understanding of why we're down there when they just routinely approve variances that are against the Zoning Code and against the law. And regardless of the deal that is struck, I think the long-term life and viability of the City is more important. And I would agree that we need to give -- you know, I don't want to get into a debate on, you know, kids being out on the street. I'm a former teacher, I work in my community, I know the problems out there, and I work every day, as I know you do, to try to make our city a better place. In fact, I served on Mayor Street's Quality of Life Committee on their Transition Team. And one of the things we came up with in talking about government, we said that many times, community members can feel disempowered and helpless when they attempt to take civil action and the City's own laws and codes are not being enforced. The presence of both consistent and 162 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 fair enforcement of laws and codes that govern neighborhoods, coupled with greater community input, help to create strong, viable communities.
If we want to people to move into the City, then they need to be assured that the house down the street's not going to turn into a multifamily dwelling, that there's not suddenly going to be a billboard or a telecommunications tower set up, that the City has set up specific zoned areas and that they're willing to protect them. And we have to fight so hard all the time down there for those protections. And the "or any taxpayer account" is a key tool. We don't have many. Civic groups have very little money. Sometimes we're lucky enough to have an attorney that may live in the neighborhood, but the more disenfranchised the neighborhood is, the less likely they'll have the talent within the neighborhood. So we need whatever tools we can to help get the law enforced in our city. Please don't take that from us. )
Thank you. Good 163 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 afternoon Miss Tracy.
I agree with your opening statement, part of your opening statement that dealt with the enforcement, or the lack of enforcement as it relates not only billboards but many things that we have enacted legislation for in this city. For one reason or another, there always seems to be an excuse why the level of enforcement probably isn't where we would like for it to be, so I do agree with you there. And I think there are some remedies as it relates to billboards in particular. It's my understanding, I think, from the bill that was passed back in 1991, there was a tear-down provision. Most of those provisions have been ignored.
I think there's some opportunities there to figure out a way in which we can make those companies come into compliance. I'm presently working on some other legislation that has to do with wall wraps and other types of advertisement. You may or may not 164 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be aware of that, but it will be coming out shortly, and there's some provision tear-downs, which I think will have a little bit more teeth to them than the present legislation. So I'm fully in support of that, I agree with that. But you mentioned -- as an example, you mentioned rec centers, where a billboard may get placed on the top of an 85-foot light fixture, as an example, and that would be visible to people well beyond the 500-foot perimeter that may be established. And by the way, this doesn't say 500 feet, and maybe that's one of the fears that people have. Maybe we have to figure out a way in this bill what is the geographical boundaries. Is it 500 feet, is it 1,000, is it a mile. I don't know, I don't have the answer for that, but maybe we can come to some reasonable agreement as to what the geographical boundaries could or should be. I don't know if you're aware, though, at many of the rec centers, at least in my district -- and I'm certain it goes on throughout the rest of the City -- already have a significant amount of advertising. I can look at the Capital 165 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Playground at Ninth and Federal, where Federal Street, Wharton Street and Ninth Street and Passyunk all intersect, where Pat's and Geno's Steaks are. There are probably a minimum of 30 signs, 3-by-6, 4-by-8, signs that are attached to the cyclone fence by well-meaning business people in that community. The reason their advertisement is up is because they support the little league teams and other activities that go on in that facility. And those signs, although they're not high, they're at street level, are viewed by thousands of people on a daily basis who travel through and around that community. So if you take that extreme, they could say, Well, I'm a taxpayer and I want those signs removed because I don't think those signs are legally allowed to be up there. But we kind of look the other way and we kind of accept it because we understand there's a been public good that's coming out of it, even though we may not be particularly pleased with the aesthetic value of it. So I think, you know, what I'm getting 166 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 at is to try to figure a way in which at times some of these things could be appropriate to the people who live there, even though thousands of people may pass by there, because there's a benefit, and we've been saying this all morning, to the community immediately affected by that signage or the amount of signs that are on those rec center fences. And I agree with visual pride. I don't know if SCRUB has ever taken a position when it comes to political advertising in the City of Philadelphia. Have you ever taken a case where you have filed a suit or gone to make an appeal to the Department of L&I to get the political posters that I think pollute the visual aesthetics of this community? We're going to have a primary coming up in a few weeks. There will be 100 or so judicial candidates, and I will guarantee you, there will probably not be a pole in the City of Philadelphia that doesn't have what I consider visual pollution, and it will probably remain there for the duration or until the weather takes an effect on it to be removed. Now, that's visual 167 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 pollution. Are we doing anything about that? What is your position on those things?
I'm asking, has SCRUB ever taken a position, whether it is a poster or a billboard that advertises a political candidate for public office?
Our position basically is the enforcement of the sign control laws that were passed in 1991. There were a lot of quality-of-life laws, including those signs. I know there's people that are interested in that, but one can't take on every battle. Excuse me for a second.
But would agree that political posters are visual pollution?
I mean, I think that they are -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over 168 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
I don't know that we want to waste taxpayer time here on this --
I would agree that they are legally allowed to be there for the three to four weeks that --
I didn't ask that question. I asked you the question, as an advocate of blight as it relates to billboards and other forms of advertisement, I'm asking, would you consider political posters visual graffiti?
I think I would consider them that after the three-week time. Once they're illegal --
Councilman, unless you want to change that law -- 169 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You would not be opposed to advertising on a temporary basis.
We're talking about "or any taxpayer" here, and you're starting to talk about your pet peeve.
No, no, no. I'm asking you a question. A political poster -- a political poster is advertising, it is advertising who I am and the office I'm running for.
My point is, do you consider it visual graffiti? And you said if it stayed up longer than the three-week or three-month period, whatever it is you said. My question to you is, if a sign is put up temporarily, an advertising sign, would you be opposed to that?
If it goes against the law. I don't we have in our -- I mean, basically, I 170 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 look at you as the law-maker, and I look at the laws that were voted unanimously to --
And I'm against posters, I'm against posters. I tried to get that bill passed in here -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And it was politically was shot down because it's a violation of first right amendment, or whatever. I'll go in another direction. How long has SCRUB been in operation, an organization?
I can get you that information. I don't know offhand. I would say probably about $80,000 a year.
And the cost of 171 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 running that office is a part of that $80,000-a-year budget?
Yes. Prior to that, we were a very -- just a volunteer organization.
And people donated money to help defeat appeals and those sorts of things, but we didn't have a full-time staff. And I'd also like to let you know about SCRUB. At some point, I would really like to move off of just the billboards because I think that -- I know, for example, Councilwoman Krajewski introduced an ordinance which I'm, you know, very, very interested in about the landlords and the multifamily dwellings. And I think that SCRUB can 172 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be a real source of strength and positive movement in this city if we could move off the billboards and not waste so much time and resources in trying to get a law that you passed enforced.
I'm not at -- I have -- I do have a contribution that I'm not at liberty to reveal.
And when did that contribution come forward? How recent was that contribution made?
About a year and a half 173 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 ago.
A year and a half ago. I think SCRUB filed an appeal for a zoning on a billboard somewhere in South Philadelphia near the Food Distribution Center some time ago?
Is it my understanding -- am I correct that that appeal has been withdrawn?
Has any person affiliated with Interstate made a contribution to SCRUB?
This is not really a drill 174 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 about -- I am not really at a --
I'm asking you a question. Has anyone affiliated either directly or indirectly with Interstate Outdoor Advertising made a contribution to SCRUB?
I'm not sure. I'm not sure that I should answer that question because if they --
You're not sure you should answer the question or you're not sure if they made that contribution?
I'm not willing to answer any questions about any of the donors because I don't think that's really what's at issue here.
I think it is -- I think it's very germane. My question to you is, if in fact Interstate made that contribution to SCRUB, did that have any effect on SCRUB decision to withdraw the appeal?
And decision that I would make to withdraw was really based on counsel and 175 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 our view of whether we would be able to win the case or not and various members. It wasn't my decision; it was a decision by --
And there are actually several appeals that we have not taken forward because we didn't believe that we would win them, and because we can't afford to take all of them, and we choose which ones.
I'm talking about the one billboard at the Food Distribution Center that was -- the applicant was Interstate Outdoor Advertising. You filed an appeal, I believe, up to the Court of Common Pleas Court level. Subsequently, that appeal was withdrawn; am I correct?
And you don't know if anyone with Interstate made a significant contribution to SCRUB?
I don't know if anyone's -- well, I said I'm not willing to comment on that.
Was there a deal 176 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 made with Interstate Outdoor Advertising or any of its affiliates to withdraw the opposition to that billboard for the financial contribution that literally set up the now what was a volunteer organization to become a bona fide organization that is now being funded and salaries and other expenses are now being paid for?
Was there an agreement made with Interstate Outdoor Advertising or any of its affiliates for consideration of withdrawal of that application for the billboard at the Food Distribution Center in consideration for a significant financial donation to SCRUB?
To my knowledge, there is no agreement made with Interstate Outdoor Advertising.
Or any of its affiliates or -- 177 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I'm not sure that anyone was connected with it. The person that --
The person that made this donation, as far as I can understand at the time, there was no connection with Interstate.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee?
Thank you. 178 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Miss Tracy, first I want to say that we've known each other for a long period of time. I do admire greatly the work that you do. We've had occasion to agree on some things, we've had occasion to disagree on some things. But I do, with all my heart, believe that your intentions are good, that you are looking out for the mission of the particular organization or, in our other activities, community group, you are one of my constituents. I consider you a friend. As I said earlier, sometimes we've agreed, sometimes we've disagreed, but I do believe that you provide a good service and representation to many people who don't necessarily have a voice or have resources to engage in protracted legal matters. And I want to thank you for that. (Applause.)
And I do appreciate the many occasions where you've provided information on behalf of community organizations, primarily in the West Philadelphia, Wynnefield, Overbrook section of the City where you live and that I represent for the things that we've had a 179 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 chance to work on in the past and, I'm sure, many things that we'll work on going forward, and I just wanted to say thank you.
Madam President, I want to both share and support strongly Councilman Nutter's evaluation of Miss Tracy. I think she is one of the most outstanding people in public service in the history of the City of Philadelphia of Philadelphia, and that she, more than any other person, has brought to the attention of the public the blight caused by people who feel they have a right to interfere with other people's enjoyment of the air, the water, the skies. She has made people environmentally conscious, has come before City Council, was very active in the initial establishment of this bill 23 against billboards. She's fought vigilantly to have it enforced. She's an upright public servant of the finest kind. 180 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And I believe that the intendment of Councilman DiCicco's questions was not an appropriate choice of questioning. (Applause.)
Oh, my God. I'm surprised Councilman Cohen's against disclosure.
But I just want the record to show that in nothing that Councilman DiCicco stated was there any indication of anything except absolute devotion to her public service. Thank you, Miss Tracy. (Applause.)
I just have one question. I don't necessarily want to get into the issues that Councilmember DiCicco was raising, although I think they're legitimate for a discussion. Do you think that there's anything wrong with an established community group sitting down with any industry, whether it's the billboard industry or whether it's some other developer, 181 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 working through their problems, concerns, things that they're upset about, and then establishing an arrangement, a deal if you may, with that developer, with that advertiser, to provide income stream to projects in the neighborhood that they think are important in exchange for the acceptance of a level of intrusion that they think is acceptable?
I think, Councilman, that it becomes difficult -- where do you draw the line there. I certainly think that the community group should, and does all the time, sit down with the developer. I think, though, in the area of advertising, if it's just impacting that immediate neighborhood, only that neighborhood, then certainly, I think that would be something that SCRUB would not want to get involved in, but I think we have to look beyond. We are a whole city.
And I think that, you know, what -- 182 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
In certain areas that I go through, it just seems like no one's watching the store there.
Well, what I have trouble trying to differentiate is that if you live in the 4th Council District --
Can I just introduce something -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I think this will clarify it. There was an indication we've talked about in the Southwest Philadelphia, the famous 8 double-sided 16 signs, and I think there's a group here from Eastwood PAC that was involved with that, and I always call the community group, always try to, you know, get their position on it, and they had had a long history of opposition to billboards, and several of their members came down to that hearing, testified against those signs, and joined SCRUB in the appeal.
Then there's no 25 issue there, because some of the neighbors who 183 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 live in the community were opposed. The question I have is --
-- when an established organization in the community go through a period of process -- six months, a year, however long it is -- and they sit with their elected officials, they sit with the people who want to develop or, quote/unquote, intrude in their neighborhood, and they make a decision based on that process, that the intrusion in their mind is worth the benefit that comes from allowing the intrusion, are they wrong if it doesn't agree with your view of what's aesthetically pleasing?
Well, you know, I'll answer your question, but before I do, I would just like to make this note. I mean, this hearing really isn't about Mary Tracy, it isn't about billboards per se; it's about "or any taxpayer."
That provision that's being deleted. I would be glad -- and let me tell you, I would love to talk to you at length about billboards, I have plenty of issues there. 184 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But I think that I'd just like you to understand that what you've done here by introducing -- or Councilman DiCicco has done by introducing this ordinance, you have jeopardized the rights of community groups and citizens throughout the City of Philadelphia, you're taking away taxpayers' rights.
And if there is a law on the books that says you can't have a billboard on the top of Independence Hall --
You don't want to have a debate about billboards but you're debating billboards. 185 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 What I want to know is whether or not in your opinion that established, elected Community Association in that neighbor has a right to make an arrangement with a developer or an advertiser that they believe in their mind benefits their community or not. And if you -- and the question, I guess, could be further added. If they tell you when you call them that they are in fact in favor of it, are willing to accept it, you believe it's still your right to go into court and try to thwart that effort?
Where's their rights at? Where's the rights of that community group to go forward and deal with issues in their community without being second-guessed by an organization that doesn't even live there?
So if that same community was willing to say to Sun Oil that, yeah, you can go ahead and pollute all of the air, I mean, it's basically -- you're saying that --
I mean, one community group 186 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 shouldn't really --
But you're comparing a sign to Sun Oil and air pollution. You're comparing --
-- a sign to the pollution of the environment and the water. I mean, I think there's a little bit of a stretch there, I really do believe that.
I think what's offensive in the end about the position that you take is that somehow those people in that neighborhood aren't smart enough to know what's good for them and that you will -- that you are smarter than they and you know better than they. And, therefore, when they make an arrangement, 187 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 whatever the deal is, whatever the development is, and you just don't like it, you think that you have a right to do beyond what they say is the right thing to do, and what that -- that's offensive to me because there's somehow this kind of elitist attitude that the people who live in certain neighborhoods just aren't bright enough to know what pollution is.
What I have found is that there are certain community groups who have -- are given a lot more pressure.
Pressure to -- because -- although there may be individuals in the community who would be opposed to it, as a community group, they can't always stand up to the pressures.
Oh, so not only are they not that smart, they're not that courageous either.
If I can add one thing, though. Again, I think Miss Tracy can certainly speak for itself, but even in that situation, and I mean, I've certainly had groups cut deals. I think it does, Councilman, still go back to, is what's being applied for legal? is the applicant in compliance with the law? and have they demonstrated, according to the code and the case law, that they meet the standard for what variances are about? And if those standards are not being met, again, I think it matters less who the person is that's raising the issue or where they came from as opposed to, is the applicant in compliance with the law? And in many of these instances -- nobody wants to talk about billboards but we've talked about billboards. In many of the instances, that's been what the ruling's been about, not where the person lived or were they exercising their judgment or somebody else's 189 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 judgment or did the community group sign off on it. The community group may have loved it or they thought at least the benefits were, in fact, worth it. The court, unfortunately or fortunately, wasn't interested in that, and they weren't a party to the deal and they didn't care about the deal. What they cared about was, this is the Philadelphia Code, this is what you can have, this is what you can't have, let's look at the facts. They made their case, they demonstrated hardship or they didn't demonstrate hardship, and they won or lost based on those facts. I mean, they don't really care where somebody's from or not from. It's the code and the standards that go with it. (Applause.)
I want to make it clear that I think it is kind of sad that some neighborhoods and communities have been so 190 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neglected by the City for such a long time that communities find it necessary sometimes to accept developments that are they're strongly against, that are probably not even legal or would not be sustained if the community fought it, but the community accepts it because they have no other way of getting something. And -- (Applause.)
And that is shameful because it's the responsibility of the whole city tax structure to provide these basic services --
I think they should hold their elected officials accountable for that.
-- but instead, the City assists often developers in doing things that communities don't like, and then the communities are won to it by being said, Well, you need a recreation center badly, we'll furnish it as part of the development.
That ought not to happen. 191 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
That does happen but it ought not to happen, and I want to make my point very clear. The City has abdicated in those cases, and communities ought not to have to suffer from wrong things that a developer may do because the City has abdicated its function in providing services. (Applause.)
Thank you, Council President. In my community -- and I have been in office for quite a time, as you all know. I remember a time when LaSalle College had a problem, and I wrote a letter to the Zoning Board in favor of the permit that they were requesting. Did I get hell? David, you ripped me apart because I wrote a letter. You said it's nowhere in my neighborhood. And my argument was, I have quite a few constituent that do go to LaSalle College. So would they have a right as well to 192 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 say they're for or against?
But you didn't see -- you didn't see fit to think that I should have that right at that time. And as far as the civic associations go, I have a very good rapport with my civic associations, community groups, as well as all District Councilpeople. And I think they know better what their neighborhood will or will not have. And with my reputation, I've been to the Zoning Board thousands of times, wrote letters when I was opposed to it. And the civic associations worked with me, I worked with them. I do not see any of the civic associations here today testifying against it because they understand the bill itself, that we are not -- and I emphasize not -- taking away anyone's say when they go to that Zoning Board.
Will the Northeast people please raise their hands. 193 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, you also know, Lorraine, that I'm always there. Am I or am I not?
Right. Councilwoman, I think -- Councilwoman, I think the reaction to your statement had more to do with you were probably saying none of the civic groups maybe so much in your district were here to testify about the bill as opposed to the many citizens who are out in the front.
Right, but that was the reaction from the -- it to them I explained exactly.
No District Councilperson, in my eyes, would go against any community group or civic association when they're working on a project.
Thank you, Madam 194 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Chair. You know, the issue comes down to just one small phrase, "or any taxpayer." And, Tracy, I don't think that you or your organization would ever sell out for a contribution, and I do not believe that any -- any influence of money -- because I think this is what this is all about here, also. And I think we're talking about the influence of money. And to say that any taxpayer -- to exclude the citizens of Philadelphia, that means the citizens of every neighborhood. We're talking about Philadelphians, we're talking about people who live in neighborhoods, we're talking about individuals who have an interest in eliminating blight across the City. And when blight was not a nice cliche word and everybody was jumping on the band wagon, you were using that word and putting it out and fighting the battles. And when no one was interested in fighting the billboards in North Philadelphia that advertise the liquor and the brandy and the cognac and the beer and so on all the way down the line, and those individuals had the money and they paid 195 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 off a lot of community organizations, those liquor companies. But a group of reverends that were not willing to get paid off by some of those individuals and citywide organizations gave the fight to eliminate that. And we needed the outside organizations because that's where the strength and the wherewithal came. And I -- I want to thank you for all of the work that you've done over the last twelve years.
Miss Tracy, in your testimony, you referenced about the billboards and how Eastwick PAC were against them. Supposing they had been in favor of, would you have opposed?
I think in that location, because there are a couple major issues going on. One is that they're on a major gateway area into 196 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the airport, an area that we had looked for industrial development. There were hotels there. It was on a very visible and, I think, rather beautiful stretch of land. And eight billboards on City-owned property, I think it set a very dangerous precedent. And I think it really would go beyond Eastwick PAC, it would go beyond any neighborhood really. The magnitude of that particular request and variance would be something that, regardless of what an individual neighborhood would agree to, I think SCRUB would be willing to still stay on that appeal.
Thank you. Any other questions of Miss Tracy? (No further questions.)
I would just like to make an announcement that at 1:30, the Streets and Services public hearing was scheduled. I believe it will now be at 2:30 so that we can complete this public hearing.
Hopefully. So the Streets and Services public hearing will be 197 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 scheduled to 2:30. Arnold Bradburd. (Witness comes forward.)
And I believe we do have a witness from Queen's Village Neighbors, Carla Puppin. Mr. Bradburd, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Arnold Bradburd and I think I'm an anamoly here. I'm a businessman, I'm an officer of a New York Stock Exchange publicly-owned company, with four locations in the Philadelphia area, three of them specifically in Philadelphia. I have approximately 250 employees in the City, and the 2 properties that a company that I one pays approximately $66,000 a year in City taxes.
Mr. Bradburn, excuse me. I think you deserve a little more respect than you're getting. Anybody having personal conversations, please do so in the corridor so that we could hear the witness. 198 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Thank you.
So in summary, Madam President, I'm a taxpayer, a property owner, a business executive, and I'm here today to tell you of my strong opposition to Bill 000629, which would delete three very important words from the code. You need to know why I feel that way, and I think that's very important to the discussion. I joined SCRUB in 1994 when I learned about a variance request in my area. I attended a zoning hearing to protest the construction of a billboard within ten feet of my property, which would have impacted the value of that property considerably. Despite the fact that State law prohibit a sign in this area, the Zoning Board approved the request. I turned to SCRUB, and they filed an appeal, a joint appeal, in SCRUB's name, but we were denied standing by Common Pleas Court. I turned to SCRUB because I thought they knew more about billboards than any local attorney that I could engage or more than the Somerton Civic Association, of which I am a member. The case was appealed to Commonwealth 199 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Court, where SCRUB was given standing to appeal. It was only then that this case could be heard on its merit. That is, did the Zoning Board error in granting a variance to allow a billboard in a prohibited area. Although the Common Pleas Court agreed with the ZBA, the Commonwealth reversed the variance, and on appeal, clearly stated there was no unique hardship to the property and that the sign variance violated public policy. Since that time, the Zoning Board has continued to grant variances. A law passed by this Council continues to be overturned, and now the community group that has dedicated time, energy, and financial resources to upholding a City Council ordinance is being targeted, and this legislation would cut them out of the process. This bill would not only stop SCRUB, but every civic citywide organization interested in good governance. As a taxpayer, I am appalled; as a business leader, I am ashamed. This bill 22 violates the rights of citizens and any effort to continue this process should truly be discontinued. Thank you, Madam President. 200 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Any questions or comments of this witness? (No questions.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Colleen Puckett, and I am President of Queen Village Neighbors Association. Our economically diverse neighborhood extends south from Lombard Street to Washington Avenue and west from the Delaware River to Sixth Street, so we fall in Councilman DiCicco's district. Over the years, we've worked closely with the Councilman on many development projects -- and I know that's come up a lot this morning -- large and small. He routinely contacts us to find out where we stand on zoning issues and has made 201 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 it his policy not to introduce development into our community without first involving us. And we look forward to collaborating with him on future projects. Nonetheless, I am here to respectfully voice our board's opposition to Bill 629, which would remove the words "any taxpayer" from the Philadelphia Code. Doing this would significantly impair our ability, both as a civic organization and as individual taxpayers, to appeal decisions made by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Proving standing would become the key focus of all our efforts, not arguing the individual merits of each case. I'd also like to point out that besides being a resident of Queen Village, I'm a resident of the City of Philadelphia and I pay highly for that privilege. Yes, we are a city of neighborhoods, and that makes us very strong. But Philadelphia is more than just the sum of its parts; it is a great city with a wealth of architecture, historic landmarks, and unique cultural assets, with a personality all its own -- we've seen a lot of that personality this morning, 202 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I think. This bill would take away my right as a taxpayer to participate fully in citywide issues that I care about. It would restrict me to commenting only on issues that happen immediately around my home. Do we really want to limit our thinking this way? Do we want to silence our visionaries, the people who love this city passionately and who are willing to fight for it? This bill would reduce Philadelphia to nothing more than fiefdoms, and we are so much more than that. As for the proposed amendment language, which just this morning was re-amended, we feel that it raises, not lowers, the bar of proof over who can appeal. Who would determine whether a civic group is established, for example? We would spend all of our time and money haggling over those questions. Far from being a comfort to us, this language threatens to open a Pandora's Box of legal issues that could weaken our current standing, not strengthen it. It would also have the unfortunate effect of discouraging and disempowering 203 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neighborhoods who are not as wealthy, who are less organized than a Queen Village or a Society Hill or a Somerton from participating in the process. Is it fair to tell a neighborhood that is struggling, "Sorry, you can't fight that billboard or nuisance establishment because you don't live close enough to it," or "Your group hasn't been around long enough." Perhaps there is a way to limit the potential threat of intervention from outside people this bill attempts to address, but this is too far-reaching. For all of these reasons, the Queen Village Neighbors Association respectfully asks this committee to vote no to Bill 629.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to give you a hypothetical, 'cause I think that this is something that I have 204 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 been working with recently in South Philadelphia as it relates to, for example, charter schools. Hypothetically, if Queen Village Neighbors Association was involved in the potential development of a charter school in a community in an effort to save some of the middle-class, upper-middle-class taxpayers who are concerned about the condition of the schools and are thinking about potentially leaving the area because of the school situation, and you, the Civic Association, members of the Civic Association, engaged in the development or application for a charter school approval from the School Board and spent a year or two going, looking for a site within the neighborhood that needed to be rezoned for this kind of institutional use. And through the course of the process, everyone in your community was involved and engaged, had questions to ask and answered and really worked your way through with this project, and went to the Zoning Board to have a parcel of land zoned appropriately so that the school could be constructed, in an effort to what you think could be saving your community from having people 205 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 migrate outside of the City. And an organization from the City of Philadelphia, not from your neighborhood, composed of taxpayers who are adamantly opposed to the funding of charter schools through the use of taxpayers' dollars, which go through the School District and into the charter schools because they believe that it hurts the School District of Philadelphia and the children attending the public schools. And they, through the course of the legal action they that could take as a result of having standing, held up your project to the project where you started to begin to lose some of the residents you were, in fact, trying to save. How would you feel about that? Do you think that they would have a right to tell you, because of a philosophical issue like chart school funding or outdoor advertising or whatever, that they, in fact, are trying to put an obstacle in front of your way and trying to do what you think is right to save your neighborhood, even though they don't live in your neighborhood and are simply opposed to charter school funding for Philadelphia. 206 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Obviously, I would not feel great about that, but if you're asking me whether I feel that they would have the right to do that, absolutely. I think that's all part of the open discussion -- (Applause.)
-- that needs to happen. I -- I don't like the idea of -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Would you have questions for them as to why, after two or three years of work that your organization put in, that someone who lives in Center City or Northeast Philadelphia or New Jersey decided that they didn't want this to happen because they didn't think it was the right thing to do, that you would have -- you wouldn't be disappointed or disgusted or annoyed or dis --
But I would not limit their right to speak out. It needs to be publicly 207 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 debated.
And even if that right to speak out included obstructing your efforts for a period of a year or two so that you couldn't accomplish what you wanted, you still think that that would be okay?
Well, the problem is whether it's sooner or later; I think that's the problem. And I think that sometimes people, not everyone, sometimes people use this legal process to delay, and delay means to kill something.
You're being honest. I have no fall with your honesty. I just -- you're a unique individual to think that way because I think that others may be extremely upset 208 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that someone from outside of their community could make an effort to delay or obstruct the effort that this community has worked on so hard. So I admire your democratic principles.
Just a moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I was out of the meeting room a few minutes, about a half an hour ago, and a young woman who was waiting patiently to be heard, a business woman, an accountant -- that's all I know of her, I have no idea of the name -- expressed to me a thought I'd like to express to you and get your comment. She said, you know, it's strange. The City seems to be concerned about losing people and they want to take away our rights to participate.
Is this witness's testimony, or is this some -- 209 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
No, I'm stating what someone said to me, and I'm going to ask her for her comment on it.
I just -- well, I just don't know what the process is here, whether or not --
Did she give written testimony to this, this person you're talking about?
Can I ask the point of order? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.) 210 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Is there any written testimony from this alleged person --
The person said to me, you know, it seems strange. She said she couldn't stay here because she had an appointment 211 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 with a client. She said, but the City seems to want to keep people here, and yet they've preventing us from participating in our views. Do you have any comment with respect to that?
I fear that if we remove the words "any taxpayer," then I would be prohibited from speaking my views on issues that I cared about that perhaps were not so parochial that they just affected my neighborhood. I mean, we've heard several examples this morning. I thought of the served Maxfield Parrish display that was housed in the Curtis Building that we were at risk of losing. If I did not happen to live in Hopkinson House across Washington Square and I felt strongly about that issue, I would not be able to speak to it. I mean, you could just -- there are many issues that transcend individual parochial neighborhood issues, and that's what's at risk here.
I'll follow up on that same comment that Councilman Cohen spoke to about this person who had a question as to, you know, the City's trying to retain its residential base. You and I and your association have worked for several months with the developer of Dockside -- that's the high-rise luxury development along Columbus Boulevard. And the reason that developer is building there is because there is a need for rental luxury apartments in the City of Philadelphia. So in a sense, that development is doing the exact opposite of what this lady who, or whoever that person was, who suggested to Mr. Cohen is, we are providing an opportunity to create development and increase our population base by building this residential facility. Now, if someone who happens to take I-95 or Columbus Boulevard to and from work on a daily basis and it's someone who does not live in that community of Queen Village or the neighboring 213 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 community to the north, which is Society Hill, or Pennsport to the south, which are your immediate community neighbors, were to object to that development because in his or her mind, it is obstructing the view of the river and that taxpayer went to the Zoning Board, do you think that that person should have the right to file an appeal that the Zoning Board granted to the developer along with the community support to build that residential structure which is bringing people into the City? I mean, do you think -- and don't you think, based on some of the conversations we had, and you've been involved -- and I hate that you're kind of like on the witness stand, and I don't mean it to be that way, but we've been involved in a number of applications. Every time an application is appealed -- rightly or wrongly or you agree or I agree or disagree -- it takes money. I mean, if someone were to have filed an appeal on that particular application for Dockside and that appeal would have lasted a year or two, depending on the length and time in which it took to go through the court process, that development 214 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 may not even be happening today. So do you think that somebody should be able to at the Zoning Board level be able to file 5 that objection to that development, which we all agreed is a benefit to everybody in the entire city?
In that particular case, there was no need for them to go in front of the Zoning Board; they had it as a matter of right, so --
I'm leaving that out, but let's -- but hypothetically, if that were the case that they needed Zoning Board approval, okay, let's -- 'cause that's a very unique situation, which I think could be the opposite of what Councilman Cohen was speaking to. It is not making it more difficult for people or giving people the opportunity or encouragement to leave. If anything, it's doing the opposite: It's bringing people back into the City. And you have a developer who is putting up his money -- no City dollars, all privately-funded money for that project. Do you think that after -- if he needed zoning -- okay, 215 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the hypothetical is that he needed zoning -- that that would be appropriate?
If somebody wants to spend their money and take the time to research it and expend their very limited resources to do it, it's their prerogative to do that. Would I like it? No, not necessarily, but --
Well, all I'm suggesting is, they still will have that right to spend their money, but not at the Zoning Board level -- take it to Common Pleas Court and then let the court decide whether that person should have standing or not. That's all this is about. Now, we've spent months, and I think the project is going to be a better project because you put the time into it. It's going to look more attractive, there's more benefit to the community, everyone agreed, everyone agrees. But somebody who just doesn't like development on the river, for whatever reason, decides that they're going to file that Zoning Board -- is an appeal at the Zoning Board, I just -- that's what is at the heart of what I'm attempting to address in this bill. 216 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But I think, respectfully, Councilman, that's a smoke screen. I don't think we've really -- we've seen that in very narrow instances, and in this particular case, we've seen it with SCRUB. I don't think that it's -- I mean, I personally, as a community leader, have not seen it.
I've seen the opposite, I've seen the opposite of pressure being brought to bear because of burdensome uses, and then we're sort of just up against the wall.
But I've seen both sides of it. I've seen where development has decided either to not continue or has been delayed to the point where it has created an economic hardship to the project. I mean, I've seen both sides of this. And I quite frankly believe that if we enter into an agreement in Whitman on a billboard that SCRUB will be filing an appeal, even though that community says, We don't see it, we don't hear it, it -- 217 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But it's filing an appeal based on the law. I mean, if we were to take this logical progression to the end, then each little neighborhood should write its own laws, because we're talking about a citywide law, a citywide ordinance that is not being enforced. Are you saying that every neighborhood should have the decision to -- (Applause.)
I'm sorry, the applause drowned out the end of your statement.
I'm just asking a hypothetical question. Are you suggesting, or is Council suggesting, that each neighborhood should have the right to selectively enforce or overlook laws on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis?
I'm not saying overlook laws; I'm saying that they should have the -- in the end, they should have, at least at the Zoning Board level, should have the final say, at the Zoning Board level. And if someone wants to appeal that decision, they can appeal it at Court of Common Pleas Court, not at the Zoning Board. 218 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
If we have standing, if we have standing. And that's what we're talking about today.
No, no. The court could still decide, as far as I'm -- and I'm not an attorney, so I think somebody else could answer that. I'm not sure. I mean, I'll let the lawyers tell me that one. I believe they would still have standing. At least a City resident would have standing, I believe, maybe not a non-City resident. But, again, I'm not an attorney, so I'll look to the legal minds to give me an answer on that. But thank you for being here, and we had a great conversation last night via telephone, and thank you for coming today.
Just one comment 219 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 about Councilman DiCicco's statement. I think you are introducing a whole new element that may cause far more protracted legislation. Every case will first be involved in this test of standing, and so that instead of simplifying and maybe speeding up and expediting the Zoning Board and courts' handling of matters, you're introducing a second element that's going to complicate things and probably delay things. I'm just suggesting that you give that consideration, because the communities are not going to go quietly, they're not going to permit themselves to be muzzled, because heart of Philadelphia --
-- where they founded the nation was that people ought to have the freedom to express their views, and that's what we're talking about.
I am trying to be very patient. I saw the e-mail that went out, this Community Alert that the sky is falling. I am not putting a gag order -- this is not an attempt to put a gag order on anybody. 220 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
It is not because I believe -- and many of the folks who are here today from my district believe I speak for the community. I want certain people -- I want it to be able to be discussed. I just have a problem at that Zoning Board level with somebody who just decides because the sun will be blocked on the Delaware and the sturgeon that are spawning up the Delaware from March -- February through March may be affected. And that, I think, poses a problem.
But, Councilman, don't express so little confidence in the courts. They will know when there's an appeal filed soley for a delay. The court is going to make the decisions.
Give the court the opportunity to hear every side -- 221 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Could i just make one final statement. I would just like to say as a community leader, the reverse usually happens from what we're hearing today. It's not so much a matter that we fight really hard for something and then have to fight against having that implemented. Believe me, 99 percent of the time, we're fighting something that's burdensome and onerous to us, not the reverse. So, I mean, just talking about the DePaul development, that -- (Applause.)
Marie LaChat and Carolyn Sutton, if they would both come up to the table. And if Robert Turino is with us, I would ask that he also approach the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good 222 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Marie LaChat, and I represent the Chestnut Hill Community Association. The Chestnut Hill Community Association strongly opposes the passage of Bill No. 000629. We are a Community Association which represents 10,000 residents/taxpayers of Chestnut Hill. We have hundreds of volunteers who work in some 30 committees in our association in order to keep our part of Philadelphia a vital, healthy neighborhood. We are an historic tourist destination, and we join the Germantown and Mt. Airy neighborhoods through the Northwest Coalition to advertising brochures that celebrate our neighborhood and the beauty of the City. We have many committees in our association that work very, very hard to maintain, protect, and improve the quality of life in our neighborhood. We believe that the passing of Bill No. 24 000629 will make the already-overwhelming job of caring for our neighborhood impossible and, in 223 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 fact, make some of our committees, such as our Land Use Planning Committee, Aesthetics Committee, and Development Review Committee obsolete. We will lose our power to participate in the process that decides the direction our neighborhood will take. No appeal power would mean no power at all, in our view, at the Zoning Board. This information has much been looked at through attorneys, land use planners, and zoning experts in our community. The following statement was written prior to hearing the testimony from the Managing Director's Office, but I'll say it anyway. I believe our mayor recognizes the importance of improving our neighborhoods in order to stem the flow of residents/taxpayers from our city and to encourage others to become new or returning residents of Philadelphia. I believe with the help of City Council, he can succeed, and so I would say, please support our mayor in these worthy goals and reject Bill 000629. This was unanimously supported by our Community Association executive board. However as a resident of Philadelphia, 224 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 lifelong, who's lived in many different neighborhoods in Philadelphia, I know well the job it takes to go to the Zoning Board, to be heard, and to defend against many of the predators that come into our communities. I would suggest those who have questioned what exactly blight is that you go to the counties, and perhaps even Washington Township, and they'll give you a real good definition of "blight," and my belief is, that will include billboards and that will include junked-up newsstands. Many are happy not to face this on a daily basis. The concerns about raising money for children is everybody's concerns. Might I say, the word "elitist" has been thrown around today, and maybe that's what people think we are in Chestnut Hill, but we do not have the money, we do not have a legal fund to fight any zoning issues, much perhaps to the surprise of some people. So this idea of being able to afford someone who can come in and protect you against some of the predators that come into communities, as they did in mine when it was Germantown, as they did in mine when it was East Oak Lane, I think is a 225 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 rather sad idea. The hypotheticals were very interesting and fun to listen to, but I did hear Councilman Nutter try to get information that shows that the bill, as it exists, has been a disaster, and he was not able to -- no one was able to show any circumstance in which the bill, as it has existed for 45 years, is a problem. I have great concerns about what I have heard today. I will say something that I have given a lot of thought to. I did not know Mary Tracy before today, and I still haven't met her, but I am at least feeling positive about being a Philadelphian because of the people who have come out and recognized the importance of our working on our problems in this city and our importance -- the importance of seeing the big picture.
People drive by, they see billboards, they keep right on going to Montgomery County. And if those of us who run this city want to nitpick at some things and don't want to see the big picture, don't want to go out and find out why people really leave, blight -- if you ask, I think you will find it is an important thing. 226 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 So I would like to thank Mary Tracy and I would like to thank the others for coming out. They are people that I hope are my peers, they are people I consider my heroes, and they are people who will give me the hope to remain a resident of Philadelphia. )
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you for your testimony. Could you explain to me how you believe that Bill 15 No. 629 reduces your ability and your civic association's ability to defend or protect --
Okay thank you. To defend the issues concerning Chestnut Hill. I don't understand how you believe it's diminished your --
No, no, no, no. 3 That's not what this bill does. You have standing.
If you do not have the power to appeal, the Zoning Board will be able to dismiss you.
You have the right to appeal any issue before the Zoning Board in your neighborhood. No one's taking that right away at all. It's not even close to being true. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I have sat with attorneys, I have sat with landlords. I am -- just like some of you, I am not an attorney, so I won't argue legal issues with you.
And, frankly, the bill's been amended quite a number of times so it behooved me to be hearing from the people I 228 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 respect, whose legal opinion I respect, to further look at it, but I know what I know from the people I have spoken to, the people I respect, and I strongly believe --
When I know that the Managing Director's Office can't answer the questions, why would I support a bill?
Well, if you're basing your opposition to this bill on the fact that your right to appeal anything in your neighborhood will be taken away, that is an incorrect assumption, and it's not the purpose of this bill. Let me ask you another question. I misunderstood what you said about Jersey. Were you saying that there -- billboards are in Jersey or they're not?
I said if you want to know what blight is -- 229 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Yeah, you said people leaving to go to New Jersey. I didn't understand the part of your testimony that you said -- were you saying that there wasn't blight in those communities or that there was?
No, you said -- you mentioned New Jersey and Montgomery County. I didn't understand the context.
I said if you want the definition of "blight," you might do a survey amongst residents who have left Philadelphia, and I think if blight -- if billboards and junked-up newsstands were a part of the question there, you would find that that is an extremely important issue.
I think they haven't found that there's no billboards in the Jersey communities where they move to nor along the Schuylkill Expressway and parts of Montgomery County. So I mean --
Well, I think that's a big difference than in Society Hill or an expressway. 230 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
There is a difference, and I know that you can argue with me over it, and I guess I could go back home and I could travel through Montgomery County and I could take a lot of photographs to bring into you. That's part of the overwhelming job residents of Philadelphia have in order to protect not only their neighborhood, but their city. The -- I spend much of my time, because in Chestnut Hill, we live very close to the border, defending this city to people who have come to me and said, Oh, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, it's awful. And then they'll say to me, Well, where do you live? And I say, Oh, Chestnut Hill. Oh, well that's different. I say it is not different, it is Philadelphia. It is every bit a part of Philadelphia as North Philadelphia, South Philadelphia. We pay taxes to the City of Philadelphia. We do not pay taxes to Chestnut Hill.
People who live in South Philadelphia along I-95 have lived with that highway and that federal intrusion for 30 or more 231 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 years. As a matter of fact, there were many homes of relatives and friends of mine whose families' homes were taken as a result of eminent domain claim about the federal and State government to put I-95 in that particular corridor, as opposed to having it further -- half hour a mile eastward, where it could have gone through no one's neighborhood, and that was a terrible thing. But as a result of that highway, people have been living with the results of that highway -- noise and pollution and other things. Because the highway exists, there is an opportunity for outdoor advertisers, for example, to utilize the highway to advertise for their clients. If a group that's lived along I-95 for the past 30 or 40 years come to some conclusion with an outdoor advertiser that, in fact, whatever concessions they make to that community who has to live with that highway to better their community, and they come to that agreement, do you think that you as a leader of the Chestnut Hill Civic Association have a right to question that or to obstruct that effort?
I know when I leave here, 232 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'll join SCRUB, I know that. (Laughter.)
Because I don't want to have a chat with someone who's come from Connecticut down I-95 all the way maybe to North Carolina and runs into me at some point to point out just how bad it was riding through Philadelphia.
Do you think it would be appropriate for you to have a chat with the President of the Pennsport Civic Association before you or SCRUB or anyone else would oppose what they have made an agreement to do?
Mary Tracy said that she does that as a participant in and member of SCRUB and --
Well, she has done that, gotten the answer, and opposed it anyway, so I don't know how much -- 233 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I think in every zoning issue, people meet and people walk away in agreement sometimes and they will not in some circumstances.
Do you believe that the people who live around that highway have a right or a greater right than you to determine what the quality of life in their neighborhood should be?
I believe very much that those billboards impact us all. And we brought up the issue of some of our sports areas that have signage around. And having grown up in Roxborough and having family still living in Roxborough, I have gone to games at the 21st Ward fields on Port Royal Avenue, and hanging all around the fence around the field are ads.
Well, we are not discriminating. I believe (indiscernible), we take either. So I look at that, and it is really very -- 234 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Do you live in Roxborough or Chestnut Hill? I'm sorry.
And I was born and raised in Germantown. You don't want to hear my chronology, but I know a lot about how things work in Philadelphia --
When I go to the games and watch my nephews and nieces play for the 21st Ward, that advertising is confined, it is confined to that space. In many cases, they are not totally impacting residents. And in that instance, where it is confined to that space, it actually speaks to me of a bit of vitality.
But that is not up in the air and that is not strewn -- 235 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Would you suggest it would be better maybe to take it and line it all along Ridge Avenue?
-- the neighbors are having a very, very, very hard time fighting.
When you go to watch your nephews or nieces play sports and are attracted by the quaint advertising along the ballfield walls, do you think that someone who doesn't live in that neighborhood and who happens to be watching another nephew, who is offended by that signage has the right to question the installation of that signage and do what it takes to get take that signage taken down?
I don't think -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Do you think they 236 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have the right or do you think they don't?
I do believe that if someone would find reason -- and maybe they just would have a good reason, but if they didn't have a darn good reason --
But you think they should have standing to do that, whether --
And regardless of whether or not the removal -- (Applause.)
If the hypothetical removal of that signage would doom that program, you think that's a good thing?
We had a lot of hypotheticals today, so let me give you my hypothetical.
My hypothetical is the person from outside who's opposing this is 237 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 probably not going to get anywhere with it.
If they did and it doomed the program, would it be okay?
You're in the fight. When you live in Philadelphia, you're in the fight.
It's okay to doom -- potentially doom an athletic program in a community because some person's offended by advertising.
If you recall, I said I truly don't believe they'd have a leg to stand on and they wouldn't --
And they wouldn't last in the case and it would be just like cases where somebody sues and gets a $100 million verdict and nobody reports later on that that was thrown out.
Well, I don't think that person has the right to doom any athletic or any other socially-redeeming program because of 238 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 their aesthetic sensibilities.
I don't believe it's going to happen. You gave us hypotheticals, I'll give you mine.
You believe that certain injurious things are going to happen as a result of this bill; I don't. You believe that people always sue for the right reasons; I don't believe that that's the case.
Now, you do say some things that I didn't say. I did not say people sue for the right reasons. I said if they proceeded to sue, I don't -- you know, you don't get in a suit without having good reason.
Well, I said I'm not a 239 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 lawyer, maybe you are and you know that.
You get in suits from time to time to simply delay the process. There's enough lawyers around here who know exactly how to delay things so that sometimes projects go away.
Attorneys, architects, land planners, landscape architects jump through many, many, many hoops in the counties. This is not just pertinent to Philadelphia. We just have to work a little harder as volunteers to maintain our neighborhood and the beauty of our city in the big picture.
Well, I'm an experience volunteer. Thank you for the advice.
I just wanted to note for the record that in my experience, if you 240 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 take away the right of appeal, you take away the right to an effective presentation of a case before the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board doesn't have to be concerned as to whether or not they pay any attention to your evidence because they will know that you are not permitted to appeal, and that's the reason --
You are taking away the right to appeal. If I appear before the Zoning Board, I want to appear as a party, I want the Zoning Board to know that if in my judgment, they are wrong, I will have a right to appeal.
The Zoning Board, therefore, pays more attention than they would to somebody who has no right to appeal. That's the reason you want to take away the right to appeal, because you think it's effective. I agree with you, the right to appeal 241 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 is very effective, and that's why communities and environmental groups need to have that right to appeal. And that's what gives their presence at the Zoning Board real impact. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
My name is Carolyn Sutton, and I'm the President of the East Falls Development Corporation and a 30-plus resident of the City of Philadelphia in many neighborhoods, as well as a business owner in the City from time to time. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the East Falls Development Corporation and several other groups in East Falls regarding our neighborhood's opposition to Bill 22 629. It is appalling to me that the City would consider removing one taxpayer's voice from the process of improving the quality of life in 242 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Philadelphia when so many others have given up and left town. Almost daily these days, I read or hear of some story on Philadelphia's efforts to eliminate blight, transform neighborhoods, and reverse the flight of our middle-class residents to the suburbs. And almost daily these days, I attend a meeting or two with other volunteer East Fallsers to do our part in stemming the tide of decay and desertion in our middle-class neighborhood. Many of our own issues -- Building and Zoning Code violations, parking and traffic, litter and graffiti, utility and highway easements, open space, and historic preservation -- are citywide problems that impact all neighborhoods and all taxpayers who live and work in Philadelphia. And so much seems to happen in this city before the neighbors are any the wiser. Big-box supermarkets, blank walls in a residential street in Chestnut Hill, transmission towers in Roxborough, a halfway house for violent offenders across from a school in Germantown. Think how much worse things could get without the intervention of passionate and 243 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 concerned citizens wherever they come from. If not for the preservationist, Maxfield Parrish's "Dream Garden" would be gone by now, along with a lot of other important City history, including some great buildings in East Falls. I only wish more of us from all over the City had gotten involved early enough to save the once-vibrant 1600 block of Sansom Street from Mr. Spielov's (ph.) parking garage. East Falls is little more than one square mile, but it is an important piece in the diverse tapestry of urban living, particularly since our front yard opens onto Fairmount Park and the Schuylkill River. Revitalization of our Ridge Avenue commercial corridor has begun and development of several key riverfront parcels is just around the corner. With the support of our councilman, Michael Nutter, we are working hard to ensure that development in this highly visible area benefits East Falls as well as the entire Philadelphia community. And, quite frankly, it is shocking to realize how often, for whatever reasons, the interests of powerful big-business players take 244 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 precedence over our own initiatives. The East Falls Development Corporation welcomes the advice and help of advocates who share our commitment to building a better city, whether they live in our community or not, because there just aren't enough hours in the day for us to fight for all of the things East Falls considers important. The Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB), Philadelphia Association of CDCs (PACDC), Schuylkill River Greenways, the Preservation Alliance, and the many Friends groups who watch over Philadelphia's treasures are terrific allies for East Falls and every neighborhood that is trying to sustain and promote the value of living in Center City. For East Falls Development Corporation and the City's taxpayers, I urge you to reject Bill 629 and other such legislation that denies any of us active participation in the zoning process. Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of all of us. (Applause.)
Thank you. Good afternoon, ma'am. I caught -- I was distracted for a few minutes. You said something about a development project going on in East Falls that you have been working along with Councilman Nutter?
No, I said that we have been working with Councilman Nutter on a lot of different things, including putting forward a master plan for development, a revitalization study for revitalizing, changing the Zoning Code, and putting in a zoning overlay through the ordinance process, and we are now at a point where we are going forward. And every decision that is made in East Falls impacts the entire city, particularly because of our location along Fairmount Park. And we try very hard to work with the neighborhoods on either side of us and the groups that are taking care of the Wissahickon Creek, Fairmount Park, the trees, just about anything. It is our feeling that we will do a 246 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 better job for the City as a whole if we work with Manayunk, Roxborough, Ridge Avenue, Hunting Park -- Ridge Allegheny Hunting Park, excuse me. And as I said, we welcome those voices in the decisions that we make.
Would you include in that list of groups Pennsport and South Philadelphia?
If they were opponents to what the groups that you just mentioned for us, if you --
-- in opposing what those five or six groups or ten groups, whatever it is, that are immediately impacted?
I believe that they have a voice. If you had been at a recent hearing that we had before Fairmount Park on whether or not to turn over Gustine Lake to the Arthur Ashe Tennis Center, you would have heard me speak in favor of 247 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Arthur Ashe Tennis Center and also rebuilding the basketball facility on another parcel in East Falls. There were many voices there from outside of our community speaking in opposition.
And I believe they had a right to be there, and I believe they would have a right to go before the Zoning Board of Appeal.
Let me -- could I -- it must be something on the east side that -- let me --
No, no, there's not something on the east side. We are taking about the City of Philadelphia. It's the City. 248 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
It has nothing to do with East Falls or Pennsport or whatever. The people that are working at this now are working -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And if the development of that Arthur Ashe Tennis Court, do you believe that someone from anywhere else in the City should have the right to file an appeal and prevent that development from happening?
I believe that they have a right to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, file the appeal, and have their voice heard.
And they disagree -- if they disagree with the decision of the Zoning Board, you believe that they should have standing in an appeal that may jeopardize that project? 249 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
If that is what the court decides. Now, we have -- let me tell you about other incidences in East Falls, all right?
I don't mean to be disrespectful. I think 'cause we're probably --
I know I talk a lot. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I just wanted to know on that case, 'cause I read about that, the Arthur Ashe Tennis Court, that you would be willing to jeopardize that project because you think that it is the right from someone from Whitman or Pennsport or Bella Vista should have as much understanding in that as you and the other folks who live in that community. That's okay for 250 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 them to file the appeal and quite possibly jeopardize the project because the developer, whatever, doesn't want to go through that whole lengthy court process. You'd rather have what is there now than the Arthur Ashe because someone's right -- should have the right from South Philadelphia to tell you what you want and deserve in your neighborhood.
All right, all right, okay. And I say they have the right to express themselves, and if it's to --
If it's to file an appeal, I have to assume that in the final analysis, the decision will be made in the right way for the City.
Now let me tell you about another incidence where we filed, where we went 251 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 before the Zoning Board to fight a use in our neighborhood that was not compliant with not only the basic Zoning Code but also our zoning overlay. And three community organizations, the Councilman, and City Planning opposed the granting of that variance, and the Zoning Board found -- granted the variance, granted the variance.
Now I would like to have as much help as I can going forward to file the appeal, and we do not have the money in East Falls to --
What help am I going to bring to the table if I live in South Philadelphia? I haven't a clue about what's going on up there.
You have an opinion, and people that generally get involved that way have a passion for something.
But your opinion 252 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 can be heard at the Board. All I'm suggesting is that in the reverse order of what you're saying, I shouldn't be preventing a development that you choose and your community should be going forward on. That's all I'm saying.
I tell you what. Madam Chair, no further questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Miss Sutton. Robert Turino? (No response.)
And Maggie 253 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Powell from the Eastwick PAC will be next. Please approach the table. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. Julia Camburn. I'm a resident of Philadelphia for 50-plus years, a business owner, and President of East Falls Business Association. I had not received a call back from your office. I did not realize I was to testify, so I will be very brief.
And as a resident and as the president of a 50-plus-member organization in a very small community, as Carolyn just told you, within the City, we are opposed to this revision with this Bill 629. The community of East Falls is one not unlike many others. Our five civic organizations, civic and business organizations, are enhanced by many, many Friends groups, which look to various endeavors, whether it be trees or the riverside or parks or streets or what have you. 254 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 It's very difficult as a volunteer, as someone who's trying to run a business, run a family, maintain some kind of semblance of a quality of life in the City to be apprised at all times of all issues. When you have organizations such as SCRUB who focus in on individual items and bring that to the attention of the communities and let people know about it, it's very important. We cannot allow ourselves as association members, as residents, as taxpayers of the City to be run over by political -- what's the -- political -- I'm sorry, I'm lost for the words -- interests. And I would wonder, I would wonder, since Miss Tracy was asked so vociferously about whether or not her organization had received a contribution from a certain association or of its affiliates, if we can then come back to Council and ask if individuals who are proposing certain ordinances are themselves receiving any kind of contribution from affiliates. (Applause.).
It is our opinion that the taxpayer needs to be heard. It is our opinion that the taxpayer needs a voice. It is our 255 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opinion that if this is to go forward, it must go forward in a way that speaks for the entire city, all 57 neighborhoods working and enhancing each other. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm sorry. I was just finishing lunch. Every Councilmember of the City of Philadelphia, every elected official in the State is required to file a campaign disclosure form at least once a year, sometimes more than once a year. Mine is on record. If you'd like to have me send it to you from my office, I'd be happy to do so. The concern that we have, I guess, is some of us are required to disclose and other groups are not required to disclose. And I do believe -- and I don't know whether true or not, 256 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 but I do believe it is significant that if an organization that purports itself to be an advocate or a group that is on a crusade against these type of billboards that in some instances can remove opposition, if in fact it's true, remove opposition from a billboard, accept money from a billboard company or someone affiliated with a billboard company, but a Community Association in some part of the City isn't permitted to make their own arrangement with a billboard outdoor advertising company, that's looked at as somehow being a little low-class, a little gauche. But a group like SCRUB, if in fact they've done that, that's okay, because they don't have to disclose it. My disclosure's there are for all to see. And organizations in our neighborhood where I live have a right to make arrangements with whatever developers or advertisers that they think they have a right to make a deal with in order to improve their neighborhood, without having people who don't live in that neighborhood second-guess and somehow look upon that effort as somehow being less than worthy, and I think that that's the 257 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 concern. Mary Tracy, SCRUB can disclose it or not disclose it. If they in fact did it and did not disclose it, I think it's some what duplicitous and not really fair to the other groups who try to do the same thing. That's -- so I'm on record. You can find my campaign contributions anytime you want.
After the Eastwick PAC, it will be Jack Minnis. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Joseph Warren. I'm a vice president of the Eastwick Project Area Committee, here to represent Maggie Powell, the Executive Director.
Joe, you're going to have to pull the microphone closer to 258 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you, please.
My name is Joseph Warren, Vice President of the Eastwick Project Area Committee.
We're here to let Council know that we oppose this amendment 000629. We are aware of the amendment that the Councilman may (indiscernible) our discussion and our vote on this particular amendment had to do with it whether or not a taxpayer should not be allowed standing. We have our statement -- I believe you have our statement, but we are very conscious of the fact that standing is very important, standing for the taxpayer. Residents of -- taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia ought to have the ability to challenge rulings of the Zoning Board.
I just want to add that when we went to appeal the sign boards in Eastwick, the first thing the Zoning Board asked us was how close were we to the location. So, therefore, I see no reason for changing the rule 259 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that was on the records, and leave it the way it was. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much for your patience. Jack Minnis, Janet Benedetto. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Okay, I'm Jack Minnis Chair, and I'm Zoning Chair of the Powelton Village Civic Association. And I am going to have to depart from my prepared text, which I have distributed because it was toward the amendment that Councilman DiCicco originally submitted. But we still strongly oppose Bill 23 000629 and its amendment. And there is a committee to defeat then both. Now, we have been told that Bill 629 would prevent an outsider from 260 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 appealing an agreement between the community and the developer. Now, changing the Zoning Code to prevent such a rare situation is an unacceptable reason for eliminating the right of any taxpayer to appeal. Instead, the bill effectively excludes anyone or any group from the appeal process, even if the zoning ruling obviously affects them, unless they go through the tortuous, expensive exercise of gaining standing. Now, the amendment introduced today does not really assuage our opposition to the bill 13 because there is still too many undefined terms in the definition of "affected persons." And I -- I made a list of the things that were wrong with the first amendment that Mr. DiCicco presented, but we are very concerned about the definition of "the neighborhood," we're very concerned about the definition of "an affected neighborhood," and more than anything else, we are most concerned about whose definitions are going to be used. And if we are going to use the one in (7)(c), then it must be clarified to mean the same thing for everyone. Now, adding the amendment to the bill 25 was apparently done to protect the rights of the 261 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 many civic associations in the City. What it really does, however -- what it really did however, it raised many more problems than it has solved, and it does not significantly change the crucial fault that is engendered by the bill. What neither the bill nor the amendment addresses is the problem raised if there is a zoning ruling for an area where there is no neighborhood association. For example, near Powelton, where we live, in West Philadelphia, we have such areas along the Schuylkill, around the main post office, and surrounding 30th Street Station and its yards. The original Zoning Code you're being asked to change adequately provides for this problem. Now, even if the amendment is not accepted, Bill 629 still must be defeated. The bill would severely limit Powelton and other neighborhoods near it expanding colleges. These neighborhoods are under siege by large numbers of students moving into off-campus housing. In many cases, they are moving into large buildings at the edge of the neighborhood, surrounded by other buildings recently purchased by developers, who 262 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have filled them with students and who have little, if any, interest in the interest of the neighborhood. If such neighborhoods are to remain viable, any taxpayer and we must have the right to oppose and appeal Zoning variances that contribute to this erosion. And any question about whether or not we are aggrieved must be completely clear. We strongly urge you to vote against bill and its amendments unless you can make the amendments more clear so that it's acceptable to us. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I want to ask the same quick question that I've asked the last witness. As a result of your community involvement in your particular community and the results of some of this development that has concerned the community and potentially may aggrieve the community, where do you believe, or how do you believe, that this bill 24 limits your civic association's or your organization's ability to oppose as a matter of 263 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 right these proposed developments?
Well, the term "aggrieved parties" is rather -- specifies -- is specific, but in the Paragraph (7)(c), it says something about tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity. I don't know what "vicinity" means. Does that mean 500 feet, 1,000 feet, a mile, or what?
So your suggestion is that we try to tighten up that language?
I think the introducer of the amendment should have made it very specific of what have that meant, yes.
That's fine. Thank you. I appreciate it. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Janet Benedetto. I live in Overbrook Farms, which is in the West Philadelphia area of the City of Philadelphia, and I also own property in South Philadelphia. So when you take these to two spatial areas, I am an owner and a taxpayer for both parcels. However, I am actually a resident of only one, so I think 264 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 this kind of dovetails with some of the rhetoric issues that have been floating around here today. I came with a prepared statement, and at the risk of -- I don't want to be redundant because things have been really affirmed here on the part of people much like myself who represent civic associations and pursue their love of Philadelphia, especially in the areas of zoning, the spatial issues. I mean, zoning is the number-one environmental issue that this city is facing. And I think that that position would be strongly concurred if you even took the time and, hopefully, the interest to confer with the academics at Temple University and their School of Geography and Urban Planning and also at the University of Penn. That being said, what I've come to realize in listening to all of the testimony today, which most of it was absolutely wonderful, is that today's proceedings really are about a word and the power of a word. From a personal point of view, in the last two years, I've become a proud grandmother. And Sophia Rose Benedetto and Julia Christine 265 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Benedetto were born, and the first thing before they were placed into the loving arms of their family is, they were given a Social Security number. They became, at the day of their birth, taxpayers. I really truly believe that the word "taxpayer," which I do not want removed from any of these writings, has become synonymous with people's identity as a citizen and as a member of the public and a person who has a right to participate in the process. Also, as a former junior high school civics teacher, this really goes to the heart of the spirit with which I conducted classes on civics. If this bill is rewritten the way you're proposing, I will have to personally send an apology and a retraction to all of the students that I have taught, telling them what I taught them, helped them to learn, hopefully to exercise is no longer quite the way I presented it to them. And I really don't want to incur that process. Also, I think there has been some misunderstanding as to really what is -- and 266 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 perhaps it's only in my own mind. What we're really talking about today is not zoning in its entirety; we were talking about a specific area of zoning called "fiscal zoning," which speaks directly to the possibility, the potential of earning revenues for a municipal treasury without any expenditures. So I think that perhaps there needs to be a redress as to just how comprehensive the area of zoning is. Again, you could validate that through any of the schools and the literature on zoning. But fiscal zoning is something very separate and distinct to the whole body of knowledge concerning zoning. I just want to put in a commercial for cities. Cities -- and our city is a marketplace for ideas, for our cultural values, our changing values, our changing ideas, as well as material goods. And they're the repository of our cultural memory. And in my experience in representing the Overbrook Farms Club, all of the issues that I ever brought before this body had to do with issues of zoning, and there was always a great deal of input from those who felt they needed to 267 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 give the input. And also, at the point of being blunt and perhaps rude, Councilman Kenney, shame on you for taking money from companies to fund what you have rationalized to be a good thing. (Applause.)
I want you to be more clear on your comment, 'cause you're not being clear.
And what are they getting -- and what are they getting -- and what is that sports equipment company getting -- 268 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
No -- well, I just -- no -- well, you're telling me shame on me, so I want to make sure I --
Yeah, exactly. Shame on you. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And what do you think that sporting goods company's going to get for giving free of charge --
This is years ago, and whenever I had -- 269 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
-- which I would consider recent relative to the proceedings today.
But shame on you for taking that money and rationalizing it as a good deed.
Well, it is, and let me tell you why it is, because those kids are more important than your sense of aesthetics, and I'll tell you why --
And let me tell you something, let me tell you something. So you said shame on me. Shame on you. Why don't you come 270 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 out with me one morning at o'clock in the morning to Rizzo Rink or to EOM Athletic Association or to Port Richmond Tigers or to any of those other groups in the City that we go on our best efforts to make sure they stay afloat so these kids are recreated.
Now, if you want to sit there and be offensive, do what you want, but let me tell you something: I will never, ever stop doing that 'cause every kid I get involved -- you know, Cobbs Creek Ice Rink, do you know how many kids we had involved out there? About 12. We must have about 150 to 170 out there now. Do you know that the kids in that neighborhood can't afford goalee equipment? You know how much that goalee equipment costs? It costs up to $1,000 to outfit a goal-tender. And those young kids who live in West Philadelphia who can't afford that equipment, don't tell me shame on me, Miss, because I'm going to tell you something, I'm proud of that, what we've been able to do out there. And I will continue to do that as long as every kid, or any 271 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 kid, has a need. Now, if you want to sit on your perch and give me a lecture, you do what you want, but don't insult me about my efforts and my work in the community with these children. I think it's offensive to me, and I will not stop doing it because those kids need that help. And I want to know what you do to help them, other than come in here and tell people off.
You crossed the line. You tell me what you do to help any young black kid in West Philadelphia get outfitted as a goal-tender. Tell me, 'cause I'm interested. You live in Overbrook, you go to Cobbs Creek. Have you been to Cobbs Creek Ice Rink? 272 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And what have you raised -- and what money have you raised for them --
When you start doing it, come back and criticize me. Thank you.
Thank you. Cirel Magen, please. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible, off-mic.)
Thank you. Mr. John Furey, also, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Sure, of course. My name is Elizabeth Armor (ph.) and I'm a resident of Society Hill. I'm here as a resident taxpayer as well as a business taxpayer, and I've also been asked to represent the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee of the civic association here today.
Yes. I just was realizing that this morning so my comments will be brief. As you know, Society Hill became a City-certified historic district a little bit more 274 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 than two years ago almost to the day, and we fought for that for a number of years, as you all know, and I would like to thank those of you who are here today who helped us in that endeavor. We're very appreciative of that.
What I would like to say is we are in support of many of the groups that have testified here today, most notably the Queen Village neighborhood group, as well as East Falls Development Corporation, in say that the language of the bill, as we have seen it, not necessarily with the last changes -- I do want to make that qualification obviously -- is contrary to and we feel completely emasculates sections of Bill No. 17 318. This is amending Section 14-207 of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Historic Buildings." That bill states that, and I quote, "The citizens of Philadelphia. . ." -- it doesn't say "neighborhoods." It says, "The citizens of Philadelphia have a constitutionally mandated right to preservation of their historic and their aesthetic environment." And contrary to stated declaration of 275 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 public policy, as expressed in this bill, paragraph 1.b.4, to be specific, taking away our rights as taxpayers of -- and I underline again -- the City, not neighborhoods, the City. As interested persons has the unintended consequence, end of quote. It has the unintended consequence of eliminating the opportunity to participate in the preservations of buildings, structures, sites, objects that constitute and contribute to the character of historic districts. And I just want to make a personal statement here. I think we're going down a very slippery slope when we start discussing that somehow someone or some group has more rights than someone or some other group. When we start qualifying and putting a value judgment on the level of people's rights, quote/unquote, we start to deprive those very people of their rights. We are taking away with the language in this bill, as proposed, our right to participation in the process. And that in my mind is one of the basic tenets of democracy. (Applause.)
Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Rules Committee. My name is John Furey. I'm President of the Broad Street West Civic Association. We're located down in the South Philadelphia area. Our organization is concerned with the proliferation of billboards along the gateways and fringe areas of our neighborhood. We are opposed to Bill 629 for the following reasons: The amendment does nothing to reinforce an ordinance that is virtually ignored and never enforced; The amendment serves the needs of the corporate community, not the neighborhood; The amendment seek to weaken taxpayers' rights; The amendment will cause financial hardships to groups not able to file these appeals. Also, the question of standing should 277 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be left to the courts to decide on case-by-case basis. Currently, we have our hands full trying to monitor apartment conversions with the Zoning Board and their variances. We receive notification from Mary Tracy when there is billboard activity in our area. Frankly, I wasn't even aware of the amount of construction on billboards behind the FDR Park if it wasn't for this organization alerting us. Like I said, we're busy with neighborhood problems, primarily apartment conversions and L&I problems, and we don't have the resources, the time, or the money to dedicate to monitoring billboards. The other thing is that billboards, by their nature, wind up in the least restricted areas of the community, far from homes and neighborhood groups. So many times, the immediate area is not even aware of the activity until it is too late. We participated in a number of Zoning Board hearings. We went to the Zoning Board to oppose putting the billboards up in FDR Park, and we were chastised and reminded that we live quite a distance away from FDR Park and what did we have 278 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to say about it, you know. I know that the head of the Friends of FDR was told that the people -- that the Friends of FDR were from all over and they didn't live in the park and they weren't really interfered with by these billboards, so what were they doing there. So these least restricted areas are a distance away from your residential community. Then you're told you're too far from the site to have standing. So it is a struggle. And I think it's wrong, the language of this amendment. I think the bill itself needs to be reinforced. I think there needs to be more enforcement. And thank you for your time. (Applause.)
I believe she was here earlier and did leave a letter, which will be made a part of the record, and I would 279 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 like the record to reflect that she is in opposition to the bill. Do you have a copy of this? STENOGRAPHER: Yes.
Would you like to read it? She asked me to read it. It's up to you.
If you can abbreviate it, because we have people waiting here for another hearing. Identify yourself for the record, please.
My name is Judith Eden. I live in Center City, and I have the letter before me of Ann Butchart, who wrote the letter wearing multiple many hats. And she lives in the 1st Councilmatic District. I know that Frank DiCicco is committed to strong neighborhoods. He demonstrated this in 1966 when my community, Kensington South, opposed a land owner who sought a variance in order to 280 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 erect a 120-foot cellular tower in a residential neighborhood. And she goes through the zoning battle and the legislative battle that this ensued. And wrote, "We still had to appeal the Zoning Board decision to Common Pleas Court. We were successful, but only because the neighborhood took extraordinary means to wage a legal fight. In the course of our struggle, which included working on the legislation, my neighborhood was supported by other community organizations and leaders who had fought similar struggles and understood the legal and legislature process. "And that is what the proposed amendment is really about. By deleting the word 'taxpayer' from the group of recognized individuals and parties who can appear in zoning cases, it becomes unclear who has the legal standing to challenge critical zoning decisions which affect our neighborhoods. This amendment cedes participation in zoning matters to those who can afford to be represented by attorneys. That excludes most neighborhoods. "In our city, there are very few issues 281 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that affect a single neighborhood. The problems that make neighborhoods unattractive, unsafe, and unappealing do not confine themselves to any one part of the city. Crime, drug sales, unenforced building codes, potholes, absentee owners, these issues impact Philadelphians no matter where they live. Our good residents have for generations responded, organizing groups that address issues that are at the heart of our communities. The Historical Commission can speak to any historical site in the city, whether it is Independence Hall, a mansion in Frankford, or a church in South Philadelphia. We have the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, the Art Commission, Penn State Urban Gardening Program, Clean Air Council, CEPA, the Coalition of Philadelphia Neighborhoods, our Town Watch system, the Friends of Fairmount Park, any number of organizations dedicated to citywide issues. These groups are resources for Philadelphians who want to stay where they live and make things better. "The legislation proposed today will discourage civic-minded residents from addressing difficult urban issues. The only people motivated 282 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to challenge zoning decisions will be those who can afford to, those who can pay to play. An organization or a business may have the means to compensate a community group for the privilege of weighting the restrictions of the Zoning Code, but that does not mean that the community will be better off for the bargain. "Further, the proposed legislation will fracture community groups, diminish the voice of citizens, and amplify the effect of wealthy interests who have agendas other than those of the City's citizens. "If our elected representatives want to grow our neighborhoods, encourage participation, and staunch the flow of population from the city, then this bill should not be passed. The Appellate Courts have upheld the language of our Zoning Code as it is written, recognizing the decisions made by an administrative body profoundly affect the fabric of the community, and that all the stakeholders -- that is, we the taxpayers -- have standing to challenge those decisions. "If anything, the number of people 283 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 eligible to participate should be expanded, not contracted. This bill, either in its original language or as it may be amended should not be passed." Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. This committee will stand in recess for minutes, and we will now have a public hearings 12 of the Streets and Services Committee, but this -- 13 it will only take 15 minutes. 14
We are only going 15 to do two bills on the list for the Streets and Services Committee so that we can get back into this hearing, but there are a couple of people here who have requested that we get their bills out today. - - - (Meeting of Council Committee on Streets and Services is held.) - - - (Meeting of Council Committee on Rules resumes.) 284 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 - - -.
This is the continued public hearing of the Rules Committee regarding Bill No. 629. Our next witness is Janet Potter. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Janet Potter, the Director of Advocacy and Communications for the Foundation for Architecture. For more than two decades, the Foundation for Architecture has been a strong voice for public involvement in the design and development of Philadelphia. We are dismayed by the proposed Bill 18 000629 amendment to the Philadelphia Code, which would drastically restrict public process before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. We would like to see a published copy of the most recent amendment to which we are supposed to speak today. We think that that would be a fair matter of public process, rather than appearing here today and listening to and listening to an amendment when we 285 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 had expected something else. We are concerned no matter that removing three words and then adding some back in will not preserve the standing of the average taxpayer. Zoning boards in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania are merely tolerant, rather than enthusiastic, about hearing from the annoying, pesky public. Zoning boards will use any opportunity to deter people from speaking. I make this observation in my position for the Foundation for Architecture and as a lifelong community activist in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. The diminution of the chance for citizens to be heard at the Zoning Board will be gradual -- maybe not next week or next year, but it will happen. We cannot depend on the benevolence of the current City Council to insist that the Zoning Board allow the voice of every citizen to be heard. Sooner or later, the Zoning Board will realize that if people -- and I will clarify who I mean by "people" in a moment -- do not have the right of appeal. Their standing will be challenged right up front by the Zoning Board 286 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and their voices silenced. They will no longer even attempt to participate. Bill 629 would delete three simple but powerful words from the code, "or any taxpayer," cancelling out the rights of at least four categories of people. Advocacy organizations, such as the Foundation for Architecture; civic associations, despite the added-in words to the amendment; ad hoc committees, and that's a really serious issue, groups that come together on an emergency basis to address a zoning issue in Philadelphia; and individual citizens, who would no longer be permitted to confront zoning matters in the legal arena. Time will be consumed on battles about legal standing while the actual zoning issues, which should be the subject of public discussion, fail to be addressed. When developing and redeveloping a city, disagreements are inevitable. We must not silence the voices of our citizens, whether those voices are approving or disapproving, whether those voice cause delay or cause progress, whether those voice come from a near neighbor or from a group concerned with the 287 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 overall issues of zoning, land use, and planning in Philadelphia. Public deliberation, which often moves slowly to a conclusion, is our best assurance of fair-minded, solid, and satisfying growth for Philadelphia. The Foundation for Architecture respectfully asks the members of City Council to reject any amendment that harms the citizen's right to appeal. The crucial words "or any taxpayer" must remain. No diluting of the strength of those words, no quibbling about a citizen's standing before the Zoning Board, and no 14 adding of qualifiers that would hinder public process. We can understand the frustration, for example, of Councilman DiCicco and Kenny, but this amendment throws out the proverbial baby with the bath water. The baby is public process; the bath water is an overzealous desire to eliminate the comments or influence of, quote, outsiders. Philadelphia taxpayers are not outsiders; they are citizens with legal rights, which should be maintained. Thank you. 288 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. To the remaining survivors who have been here since o'clock this morning and 9 before, I want to say I very much appreciate -- 10 I'm not sure I'm surviving, but I very much appreciate your participation, and I think all of the citizens of Philadelphia do. Until your testimony, it wasn't as clear to me the total danger here. All organizations are told, Get out, get out of our sight, you don't live right here, you don't have any business being involved in anything. I thought mainly it was community organizations, but all of the these special groups, those interested in the historical preservation, there are even groups outside the City that have a strong attachment to Philadelphia. Are we saying to them, You don't count, we don't want you here? You know there was a senator -- used to be a state senator from Philadelphia who wanted to 289 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 extract the Northeast and call it -- what was it, "Liberty County"? He wanted to establish -- is that what we're doing? Are we going to create, you know, maybe 20, 30, 50, 100 different Liberty Counties in Philadelphia? I think in the 33 years since I first entered City Council, I have to say this is the most shortsighted bill I've ever seen, because what it does is just strike at the heart of citizen participation in government. And I don't know what the final decision will be. Maybe the decision of the committee may be for or (indiscernible), but I have great deal of confidence that in the period between an action by the committee and an action by the Council, there may well be second thoughts by many people. And I hope folks out in the community and all of these groups, the Historical Preservation group, the Horticultural Society, which has been involved in Zoning Board appeals, the Foundation for Architecture, all of these groups, as well as the standard environmental community groups, unite to make clear to the City Council, which is your legislative body, what you 290 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 think the decision ought to be. So just thank you for your perseverance here today. Thank you.
Councilman Cohen, if I may respond to what you are saying. I've notice that the focus today was on civic associations. And so far, I think the Foundation for Architecture is the only group so far to speak. And the concern about the words "or any taxpayer" was attempted to be alleviated by putting back in the words about civic associations, but it ignores advocacy groups, it ignores the emergency ad hoc committee, and it actually ignores the individual. And if in an attempt to get this bill, the words "or any taxpayer" continue to be removed and each one of those phrases is added back in, we've just created a clutter and a catastrophe, and things are actually rather neat and tidy now with "or any taxpayer." Granted, there are situations where that might be abused, but the far greater danger is that the organizations will be abused. 291 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
One doesn't abolish democracy because somebody may abuse it; one seeks to strengthen the democratic functioning of society. I don't understand. We're talking -- the hypothetical questions raised constantly indicate the City is falling down. We've never had the development in Philadelphia that we've had in the last 45 years since this original language was first inserted in the bill, "or any taxpayer." And we're conjuring up all kinds of hypothetical days of doom, when there are none in sight. There's been one case, one organization involved -- SCRUB -- which has been found to be apparently too annoying to folks interested in putting billboards wherever they want. And that's the whole basis that's being seized upon, I believe, by developers to conjure up these weird tales of, My God, people are coming from the outside somehow, outside interests, interlopers, people that got no business interfering in other people's business. I've never heard such kind of nonsense before. 292 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The City is strong, and we're going to make it stronger by giving people rights, not by taking away their rights. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Thank you. Miss Phillips, can you approach the witness table, please, and then I can I think you can go back to your business. (Miss Phillips returns to witness table.)
But I think the record has to be made crystal-clear. I thought I understood you earlier, but I'd like you to reiterate. This bill certainly not ignore an individual?
Would it ignore any community group if they, in fact, did not have a civic association in their community? Couldn't they get together and file an appeal?
Yes. And also, they would probably do it in the names of the 293 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 individuals that live nearby. And that's the practice, that's always been the practice.
Now, you have heard witness after witness testify this afternoon. Can you make this record clear for us, please, as to what you see this bill doing. I know you testified earlier, and I think I may have heard something differently than other people did.
What this bill would do is to take out the word "taxpayer" and remove the concept that a bare taxpayer status, just the fact of paying taxes in the City alone, would give you standing to appear -- to bring an appeal at the Court of Common Pleas. It doesn't take away the civic association rights, individual rights. And there have been a lot of discussions that this has been on the books for 45 years, and it has because it was always interpreted that a taxpayer also had to be aggrieved. The same language that's in the code right now. The SCRUB case, in 1999, changed that interpretation to say we don't need to look at aggrievement, we don't need to look at anything other than whether you pay taxes. 294 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And the issue of standing has always been a preliminary matter in any court appeal. It has to be raised by one side. The judge doesn't raise it on his own or her own. If one party can raise the issue of standing, it's a preliminary matter in many -- I guess in all jurisprudence that you have to show why it is that you're in court. And this is just eliminating the bare taxpayer status. There's no way that the Administration would support an ordinance that was taking away the right of communities to voice their concern to appear before the Board. I'm trying to focus that these are land-use decisions that impact, you know, the land use. What does it affect. And I think we tend to want to use zoning for everything, and we're looking at it a zoning matter, a land-use matter. And it is upsetting that people believe that their rights are being taken away. I don't think that's accurate at all.
I have a couple questions, Madam Chair. 295 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Phillips, 'cause I had some questions in this regard as well. Now, in response to the Chair's question with regard to the individuals, could you say your answer again, please.
I think individuals have a right to bring a zoning appeal at the Board and Court of Common Pleas if they're aggrieved, meaning that they're impacted somehow by the decision. Community groups that are an association, an unincorporated association, or an incorporated 501(c.)(3), if there's a group of people that come together and there's no legal entity, they would typically say, you know, there's a group, but they --
Well, the people. Say that the neighbors of block 100 come together over an issue. They don't have a legal -- there is no 296 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 legal entity, they haven't incorporated or become an unincorporated association.
That want to challenge something that affects their life, their quality of life from a land-use decision. And in all fairness, the reason the taxpayer was really -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
There was a very recent argument made by a good lawyers, I guess, and he won that argument.
What is it that 297 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 concerns you so much about the "or any taxpayer" component of this? If there are all of these rights out there, if everybody is protected currently, then why is it something that should be subtracted?
I don't think it is being subtracted. I think we're putting ourselves back the way we were before the SCRUB --
If you delete three words, I think it's a subtraction, so why does that need to be done?
I think it makes us consistent with the rest of the State, including the suburbs of which we have to compete with, they have an aggrievement standard.
We could be consistent and compete with everyone around us if we would drop our wage tax to about 1 percent.
So what we need to do is look at all the ways that we do business in the 298 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 City.
And I really -- the reason I don't see it as a deletion, it is taking it back to the way it was for 45 years, which was, you had to be aggrieved. The other thing is just to make it a part of the --
It wasn't like that 45 years ago. It said "aggrieved person or any other taxpayer." That's been the language for at least 45 years. I can't talk about what the practice was. But in your own words, I thought you said to the Council President, 'cause you didn't exactly say what you said in the earlier answer, I thought you said that some group people would come together and they would be some group but they'd also probably file or they also should file 21 individually as the nearby neighbors.
You continue to emphasize the nearby neighbor aspect of this. Now, what's the definition of that? 299 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Any neighbor that's impacted or resident or business owner or property owner. You don't even have to be a resident.
But we talked about this earlier, and so now you'll have to go back and give us the explanation of what does a court define as the "aggrieved person"?
It's not a quantifiable thing that says you live one mile from this site or one block from a site. It is an issue related to impact.
They didn't say anything about distance in that case, did they?
Isn't the standard that the party must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the particular litigation, otherwise he can have no standing to appeal. And 300 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 not only must the party desiring to appeal have a direct interest in the particular question litigated, but his interest must be immediate and pecuniary and not a remote consequence of the judgment. The court further went on to say that in particular, it is not sufficient for the person claiming to be aggrieved to assert the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law now. Now, isn't that the standard?
I'm sorry, I disagree with you in the fact that you said there had to be a pecuniary interest. I don't believe that's what the court has held.
Well, so am I, so am I. And that's what -- I mean, I did read the 301 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 language correctly.
Councilman, I don't want to argue over it. I mean, we can have differences of opinion on this. I am telling you that as a --
Miss Phillips, wait a minute. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Hold on. I asked you to hold on. Did I read the words correctly or not? Now, I don't want to dispute about whether I can read or not.
Why don't we go to the section, and then you can state for the record whether I read it correctly.
If you can give me a chance to read from another section if I disagree with you.
Sure. You can say 302 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 whatever it is you want I don't want you to say, but I don't want you to say that I didn't read the section correctly. I do know how to read.
Let her know what section you're reading so she could look at it.
Well, the copy I have is -- starts at ,so maybe you can give me the keynote number, if that would help.
If I knew what a keynote number was, I may be able to direct you to it. What's a keynote number?
Well, at the beginning of certain paragraphs, there's a number.
And that typically holds. 303 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
This isn't the only case either, while we're looking for that. And please read it to me. This has been developed over -- since 1975.
Miss Phillips, I only cited this case because you cited the case.
What it means is, it's the beginning case of a long line of cases --
-- that discuss standing, which are in many cases. You know, Robert Ryan's On Zoning has a chapter on standing. There are lots of cases.
I asked you to give us for the record what the standard was for the aggrieved person. You began to give a response. I asked you, isn't it this set of information because it's out of the William Penn case? You said you didn't think so and that I was wrong. I said, why don't we go to the case because you left 304 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the record with the impression that I could not read correctly. So I'd like to clear that up.
I apologize if that's the impression I left. I didn't mean to and let's go --
Okay. It goes over several pages of what the court says. It's a long opinion. The court says that a litigant has to have a substantial interest before he has standing. There must be some discernible adverse effect to some interest other than the abstract interest of all citizens.
The requirement that the interest be pecuniary, which may once have had independent significance no longer adds anything to the requirement of an interest having substance. So the court rejected that you had to have a pecuniary interest, meaning an economic 305 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 harm. What we're looking at is just an impact.
Other health and safety concerns. I mean, that's the basically tenets of standing.
We're under administrative law. This standard covers administrative proceedings, which are the kind of cases that come out of zoning hearings.
And other types of administrative appeals and issues that are governed under the local agency law, which is a State procedural law. 306 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I appreciate all of that. Can any person raise those issues?
Yeah -- no, the standard that you set out, that they have to care about certain things or be affected by certain things. And isn't it that they'd be affected directly?
They have to show a direct impact, and that has been the standard for -- since 1975, as it has developed.
So what people typically do is they come to the Board, they put on their name and address, and they say, I live a block, I live a mile, I live on an artery that has traffic.
But we're not talking about what happens over at the Zoning Board, are we? 307 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
If there is a challenge to standing, the court would look at the record to see --
Let me ask this question. What happens in the situation where -- let's say you go to the Zoning Board, let's say you fill out your form, let's say that question is asked, the applicant objects to the person even 308 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 giving testimony because they're questioning standing. Let's say the Board says, Oh, yeah, they're five miles away and we're not going to even hear that testimony. They filled out their little slip, but the record is being created. They get their variance, the people appeal the Common Pleas Court, they lose the Common Pleas Court, and now they're not up at Commonwealth Court. What happens?
Right. Normally, you would have to raise it below to keep it going.
If someone was denied -- typically what happens at the Board is the Board says, We hear your objection, now the person speaks. And the objection is kept on the record.
The standard at the Board is that any party may appear before the Board. So that's why the Board has wide latitude to take testimony from anyone that's interested in 309 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 it. It's just that when it gets to the court --
Don't you think that's possibly affected by what's already in the code as it relates to any taxpayer? Won't the Board -- I mean, if this were to go the way it's written, I mean, couldn't a reasonable person -- I'm obviously, you know, again, not an attorney and I can't argue as such, but wouldn't a reasonable person say, Well, if the standard for appeal is that it's only people who are directly aggrieved or nearby or who belong to an organization, why would I sit here and listen to this person who may be a part of some citywide organization or something and stop them even now at the Zoning Board level? I mean, isn't that a logical, reasonable conclusion? Isn't that possibly a conclusion? Is it within the bounds of any rational thought that something like that might happen?
No, because I don't think the taxpayer language really even modifies who appears before the Zoning Board. And, in fact, the Zoning Board is a place for people to 310 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 come and make known their concerns about a project, even if it's not near their residence.
I understand that in the current situation. All I'm saying is, is it reasonable that if it's removed that the Board might say, Well, why do I need to sit and listen to this person, 'cause they're not going to have any subsequent appeal right because of the potential new standard?
They could still bring the appeal. But when they get to the court, one of the arguments that could be made by the land owner that's trying to develop something is that the person doesn't have standing.
A lot of times it's not made at all. And what I would say is -- what I've been trying to say about the past practice is, until the SCRUB case, no one ever considered that a taxpayer alone got you there, got you standing before the court. It wasn't applied. 311 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I know that just from the years of practice and from writing for CLE courses where I've written on standing, and I did do --
You're saying that out of the plethora of cases in the universe, you know that no one has ever filed an appeal, whether wrote in their document or not, that no one has ever filed an appeal because they saw that one phrase in there that said "or any taxpayer," and thought, I have a shot doing something? You're saying that no one has ever gone that route before?
As a practicing lawyer in this area of the law, I and my colleagues that are on the Zoning and Land Use Committee, we are not aware of any case where people made that case. And, in fact, there were cases where people were denied standing in the past and they never used 312 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the taxpayer argument because there was an understanding and, you know, maybe people were misreading the code. But that there was an aaggrievement that went along with being a taxpayer.
So I honestly believe that that was the status. If somebody had a case, believe me, as a practitioner, we all would want to have known that.
Let me ask this question. What's the current City policy with regard to enforcement of Section 14-1604(10)(a) of the Philadelphia Code.
I'm not familiar with the enforcement policies. I know there have been hearings held by City Council on enforcement issues, and I would presume those kind of discussions would continue.
Do you know whether 313 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the City's enforcing the code or not?
I think the City does enforce the code if it enforces it, you know, as well as in places for matters that people are interested in, I can't speak to that.
I didn't come here today to speak as to the enforcement issues.
Well, I mean, this has all become part and parcel to the same discussion. Tell me this. If you believe that the City has been enforcing this particular provision of the code, how many billboards have been taken down?
I can't speak to the enforcement. I don't have the information on that. The point I was trying to make earlier, and I do feel strongly about it, this goes beyond billboards and to focus -- I understand that 314 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 people have a concern about the enforcement, but I can't speak to that. I would assume you could probably hold a whole 'nother hearing on that very issue.
Well, we probably could. Well, it very well does go beyond billboards. It does have potentially far-reaching impact.
A major component of this is -- it's admittedly about that, so we might as well discuss it because we're not going to be able to get around it.
I guess the question is -- I mean, what I would have asked is, how many cases did SCRUB rely on the taxpayer status to have a case or any group? I'd like to know --
Because I don't think it was common practice to use that as a vehicle to get into court, or to stay in court. 315 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, the one thing I think is pretty clear out of all of this is, you know, people who are regular practitioners of the law figure out different angles and different ways. You know, there's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. Now, who would have the information about the enforcement in this particular section, and who would be able to tell me actually how many billboards have taken down as a result of 14-1604(10(a)? Who could tell me that?
I would assume someone at L&I would be able to tell you that.
Someone like who? There are a lot of people over at L&I.
I guess if you had requested that information, the Commissioner would have somebody look at that.
I don't have any 316 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 knowledge about the enforcement of any specific code provision except for perhaps the conversion of rooming houses, which I have looked into with you.
Since Miss Phillips has been giving us legal interpretations, I would request at this point, while she sits there, that Robert Jaffe on my staff, an attorney, take the stand and give testimony on the subject. He's in sharp disagreement.
I'm sorry, Councilman. What's the request? Mr. Jaffe, before you answer the request, what is the -- I don't understand the request.
Because he has appeared in the Commonwealth Court on this matter as an attorney --
-- That was involved 317 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 in the case that decided the standing.
And what is the expert testimony he's going to offer in regards to?
He's going to offer testimony with respect to the legal aspects, the same as Miss Phillips has given, covering the same sort of --
The questions that Councilman Nutter has asked about enforcement?
No, not about enforcement, about the question of standing.
Well, the only thing I would suggest is that we have a number of people who have been waiting here in the audience for a number of hours. Mr. Jaffe is obviously on staff and being paid to be here.
He's being paid to be here, so perhaps -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I think we ought to 318 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 get through the list before we --
Well, these people aren't wasting their time; I think they want to be here.
There is another attorney here that can help on this. I think they're opposed to the bill, but they can give their view of that, and you're going to get more legalese.
Is the gentleman on the witness list? (Audience member responds off-mic.)
Oh, I'll stay. (Witness comes forward.) 319 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you, Councilman. My name is Stanley Krakower. I'm a lawyer and I have been practicing in the area of zoning law for approximately years. I specifically focus on 8 representing civic associations, community groups, 9 other groups, and individuals who generally are in 10 protest or in opposition to some particular zoning 11 intrusion that they -- 12
I'm sorry. Do you 13 represent applicants at all or just protestants? 14
Well, I have personal friends or relatives representing applicants for a roof deck or something like that, but I have never represented a developer.
Also, I take a great many appeals. One of the things I do is take appeals to the Court of Common Pleas from the Zoning Board and then to the Commonwealth Court. And on many occasions, I've been before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On all of these cases, I have always represented protestants, civic associations sometimes citywide and sometimes local groups. I'm also proud to say, by the way, that when I started in this area, representing civic groups, the first City government person to introduce me to some of these groups was Councilwoman Joan Krajewski. And I am proud to have represented the Bridesburg Civic Association, Mayfair, and many other groups in her area. I've also represented civic groups in many, many areas throughout the City, including Pennsport. Years ago Councilman, Kenney, I represented the Pennsport Civic Association.
I am here today to speak against Bill 629, and I specifically would like an opportunity to address some of the questions that 321 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you've raised with regard to it, and also to, with all due respect, disagree with my friend Joanne Phillips with respect to the interpretation of the current status of the law as it stands right now, which includes the words "or taxpayer." And one of the keys is the use of the word "or," because if the committee will look at that bill, it talks about any person aggrieved, and then it say "or any taxpayer," and the word "or" clearly sends the message that the taxpayer does not have to be a person aggrieved. It's "or." And, therefore, the taxpayer can be someone other than the person who is aggrieved. And part of the problem is that the case law in Pennsylvania has interpreted this word "aggrieved" in a way -- and with all due respect Joanne, I must disagree with you. I think it has, in many cases, applied a pecuniary requirement, and I would like specifically to talk about the language, because this --
What I would like 322 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you to do if you could is define for us the word "aggrieved."
All right. "Aggrieved" has been defined by the courts as someone who will suffer an injury based on, you know, if the zoning goes through. And then they go on to say the injury has to be actual, direct, substantial, and immediate. And what many cases have pointed out, the injury has to be individual; it cannot be an injury that's common to others. And there are cases from the suburbs and from rural areas where persons have been denied the ability to appeal because the courts have said, You're not aggrieved. You may be unhappy, you may think that this is bad law, but you're not aggrieved. Let me point out a couple of examples. One of the groups that I have had occasion to represent is the Sierra Club, which is an environmental club. And the Sierra Club, in 1992, took an appeal, or tried to take an appeal, from a zoning variance that involved air pollution in a rural or a suburban group. It was not Philadelphia. And they were denied standing. And 323 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court -- and I don't have it right in front of me which one -- said in effect that air pollution -- let me see if I can find -- that air pollution is not a matter by which the loss of it makes you aggrieved. It is something that is suffered by many people. The whole community suffers if there's air pollution. So you're not individually aggrieved simply because there's air pollution. We have cases involving river protection. I'm talking now about organizations throughout the City that are interested in matters with citywide significance. There are groups called the Friends of the Schuylkill River. The Schuylkill River doesn't run just in one Councilmatic District or through one neighborhood. Something that's done upstream can bother something that's done downstream. So if there was a zoning variance going to be made upstream, the people downstream should have the right to participate, and not only participate in talking before the Zoning Board, but also if they feel that they must, to take an appeal. 324 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'd like to point out that taking an appeal does not mean you're right or you're going to win or you're going to interfere with something. It doesn't mean you're going to be listened to. It means you have the chance to be heard, to speak, to go to the court and --
At both levels. I believe it should be at both. Right now, it's at both levels. If you take out "taxpayer," they still can go to the Zoning Board, but not to take the appeal to the court level. And there's a problem with that.
I'm not arguing; I just want clarification. You can take the appeal, but the standard that you have to prove is now different --
Would be, if this change 325 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 is made.
Right, okay, but it doesn't prohibit you from taking the appeal; you would just have to prove the actual, direct, substantial, and immediate harm.
And right now, under the current law, you don't have to prove that.
Well, as it stands right now, under the taxpayer status, you don't.
So I guess the question -- I don't want to use the word "hypothetical" 'cause no one likes that word. The rhetorical question, then, is, if you're not actually, directly, substantially, or immediately harmed, why are you in court in the first place?
Okay. Because you can be harmed in ways that are not immediate or personal. If I live in South Philadelphia or Center City, I live right on the banks of the Schuylkill River, down around -- right below the 326 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Art Museum, and somebody wants to put something up on the banks of the Schuylkill River and get a variance to do it up in Manayunk or in Roxborough. That's not my community; I can't even say that it is. But if I feel strongly enough, or my civic association feels strongly enough, that we're going to be willing to pay the money, hire a lawyer, put in the time and effort, and do all of the things that are involved in taking the appeal -- and then remember, only if we're right do we have any influence. If we're wrong on the law or we're wrong on the facts, the Appellate Court's going to simply say not that we don't have standing but we lose because we're wrong.
But the proposed project that you're discussing, the proposed potential project in Manayunk, along the Schuylkill River, if it in fact created an environmental hazard or an environmental circumstance that hurt you as a resident of Center City, then you would in fact be directly, actually, or substantially aggrieved.
As opposed to -- I think part of the problem is when we get into this issue of billboards. The question that Councilman Cohen proposes is the existence of that billboard is similar to, if not the same as, what goes into the water stream or what goes into the air we breathe. I think where perhaps people break off on this issue is that he claims that billboards block the sky. Some of us may in certain circumstances and in certain areas argue that we don't believe that that's the case. However, when it comes to drinking water or air that you breathe, I think it's a little clearer relationship between the effect that it has on everyone as opposed to a 60-foot pole with a sign on it which I don't believe is as intrusive. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
First, I have nothing to 328 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 do with SCRUB.
But I have been involved in cases, and I see it much more frequently in the suburbs -- in Montgomery County, in Chester County -- than do you in Philadelphia, where civic groups that you would probably think have an interest have been denied the ability to have standing because of this very tough, rigid, stringent standard called "aggrievement." And this is a part of the problem. And even if we look at the amendment that Councilman DiCicco provided to us this morning, on the proposed amendment, that adds the words including "as a matter of right a community or neighborhood group or organization." The problem is because you use the word "including" instead of the word "or," you still have a situation where that community or neighborhood group has to be aggrieved; whereas at least if it said, as you do a taxpayer or any community or 329 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neighborhood group, so it wouldn't have to be aggrieved, that could make a difference. It's the aggrievement that's a problem. Let me point out if I can, in some of these cases that the Commonwealth Court and the Supreme Court have decided on this question of standing -- and in fact on the book that Miss Phillips represented -- discussed, Ryan's On Zoning, which is kind of like a Bible for us zoning lawyers who deal with zoning all the time. It articulates that standing in Pennsylvania is a problem because of the desire by the Pennsylvania State legislature in Harrisburg, which often has interests that I'll suggest this groups knows better than I do are different from the interests of the City of Philadelphia, and that's where the Municipality Planning Code got written, and that's the code for the rest of the State. And that's the code that has the aggrievement language in it. And there the desire to protect development against communities that are often far removed from where the development is, a shopping center. You know, if I can just digress. In 330 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the suburbs frequently, somebody who wants to go visit their next door neighbor has to get into their car and drive from your driveway to the next guy's driveway, and if you want to go buy a loaf of bread and a quart of mile, you've got a 15-minute ride to the shopping center. Their concepts are so different from the city row houses that we live in, that if talk to some of these suburbanites about a thing like a block party, you know, the whole idea of a block party -- what do you mean "block," it's three mile away to get eight or ten people. It's a different world in Bridesburg or South Philadelphia or Pennsport. And these laws were written with those kinds of people in mind, not the interests of the people of Philadelphia. The result is that these case laws -- case decisions frequently are -- there's animosity against the idea of one person coming in and stating an opposition to some development or to some concept that's going on. In Philadelphia, we have matters that have interests throughout the City. Let me just give you some examples. I've been involved in a 331 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 case, for example, not only with Schuylkill River, but the Fairmount Park. Fairmount Park interests cover many of the communities in Philadelphia. And if it's taking place along 33rd and Ridge, that's Fairmount Park. The people who live out on the other advised Fairmount Park, in Wynnefield, where Councilman Nutter's district is, should not be precluded on the grounds that the interest is not direct, immediate. When you use terms like this -- immediate, direct, substantial, individualized, not shared by others, but just you have to show how it affects me -- you discourage group participation. That's really the issue.
Give me the other side of the argument. If in fact the actual, direct, substantial and immediate is too stringent based on the purpose of it being written for a more rural community, wherein lies the harm? See, I guess what happens is when we get -- and let's talk about bill -- this is about billboards, I mean, let's face it. I mean, all of the argument, all of the concern that has been expressed for the most part, with the exception of 332 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 other general areas, Foundation for Architecture, Preservation Coalition, other groups like that. This comes down to basically a billboard issue because SCRUB is opposed to billboards in -- is philosophically opposed. The question is, where is any harm? Not actual, direct, substantial or immediate. Where is any harm able to be proven that if a community alongside I-95 decides for whatever reason to accept the intrusion, and someone who lives in far Roxborough or the Far Northeast doesn't want the intrusion or doesn't like the whole idea of that kind of development, where is the harm to them? Now, the example you used about the river makes sense. If there's a development that's going to divert water, for example, from the river itself in order to do some process for that development, and that reduces the water level in my end of South Philadelphia by the river for some damaging perspective, at least on my view, then I think that there's some at least rationale. It's as if you don't like certain forms of art or certain forms of -- it's a more 333 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 subjective nature to this particular argument. And I guess what question is, who's subjectivity should prevail? The community that lives next to it or the person who occasionally drives by it?
All right, I'll tell you what I think is how it should be done. The community that surrounds the project should have more input than someone who's far away. I'll agree with you. But more input does not mean you close the door to the person that's far away. Let me explain what I mean.
But I think this is where we disagree. I don't think the door's being closed. You can go into the Zoning Board and create a record and become a part of the record, and then the decision doesn't go your way, you are not -- the door is not closed for you to go file 20 an appeal. At some point in time during appeal process, you need to prove to some verifier of the facts, some adjudicator of the fact that you are in fact receiving some type of potential harm. If you can't prove that and it's just a subjective "I don't like it," then where's the harm? 334 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The harm can be more than just a subjective "I don't like it." As I said, if you have -- and maybe the billboard question is one thing. Suppose that for some reason the Society Hill Civic Association and Councilman DiCicco decided to permit McDonald's to drape golden arches over the Liberty Bell. Now, could we say that that's only Society Hill's matter because it's in Society Hill?
No. 12 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
It's not our property to begin with. I mean, I would give a better example because it's not something we have jurisdiction over anyway. It's almost as if that whole area of national historic site is out of our jurisdiction anyway, so that's not exactly the best example.
Still, there are matters which impact on more than the immediate community. They may impact -- the world is sometimes not so simple, it's a little bit more 335 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 complicated. They may impact more on the immediate community, but they have some impact elsewhere. What I am simply asking is that the elsewhere people be able to go in and take the appeal and let the court decide, We're going to follow the recommendation of this group rather than the other group, instead of locking them out the door.
I'm going to give you an example. The Penn's Landing Entertainment Center will have a significant impact on everybody who drives through and around that community, whether they live there or live in points beyond. People who will use the expressway 95, Columbus Boulevard to go to and from work, whether they live in Society Hill or Penn's Landing or live in Northeast Philadelphia or Delaware, it will have some impact to them because we do expect additional traffic. Now, should someone from Delaware County, who may have to sit in his or her car an extra five minutes a day as a result of the additional traffic that is going to be created as 336 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a result of the entertainment center, have standing in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for that application?
Well, first they have to show they're a taxpayer, Councilman. If they -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
If they work in Bridesburg and take 95 from Delaware County every morning and head north, or Columbus Boulevard and head north, and then return by the same corridor on the way back home, they are wage-tax payers in the City of Philadelphia, but they don't live there. Theoretically, today -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- they would have standing.
Even though for three years, for three years, the community that lives adjacent and across the street and down the road a mile or so in either direction were a part 337 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of a process that engaged in the debate on the center and all of the conditions and issues that may arise from that entertainment center eventually agreed to support the project. So the third year, somebody steps up to plate and says, Forget it, I'm against it. Now what do we do?
Okay. First of all, you have to have some sense that the courts will recognize that the weight to be given to the organization to have worked with the developer is to be given more weight. There's a difference between --
There's -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
It depends on the court. We could do lots of things to speed up the court system, but what I am saying today is locking these people out -- 338 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
What do you think that would take in time on average?
It could take a matter of a couple weeks, a couple month. It depends. But I don't think the solution --
But my point is, the development of that project -- and you know from being attorney who represents, I'm sure, all kind of clients, the development of the project hinges on the financial ability to get the project up and running. And every day that passes, it costs the development money.
Whether the individual developer, or in this case, taxpayers because we TIFed a portion of that development. So in effect, as the cost of that development increases, the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia will absorb some of that increase, because someone in Delaware County doesn't think it's right.
But if we prevent by doing that an error, a mistake, something that comes back to haunt us later -- like maybe we did 339 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 with the route of I-95, as Councilman Kenney points out, maybe we would have been better to put it a mile to the south. If we take just a little bit of time and listen to all of the voices that want to have input --
Let me just point out one thing. It cost money -- I don't know of any cases where people --
But my point is, we've did it, we're still doing it, I still have a little bit of language to straight out with Pier 3 in relationship to that entertainment center. There's been over a three-year communities process. It's being done. And there is going to be signage attached to that development and signage in the form of naming rights. Now, someone can interpret that -- Comcast, Verizon Penn's Landing -- as a billboard. Should someone have the right to 340 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 prevent that project from occurring because, in their opinion, that is a billboard because it's advertisement to the project and hold up the project?
You can speak; it doesn't mean you're going to be listened to. You know, I voted for a candidate for President of the Unites States; he isn't the President of the United States. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the right to vote for a loser. I would venture to say that you have probably had bills here in City Council that have not been unanimous, and occasionally maybe, you have voted on the side that lost. The other side wins, but that doesn't mean you can't speak against the bill if you think it's, you know, a 341 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 bad bill, bad for the City.
These people should be able to speak against a zoning variance.
And if they're not listened to, the court doesn't agree, the Zoning Board doesn't agree, so be it. You just don't keep them away from the table.
You know, you're right. We couldn't get an agreement. I couldn't get a bill out of committee that would ban political posters throughout the City of Philadelphia. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
The will of the people in my district was overruled by this City Council. 342 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But your fellow Councilpersons gave you the opportunity to be heard.
But this is what I can't -- this is what's bizarre about this entire debate. Where is anyone limited or eliminated or stopped from speaking or expressing their view, either at the Zoning Board or by taking an appeal that would now, under this bill, require, which I think is a reasonable requirement, to show where they are in fact harmed, or where are the harm is. It doesn't silence people from speak or appealing. What it does is requires them to meet a certain standard that today does not have to be met. And I would argue that because that standard does not have to be met, that the appeal process is used to delay and obstruct and to cause more cost to the project, sometimes in the hope that the project or the development will go away. And I think that's an abuse of the court process in my opinion.
Okay. Councilman, I can only tell you this. In 20 years that I have been doing primarily zoning law, and I've been before 343 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court numerous times, the Commonwealth Court, the Court of Common Pleas more than I can count, and the Zoning Board literally hundreds and hundreds of times. I very, very, rarely, almost never come across that as a problem. It's much more a theoretical problem than a real problem. The more common real problem is that people that live in the row houses of Philadelphia can't get heard. They go to the Zoning Board and -- (Applause.)
How does this bill 15 do this? How does this bill stop this? If you are within -- even if we argue over the definition of what is defined as "an organization" or "a community group" or "a civic association," if that aggrieved or perceived aggrieved party is part of that group, they are heard and have standing as a matter of right. What you are testifying to, and what other people have testified to, is that somehow that group in that neighborhood, through this bill, will now be silenced. That is absolutely untrue. 344 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 There may be a requirement to meet a certain standard for a group or advocacy group that are from another area around the city or around the State. That may be an additional hurdle for them, but there is no additional hurdle required or being placed upon the Pennsport Civic Association, the Bridesburg Civic Association, the Somerton Civic Association for projects involving their neighborhood. That's not being diminished in any way.
Because when there becomes a question of their ability to appeal, there is less interest in dealing with them at the table. If a developer -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You need to explain to me how -- 345 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
They don't have to show they're aggrieved if they are the community group within the affected area. The only aggrievance that needs to be shown is for people who are outside of that particular area.
The way this bill is written now, the local community group, the Pennsport group that makes it deal and then decides it doesn't want the deal and the billboard company decides to put up its billboard despite your opposition, and for whatever reason, Chairman Kelly says okay, it's going to have a harder -- 346 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'm not saying they can't do it, but they're going to have a harder time because they have to show aggrievance because the word doesn't say "or" a civic group; it says "including" civic groups.
As a matter of right, a community or a neighborhood group or organization --
No, it doesn't say "or," at least not the one I -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Even in the new one. He's talking about the word "including." He's saying that that's being modified by "aggrieved."
But I'm saying that further on in there, the words "or neighborhood group or organization" aren't acceptable. Is that what you're saying? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.) 347 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The way I'm reading it, it says "severely aggrieved decision of the Board, including as a matter of right. . . " and the word "or" has been removed. Now, if you insert the word back "or," that will be a big help. (Councilmembers confer off the record.)
The place you need the "or" is up front, right after "decision of the Board." Like you have "or any taxpayer." (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But you still have the other problem, the citywide interest problem.
Before we get to the citywide interest group, we need -- because this is what has motivated many of the people who are here today to testify, because of this alert that was put out, and Councilman has the right as an elected official to --
But it speaks the truth. (Unintelligible, parties talking over 348 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
I'm not here in response to this. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Understand. But the alert says, "This dangerous bill would bar most citizens of Philadelphia from protecting their communities at the Zoning Board and the appeals in the courts." That is not accurate. This bill does not keep people from protecting their own neighborhoods.
I'll recognize you. Mr. Jaffe, do you want to sit at the table here or --
Okay, good. I 349 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 thought he was going to --
I wanted to get this thing in check so I could be heard.
Without this amendment, it would have -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
So your testimony now is, the amendment keeps at least the immediate community in standing, in the mix, both at the Zoning Board and in the appeal process.
-- after the word "board." So if you want to take out just the words "any taxpayer," leave the word "or" in there so that you have "or a community or neighborhood group."
Well, that's understood, and that will be taken under advisement.
Before we move -- I 350 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 just want to make sure that before we to the citywide concerns, which I believe are legitimate. However, I want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding that if this amendment, in your opinion at least and in the opinion of the City's legal advice, is that, in fact, no individual neighborhood group is being shut out of any process involving their own neighborhood. Now, we could talk about the issue of citywide and whether or not people have a right to be concerned about various development, advertising issues as relates to the City as a whole; they're legitimate arguments. But I want to make sure that people understand this is not eliminating any individual neighborhood's rights to any process to protect their neighborhood, in my opinion.
A descending voice 351 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 here.
The courts -- because in standing, they want people very close to it. And there was a case involving Friends of FDR Park that were considered not to have standing because they had no member right close to where the problem was, even though the general neighborhood was Friends of FDR Park. It was held that there was no person was aggrieved.
The name of the Philadelphia organization that (inaudible) was Sports Congress. It was headed up by Mr. Levy, Robert E. Levy, and it is responsible for Final Fours and World Series and things of that, along with the skill of the players who were actively participating in the sport.
I just have a couple technical questions still in the localized area of this, not necessarily for Mr. Krakower, although you can obviously respond. 352 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 But in this -- and I understand what you were trying to do with regard to the word "including" versus the word "or," because of the belief that the aggrieved standard would still apply even to that particular group as opposed to creating a clear distinction with the word "or." Even if that were the case, the further standard that is created is in Section (7)(c), in this same Section 14-1807, I believe, of the code, which talks about groups or organizations composed primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal. So that will become the new standard, even under the new language even if "or" was substituted for "including."
That was one of the questions that I wrote down. What is the definition of "vicinity"? And in my particular case, this is certainly not unusual. Is "and/or" in the vicinity of Manayunk? 353 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
My response would be yes. If the people in Andorra have an interest in what's going on in Manayunk, that makes it in the vicinity. In other words, I don't believe that people just willy-nilly want to get involved in matters in which they have no interest. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Well, I appreciate your perspective even as a lawyer. What's the court going to say?
I appreciate your perspective even as a lawyer. What's the court going to say in this particular regard if the change is made? From a legal standpoint, standpoint is Andorra in the vicinity of Manayunk? Or is Haddington in the vicinity of Wynnefield? And, you know, what interest does, for instance, the 21st Ward Community Council have, which is an umbrella organization for all of the other civics? And do they have standing?
We don't know the answer 354 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to those questions, it opens the box. Frankly, I like better the idea of just on the "or any taxpayer" language alone, because you have 45 years of not really having a problem. (Applause.)
Stanley and I have had cases against each other. I've represented developers, I've also represented civic associations at times and protestants. And before that SCRUB case, I've had cases where he was representing a protestant that lived some distance away from a project and the taxpayer argument was never made. And so I'm curious as to how many times in the past 45 years or 20 years that Stanley made the taxpayer argument, because what I think Stanley always did as a good lawyer in using the law that we had was to make the record of what the standing was for his clients, and that was how close they were or how they were affected by a 355 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decision. And before that -- before the SCRUB case, that is the way that it was, you know, standing was established.
Maybe all the practitioners kind of understood that -- I mean, there's not much dispute about the definition of "taxpayer," right?
No, but there was definitely an understanding of what it meant, and it meant that you were an aggrieved taxpayer.
Yeah. There are communities in this city that cannot afford their own lawyer -- be it me, and I --
There are communities in this city that don't have civic groups.
Exactly, that have no 25 civic groups, no lawyers, no nothing. And groups 356 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of people get together over a particular issue. You know, CCRA, which is the group I represent most frequently was founded in 1947 when somebody had the great idea of building a garage in the center of Rittenhouse Square. Now, today -- yeah, you laugh, Councilman Nutter. It was seriously proposed to dig up Rittenhouse Square and put a garage in place of Rittenhouse Square. And it was to fight that one issue that the CCRA was formed. And when it was successful, the group stayed together. And I have done that on numerous occasions.
I don't want to cut across your question, but I would seriously like to get some better understanding of what is the definition or interpretation of "vicinity." What does that mean?
I have no idea. I know how I would interpret it and how I would argue it 357 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 through a court. The vicinity is an expanding concept; it's not going to be a certain number of feet that's always the same. It depends on what the project is. If somebody wants to put a deck on their roof, I would think the vicinity is pretty small. If somebody wants to put a 20-story building or a large industrial plant somewhere, I would think the vicinity is very, very large. It depends on the extent to which there might be some impact. But unlike the Supreme Court, I wouldn't say that that individual has to show injury that is unique to him, that he doesn't share with anybody else, and that is substantial, direct, immediate, virtually life-threatening the way the aggrieved standing has been interpreted. That's the problem.
Other than that, it 358 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 was a good statement.
I pretty much agree that I think would be vicinity looked at in the same way you look at what is aggrieved and when you start reaching out, where you're affecting people, you become aggrieved and you become impacted by a decision.
I guess part of my problem -- I just realized something, Councilman. I think "aggrieved" in Philadelphia is different from "aggrieved" in Chester County, and I think that's what the --
Well, we wouldn't want to Balkanize the City as opposed to the rest of the State, would we? I mean, on one hand, people make an argument that it shouldn't be different standards in every neighborhood, but we're the only county in the Commonwealth that has a different standard. I mean, in some regards, that whole argument makes the case for making us 359 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 uniform with the rest of the State.
Councilman, we're the only county in the Commonwealth only that has an appointed school board. I don't think we're going down that road.
No, I think we have grounds to be different than the rest of the State. I think that Philadelphia is more different than the rest of the State than Bridesburg is from (indiscernible) or Pennsport is from Girard Village or Wynnefield is from Overbrook.
Well, if you look at some of the county information recently about development and sprawl and congestion, it would seem to me that Chester County and Delaware County have bigger problems than we have here in Philadelphia County.
Good. That doesn't make me unhappy. I don't mean that to be derogatory towards Chester County or Delaware County.
We don't want to get into Washington Township syndrome again.
I'm simply suggesting 360 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that I see the problem you're trying to solve and I'll summarize by saying, with all due respect, I think the solution is much broader than the problem was. The number of occasions of the kind of SCRUB thing where you have what you call "outside" impact on what should have been a local matter is a relatively rare aberration, and that the problems which would be created by the limitation of communities and groups and individuals to appeal creates a greater problem than what you solve. I think that's really it.
Are there any other questions of these two witnesses? (No further questions.)
I really appreciate your patience and your staying all day.
In your absence, I asked for permission for Robert Jaffe, an attorney on my staff, to testify with the attorney at that time, Miss Phillips. I would like to renew that request now. The two attorneys are there and --
I'm sorry, we have all of the -- we have all of these witnesses 361 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 waiting.
His testimony would deal with legal issues raised by the two attorneys.
Well, I think we could certainly do that after, if you don't mind waiting. I think we've had all of these people waiting.
Mr. Krakower? I have a couple of questions I wanted to ask.
Thank you. Thank you. I just want to ask you a couple of questions with respects to the zoning process. In the old days, I used to go to the Zoning Board, you know, when I was a staff member, and we kept losing, so they stopped sending me. So I haven't been there in a while and we've been quite 362 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 successful since I stopped going. You know, I gave up. (Laughter.)
A question. With respects to the Zoning Board, when individuals are called up, I just want to make -- get clarity on this. When individuals, the case comes up, you know, they answer, are there any people who have anything to say about the case, proponents, opponents. What happens as it relates to the standing of an individual who wants to participate in a particular zoning case? What happens? Are they asked to show ID or --
A person appearing before the Zoning Board can testify as to his or her opinion of whatever is before the Zoning Board. And there is no requirement of standing that's imposed. The Zoning Board will listen to just about anybody. However, the Zoning Board will take into consideration as a matter of weight where that person is. You can have -- for example, if somebody wants to put up a garage, the next door neighbor comes up and says, you know, I'm next 363 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 door and I think it's terrible and I don't want it, and somebody who's a block and a half away says, Gee, I don't have any problem with that, I think it's fine. Both parties can testify, but the next door neighbor's opinion will be given greater weight and will be taken into consideration more. So that if that person -- and if the next door neighbor says it's okay and somebody three blocks opposes, the Zoning Board may approve it on the ground that if it's okay with the next door neighbor, we're going to give that opinion more weight than the guy three blocks away.
So they establish a level of standing on the record in the zoning hearing.
They both are permitted to say whatever it is they want to say.
Okay, and this is 364 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 in the record?
So in the appellate process, in the review of the Zoning Board, what does that appellate judge look at as it relates to the standing associated with that particular case and the Zoning Board's judgment as to this person's standing versus the guy that lives around the corner or the guy that lives two blocks away? How do they deal with that?
If the winner at the Zoning Board who's not a (indiscernible), you know, the guy -- let's say the applicant gets his garage or whatever it is he wanted, okay. If he challenges standing and the court agrees that this party that lives three blocks away does not have standing, they can't participate, they're locked out.
So the court would take into account the on-the-record discussion about the individual's ability to have standing in a zoning case? I mean, is it in the record? When the Zoning Board makes its ruling, do they 365 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 actually say, These people live across the street, we think that the people two blocks away do not have as much standing or standing at all as opposed to these people?.
Ordinary not. What will happen is if there's a lawyer involved -- for example, depending on what side I'm on. If I'm representing the side that agrees with the person next door and somebody in opposition is three blocks away, I'll point that out on the record. You live three blocks away. Mr. Smith, who agrees with this project, lives next door. Or the other way around. It's okay with you but you live four blocks away, but Mr. Smith, who I represent the next door neighbor opposes it. You know, I will show that difference, and then it's on the record. But, again, you have so many cases. People go to the Zoning Board without lawyers.
But it's no public acknowledgment on the record by the Zoning Board a 366 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that the proximity determines their potential ruling.
If you have everybody with no lawyer, it never shows up, it doesn't get on the record. It only gets on the record in lawyer cases.
But when you get to court, my point is, everybody's going to have a lawyer, you're not going to be any nonlawyer cases.
I'm just trying to get a sense of -- there were earlier questions with respects to standing and the levels of standing in the appellate process, and knowing that the appellate process, they review the records that are reflected in the zoning case, and 367 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'm wondering, you know, if they take into account any public acknowledgment by the Zoning Board that these people live close, and now you're telling me that the lawyers essentially get it in the record and not necessarily the Zoning Board.
Sometimes -- I'll give you a great example. A store wants to do something and they want to have an increase in the size of the store, and they will have presented a slip of paper with 58 names on it, all of whom support an increase in the size of the store. And if there's addresses, I'll show they're all customers who come from all over the place. The immediate neighbors are in opposition to the increase in the size of this store, and the store owner has all of his customers like the slip at Vine Street, everybody signs in.
I'll point that out, and that will have some influence on weight. And I'll hope that will persuade Zoning Board to listen to the immediate neighbors and not these people from far away. But those people from far away still get their chance to get heard. 368 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And with this bill, they still have right to be heard.
They won't. If they have to satisfy the aggrievement standard --
Not at the Zoning Board. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
At the Appeals Court, I'm sorry. Yeah, here they will also still be heard. I'm talking about the Appeals Court.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next witness is Lucinda Hudson. I 369 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 believe she's not present; however, we do have a copy of a letter which will be made available to the stenographer.
Madam Chair, if I could ask, that letter is attached to a series of other letters, a whole package of letters from various community groups that are in the 4th District, and if we could have all of those entered into the record as if they were read, I would greatly appreciate it.
And the record should indicate it's from the Parkside Association, Carol Park Community Council, Wynnefield Residents Association. And "Don't Take Our Civil Rights Away!!!" They're all in opposition to the bill. (Above-referenced four letters attached hereto.) 370 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Laurie Beck? Is Laurie Beck here? (No response.)
I believe Laurie Beck has a letter here in opposition. (Copy of Laurie Beck letter was not ultimately provided to stenographer and, therefore, is not attached hereto.) AUDIENCE MEMBER: She asked me to read it.
Please approach the witness table, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Louis J. Incognito, and I'm speaker no. 31, I think, on the list, and I'm from East Mt. Airy, Philadelphia. I'm the parent of five, the grandparent of six, with one more on the way. And I want to start by just mentioning that both West and East Mt. Airy Neighbors join with the others who oppose the removal of three 371 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 words that we've been -- that have been in contention.
West and East Mt. Airy. Laurie Beck just asked that I should --
We have a letter of opposition from Laurie Beck, which will be given to the stenographer.
Okay. Deletion of three words, "or any taxpayer," from City law would allow developers to ignore community opposition and deprive us of a simple democratic right. In the absence of those words, Bill 00029 would allow the Zoning Board to deny the right to protect our communities. While the change would invite development, it does not guarantee trade union rights, affirmative action, health care, or decent job conditions. The change also does not guarantee that the development would be welcomed 372 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 by our citizenry. Bills have been introduced into the U.S. Congress that do call for public works that would allow our cities to thrive. Without government programs and public works, building trades workers are forced to accept the abominable legislation that works against the rest of the city. Public works would provide long-term employment for construction works that would be welcomed by all who love our city. Work on school buildings, hospitals, and road repair would ensure many more jobs than would those created at the whim of profit-seeking developers. Dr. Martin Luther King wrote that justice would be served not by private-sector expansion, but by government programs and public-sector jobs that expand human services for all and would benefit society by dramatic improvement in housing, for day care, medical services, education, and culture. Dr. King wrote that only the resources of our federal government were sufficient to overcome poverty and despair, so let's fight for legislation --
Point of order, 373 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Madam President. I'm just curious as to what your testimony has to do with Bill 629.
I did not know at the time that it was not -- I thought it was bill 7 about development it.
I would hope that we could continue to do development.
Absolutely. But I might add that now that I've heard some members of Council speak, it appears that even our own communities are accepting billboards and things that they can't write home about. You can't say, Geez, my kid has a nice playing field now thanks to those billboards that advertise, I don't know, maybe cigarettes even. But you mean, you don't want to -- well, you know what I'm saying. That's not something to write home about. But a good 374 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 playing field and a good court with nets, that's something to write home about, and I know of no 4 one that would protest one single child of having those rights. So I'd close simply by saying, so let's fight for federal legislation and not resort to catering to transient developers. Those members of City Council who most sincerely recently represent our city call the billboard law currently before us "a dangerous piece of legislation," and we fought about that earlier. We call for all members of the Rules Committee to disavow themselves of this bill. This is the testimony of Louis J. Incognito, Second Vice President of East Mt. Airy Neighbors.
Excuse me. I also have testimony from the Sierra Club, and I've been asked to give this. Apparently, there's one copy for each member of City Council. If you don't mind, I would like to have that introduced into the record.
That will be 375 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 given to the stenographer, and it will be made a part of the record.
Okay, thank you. (Sierra Club written testimony attached hereto.)
Our next witness is John Strubel. (Mr. Strubel not present.)
Seth Williams. (Mr. Williams not present.) (Witness comes forward.)
Who are you speaking for? (Witness responds off-mic.)
Joseph Walker, Shawmont Avenue, in Mike Nutter's land -- part of the country.
The Shawmont area, which is located in Upper Roxborough. I am here 376 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 speaking as President of the Residents of Shawmont Valley, which is a civic association in Upper Roxborough. I'm also here representing the 21st Ward Community Council. I'm a former President of Community Council. And we're in opposition to Bill 629, both organizations. And actually, all of my good ideas are already expressed. There's plenty of redundancy in today's presentation. I would want to say something. I could give you a specific example of a case where -- there was woman here today representing the Chestnut Hill Civic Association, one of my colleagues. Now, there's a development planned for the Shawmont area called Hunter's Point, that you may have heard about. And we have opposed that for about 30 years. Councilman Kenney, you're quite right, developers have come and gone because we had 'em in court. And your point's well taken, with me at least. Now, one of our issues with that development is public health and safety. We believe there's a number of specific issues in 377 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 public health and safety. The -- one of the -- what I think is relevant for my point right now is the way the driveway, the exiting driveway, this would be located at Shawmont Avenue where Shawmont becomes Umbria Street. We think that that's going to be a dangerous intersection. Now, this lady from Chestnut Hill, she lives in Chestnut Hill, she hypothetically goes to Manayunk to dine. And isn't she at risk when she goes through this putative, dangerous intersection. And, therefore, the next time we come up before the ZBA, shouldn't she be allowed to go in there as an individual and as taxpayer to, you know, address her concerns about that? I tried to, you know, be as brief.
She absolutely has the right to go to the ZBA to express her upset -- her disagreement, her opposition to that particular zoning variance.
The difference -- this bill would not do anything like that, keeping 378 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 her from testifying.
What it does is, if she decides after the decision is made that she doesn't like that decision and would want to appeal it to a Common Pleas Court, she would have to show how to the court she was harmed by the approval of that variance by the Zoning Board.
You, on the other hand -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Your civic association would have that appeal as a matter of right.
And that's what we've been doing. We have two cases before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania right now.
That particular person may be unhappy about the decision and has a 379 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 right to go to court and express that concern.
However, it's not standing as a matter of right; she would have to show what harm would occur to her because of the approval of Hunter's Point.
Thank you for clarifying that. I'm also the Democratic committeeman for that area, 21st Ward, 33rd Division, and I've met you before at board meetings.
I'm involved with all kinds of volunteer stuff -- Town Watch and the Police District Advisory Council. And I also am another kind of volunteer: I voluntarily live in the City of Philadelphia; I don't have to. I'm a psychologist, I do work in marketing research. I could live, I could do my business out of Idaho or Georgia or Nicaragua, for that matter. It doesn't matter where I am. But I'm here because of the process, the vitality that we've seen in this room today and the individuals -- and you folks on Council 380 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have provided the kind of environment I want to be involved in politically. I don't want to be off in the burbs somewhere, I don't want to be in Idaho either, or Nicaragua, for that matter. And I want to thank you for letting us speak and I appreciate that. On the billboard issue, finally, and I realize my time is almost up. Here's a suggestion. I don't like billboards; I think they're ugly, I think they're dangerous. I don't want to be diving on 95 and seeing some billboard that's advertising a remedy for jock itch, even if it works. It's inappropriate, I think. It's ugly. Councilman Kenney, I'm addressing you more so than the other members, and pardon me for doing that. You raised the issue of subjectivity. As a psychologist, I can appreciate that. Why don't we put it -- here's a suggestion: Why don't we put it on the ballot as a question, Should billboards be eliminated from the City of Philadelphia? And let the voters decide. And then you would have something that could you run with. 381 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Now, I don't know the exact technicalities of how to do that. I don't know whether you could do it just as a bill on Council or what. I don't think -- I mean, I'm basing it on subjectivity, and your point's well taken with me. Put it on the ballot.
Again, I'm not an attorney and I'm not sure as to whether or not we would have the ability to eliminate that expression of free speech totally. I tried a number of years ago to have eliminated what I believe -- and again, a very subjective decision on my part -- was the unsightly placement of ad circulars on your step or lawn or your driveway every Friday Saturday morning. And I learned quite quickly that commercial-free speech is a very strong element and is apparently Constitutionally protected. And I was only able to put in certain restrictions on the weight an the delivery methods as opposed to the manner and time in which it's delivered. So, again, I'm not saying that that's a reason why we can't do it. I don't know whether or not there's a restriction in that regard. 382 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and it could be that the billboards are such a hazard. I mean, I'm a slow reader. I might have my attention diverted while I'm reading the billboards about jock itch or whatever or being distracted by them and I rear-end somebody on 95. That's a stretch, I understand that.
Mr. Walker, one moment, please. Councilman Cohen has a question.
I just wanted to ask you whether you're sure you want to thank City Council for creating the environment. They're 383 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 about to muzzle your rights as a citizen.
I concur, but I look at the more organic process that's going on here and --
This a -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I appreciate the process and I'm sure that Council will be as wise on this issue as you folks are on others. And no sarcasm intended.
There was a letter from Seth Williams, Madam Chair, from the 384 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Overbrook Civic Association, and I handed it to the stenographer. (Copy of Seth Williams letter attached hereto.)
Madam Chair, may I also, as we're talking about letters, there's a letter from the Tacony Civic Association dated March 9, 2001 that's in support of Bill No. 629, with amendments. And I'll give that to you for the stenographer also. Thank you. (Copy of Tacony Civic Association letter attached hereto.)
And while we're doing letters, Jody Della Barbra from GEAR is opposed. (Copy of GEAR letter attached hereto.)
Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition is opposed. (Copy of Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition attached hereto.)
Robert Hickey. (Copy of Robert Hickey letter attached hereto.) 385 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And Lynn McConville. (Copy of Lynn McConville letter attached hereto.) (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. Good evening. My name is Beth McConnell and I'm an advocate with the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, PENNPIRG. PENNPIRG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization that represents nearly 12,000 citizen members across the State. PENNPIRG speaks outs on behalf of the public when special interests have undue influence over the political process and works on issues, including environmental preservation, consumer protection, and democratic reform. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak before you today regarding Bill No. 00629. PENNPIRG strongly opposes this bill, which aims to modify the Philadelphia Code by restricting the ability of taxpayers to appeal 386 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decisions made by Zoning Boards to the Court of Common Pleas. Zoning Boards make decisions that impact the quality of our air and water, the attractiveness of our city to tourists and businesses, as well as affect the civic pride of Philadelphia residents. These qualities transcend neighborhood boundaries. Thus, decisions made in Old City or Northern Liberties affect residents in Queen Village, Strawberry Mansion, Germantown, and every other Philadelphia neighborhood. Therefore, it is critical that we defend the right of any taxpayer to object to a decision that may negatively impact any neighborhood in our great city. When we silence concerned organizations and individuals, many of whom fill important roles in preserving our city's historic and cultural character, it has the adverse effect of increasing the influence of a select few special interests. As a result, special interests will be able to gain more power over important community decisions and change our city in ways the greater community does not support. Cities and towns have a responsibility to protect the public welfare by placing limits on 387 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the use of private property, and they cannot do so effectively without civic participation. At a time when special interests already maintain an unhealthy stronghold on our democracy at the local, State, and national levels, it is also the responsibility of this Council to limit that undue influence by fostering greater public involvement. Bill No. 000629 presents a barrier to such participation. PENNPIRG respectfully requests that this Council oppose the ordinance. Once again, thank you for the giving me the opportunity to come.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience. (Applause.)
We gave it to the stenographer. 388 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Copy of Darlene Messina letter attached hereto.)
Fred Maurer, Fred Maurer. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Fred Maurer, and I have a written copy of my testimony for the clerk, but I 389 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would like to give some asides before I give my report. In the last Zoning Board hearing I attended, I was denied the opportunity to stand at a hearing. I had to fight my way through the people, the hearing examiners, to be heard. I could not have fought if I didn't know we had this right to speak as a taxpayer. The record of me objecting to being dismissed was never entered into the official hearing record. If they can't transcribe my objection, how can I file an appeal further on. They eventually gave up 'cause I just kept standing there dumbly, until they had no 15 opportunity to get rid of me. I did -- I come here today to speak on the bill. I have read about the bill in the legal notices of the Inquirer. I do not know of any letter ever sent out, and I'm speaking from (indiscernible) because I have a citizen's right to appear in this area. I don't know anything about the billboard situation, but I thought this was a bill 24 about zoning. This is a broad-based zoning issue, and it doesn't say anything about billboards. If 390 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that's part of the thing, then I think the ordinance is being misdrafted because that's a single item which should be addressed independently and not be made a part of the zoning issues. So I think my testimony that you should receive is what relates to the ordinance that's being proposed. My name is Fred Maurer. I am a taxpayer in this city. I have participated in zoning hearings and respect the process, but my reward -- my regard for the process has not been vindicated by the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I feel that many of their rulings were wrong, and they violated the sanctity of fair judgment on behalf of the welfare residents. Too many rulings seem a rubber stamp on unseen motives. They were not influenced by the public testimony. They accepted testimony in private forums and had personal contacts that are prejudicial. Many more decisions need to be appealed but the poverty of ordinary citizens inhibit undertaking that appeal. I regard the taxpayer right as an excellent turn to satisfy all of the diverse 391 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 interested persons on zoning issues. When we zone for this health and welfare of the citizens, it is a matter for everyone. We each have an interest that zoning laws be applied correctly and fairly. But when we see our brother is denied unfairly on a public matter, then we should have a legitimate right to assist them in the appeal process. If zoning decisions are wrong, then it is a public failure. We need an appellate process to redress the inherent abuse of a commission that is politically tainted by our strong mayor system. We have that right now by anyone willing to chase for the truth. Why should we lose it in this century. When the Home Rule Charter was given, we adopted new zoning rules and expressly added this clause about taxpayer rights. It was not an accident. I am sure it was debated adequately before adoption. So why should we choose to remove it now? I have not seen any public outcry to justify any revisions. Before any amendment is considered, it should be accompanied with hearings and findings of fact to demonstrate the failure of 392 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the law. I haven't seen any attempt to demonstrate the harms from this decades' old law. I see this amendment as an infringement of my rights of participation in Philadelphia and of my help from other people who are concerned on my behalf. We all have a stake in keeping fairness in the zoning matters. Zoning faults hurt the City afterwards and establish bad precedents. Small cases predominate and are equally important. Every variance case is an attempt to evade the high principles of the zoning laws. Someone is hurt in every dispute, mostly the poor.
The advocates of the amendment are seeking to impose the burden of zoning disputes to the smallest and least denominator of community representation. They want to transform public issues to a private action while the whole assets of the city would be arranged against the private individual. Spot zoning hurts the City and inflames a wider community of interest than are represented by a single resident or a community group. We 393 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 only know of them after the Zoning Board fact, after they decide. In my own volunteer work with the Friends of Tacony Creek Park, I represent two City District Councils and neighborhoods. My work 7 at the Fairmount Park Commission relates me with 8 73 friends and groups. My work with the 9 Philadelphia Water Department represents 38 10 communities and a tenth of the City population. 11 My drinking water comes from the Schuylkill River, 12 and I worry about zoning my water shed. 13 We could not identify all of the 14 classes of persons and organizations or groups who 15 should be included in a case. Zoning notices are 16 only posted in the smallest zone, which precludes 17 wide common knowledge. 18 The proposed amendment is a major revision of a long-standing ordinance after adopting the Home Rule Charter. The amendment would prohibit all taxpayers who have any interest in zoning justice. If the clause is removed, it will result in greater harms from inherent abuse of the system. It would convert public matters into a private lawsuit of unequals and no appeal. 394 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment acts as a legal precedence affecting all future decisions on a citywide basis. If we remove the rights of all taxpayers, all other affected cases will be denied regardless of the current merit. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is not a public court competent to hear all cases. It is not a court for rebuttal and evidence is being determined, nor is it a court where you can contradict or testify and challenge them on the witness stand. It is correct to use the universal term of "taxpayers" to specify anyone with an interest. It is a safe name to use. I recommend the Rules Committee should deny the amendment, and I would suggest any amendments should be addressed to the unsolved Zoning Board of Adjustment faults. Thank you. )
Tina Nelsen, Executive 395 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Director of CEPA. I am here today on behalf of CEPA, the Consumers Education and Protective Association. Philadelphia is the home of the Bill of Rights. What Bill No. 000629 does is remove the rights of the taxpayers. Bill 000629 is another attempt by the government to try and take power away from the people. If it passes, no longer will concerned citizens have the right to legally challenge what have often been decisions by the Zoning Board. This tilts the playing field heavily towards the investors and speculators who usually have the resources to retain attorneys. If this bill is passed, these attorneys will argue that citizens and community groups do not have the rights to appeal a Zoning Board decision. The community groups and citizens will be forced to spend their energy and resources just to have their day in court. The people of Philadelphia care about the growth and the future of the city. It is our Constitutional right to have access to the court system to challenge bureaucratic decisions that hurt the public. Why would you want to take that 396 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 away. I urge you to vote no on Bill 000629 and use your voice for what so many others have fought for, the right of all Americans to seek redress for their grievances and to have their day in court. Thank you.
I'm Lorraine Brill, President of Upper Northwood Community Council. UNCC represents home and school associations, playgrounds, libraries, religious institutions, and veteran organizations within our boundaries at Cottman Avenue on the north, Roosevelt Boulevard on the east, Oxford Circle on the south, and 397 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Oxford Avenue on the west, comprising the 53rd and 54th Wards. In the 1970s, UNCC worked with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission to remap and rezone the 53rd and 54th Wards. We have continued to monitor zoning issues in our community for many years. Although we have never filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas about a Zoning Board decision, we know that currently, under Section 11 14-1807 of the Philadelphia Code, we have the right to appeal. Bill No. 000629 proposes to take away that right by deleting the words "or any taxpayer." When an applicant seeking a variance is turned down by the Zoning Board, the applicant as the aggrieved party will still have the right to appeal. However, when the Zoning Board grants a variance which is opposed by a civic association or various individuals, environmental groups, historic preservation groups, or any other organization, all or any of these groups will lose their right to appeal the Zoning Board's decision if the words "or any taxpayer" is deleted. If we lose the right to appeal, the Zoning Board may no 398 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 longer pay much attention to the testimony of any individual or organization at a Zoning Board hearing. I do not understand why anyone would want to deny any individual or organization the right to appeal a Zoning Board decision. Since filing an appeal is an expensive and time-consuming effort, the person or group involved should have the right to present their case before a court of law, and the court should have the final decision. I have been informed that there is a proposal to amend this bill to include certain civic associations to be allowed to appeal. This amendment would only confuse the issue more. In many neighborhoods, there are various types of groups. Who would decide which is the one group that could appeal. This is a bad idea. It still would deny the right of appeal to individuals or other concerned groups. Upper Northwood Community Council requests the Committee on Rules vote against Bill 24 No. 000629. And if I have another minute or two, I 399 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 mean, just some of the issues that we've encountered in the Zoning Board, we've had neighbors that are afraid to sign petitions because of issues of the applicant, or we've had people that have signed petitions but it was the wrong decision, like putting a commercial area in a residential area. And they do it as a favor. We've been lucky. The Zoning Board normally goes along with our issues. But in one case, we had -- the whole community group had a -- we had an agreement with the applicant, everybody was in favor of it, the business and all, but our Councilperson was not, so the applicant was denied permission to -- he wasn't granted the variance. So it doesn't always work that, you know, when the community group wants something that they get it. And that's it basically. But we think that this is a bad case and it would take our rights away. And the court should be the deciding factor on this.
No, it will not because it would deny my right. I don't live near a lot of 400 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the cases that we go to you.
Well, but, you know, there are many neighborhoods -- there's about six or seven or eight different groups, there are block watches, there are other groups. Who's to say which is a group. And suppose that -- and there's one case of a civic association in the Northeast where they went along with something, but individuals opposed it, the individuals decided to go to court on it. Now, this would say that those individuals wouldn't have any rights, and so not everybody agrees with the community groups.
And I know we've repeated it a thousand times today, but most people, obviously, who are opposed to the bill 5 just don't see it the way -- as one of the sponsors of the bill, the way I see it.
Madam President, I just want to say I believe you're right. I believe that this bill would deny many people, many groups the standing that would enable them to file effective appeals so that they could be heard. The best the amendment does is to enter a tiny wedge which a court would probably disregard and examine into whether or not people are really aggrieved because that's the clear intent of this bill today. And I think those who believe to the contrary are dreaming, and I haven't heard any lawyer member of the City Council ever voice the view. It's the hope of the non-lawyers that the 402 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 court will permit community groups to be heard. But as I've repeated several times already today, the courts have adopted the position where aggrievement is necessary to say that Friends of the FDR Park, for example, are not eligible in connection with matters involving FDR Park unless they can show that they have membership that lives directly in the affected area, and I am very concerned that that will be the interpretation of the amendment by a court, once the issue reaches the courts. So I think you're right in being concerned. And it's one thing for those who are seeking to limit -- in fact, made it very clear in the original bill that they wanted to exclude everyone. They can say with confidence, Oh, don't worry, nobody's going to be excluded, because apparently, they're not concerned about the question of exclusion. And exclusion is a very real threat.
If we don't have the right to the appeal, we don't get as many agreements with the applicants as we do now.
Why are you 403 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 saying you don't have the right to appeal?
If you read the word "or any taxpayer" that's taken out, you have to --
But you belong to the Upper Northwood Community Council.
But I'm saying we don't have the money to do it. We would have to coordinate with --
How do you presently appeal a Zoning Board decision?
We never have. We would have to get it pro bono and we would have to raise money with the people of --
So you have -- did you ever appeal? 404 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Fine. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Please come to the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I'm Jane Glenn (ph.), President of Manayunk Neighborhood Council. Currently, Councilman Nutter has an appeal against a Zoning Board decision on our behalf, and Manayunk Neighborhood Council is appealing two decisions by the Zoning Board. It's a very difficult process, and I can't imagine that 405 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you would think anyone would go and try to do an appeal in a frivolous way. Our civic groups, individuals in this city, we have a lot at stake. And to give this up, this right to appeal, it makes no sense to me. Fairmount Park is a treasure to the whole City. I don't live within 500 feet of Fairmount Park. If something happens to Fairmount Park, the whole city is at stake. So it's important that we -- we all have a vested interest in our city and what goes on in our city. We were involved with the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club joined us on our case against development on Venice Island. They did not join us because we are uneducated or stupid; we asked them to join us because we are fighting Goliath. And it is very hard for us to do. We need all of the help we can get. And I think this bill, it removes the democratic process. We need our rights protected, not removed. (Applause.)
What makes you think you would not be able to appeal a 406 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decision rendered by the Zoning Board?
Because I would have to go through some approval process that would say I had a right to do so because either I was an aggrieved party -- I would have to be approved to be able to even appeal.
Well, wouldn't you have to be an aggrieved party now?
Wouldn't you have to be an aggrieved party presently?
And wouldn't you automatically go to your District Councilman to seek support?
Yes. But he might not support me. I might have to go on without him.
And I don't mean to interrupt, Madam Chair but, I mean, Miss Glenn is certainly lays out something that -- that might be rare, but it does in fact happen sometimes, and 407 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 we've surely been on the same side in a lot of issues, but in some instances, we haven't. And if your only route under that circumstance was through my office, you might feel that you were not getting the highest form of representation, and you might have to do something on your own. Your example, though, is quite good with regard to the Fairmount Park situation. And I'm not sure what, you know, the court somewhere would decide as to whether or not this, you know, rose to the level of you being affected because you didn't think that X-Y-Z should happen on a piece of Fairmount Park property and maybe it required a variance for that. And I think there is a serious issue about what standard would be applied to you as a resident of the City, a person in the neighborhood, but having an interest about something that maybe was going on in the Wissahickon. I don't think anybody's going to say that that's necessarily in the vicinity of your house. And so the question still becomes, where do you get your voice and what is your right 408 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 as the individual citizen in that regard.
Let me try to clear up the question on the right to appeal. Just like anybody has a right to sue anybody in the world, that doesn't mean they'll win. They can file a paper, and if the paper doesn't add up factually and legally, they're going to lose. Someone goes and files an appeal in Commonwealth Court to a decision by the Zoning Board Zoning Board. Now, the appeal can be filed. We're not talking about the technical right to appeal; we're talking about the right to have an effective appeal. As soon as the appeal is filed the other side, in the normal course of events will immediately raise questions of standing. First thing, was the party represented to the Zoning Board. If they didn't appear at the Zoning Board, it will be found that they have no 25 standing on the appeal because you have to be 409 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 first at the Zoning Board. Second question immediately. The developer -- say, it's some developer that's involved, it will immediately raise the second question: Is the party aggrieved? You will bring in your amendment. The court will read that and say a number of different things. One of the things the court very likely will say -- the whole context of this amendment is an effort to limit appeals to people who are directly affected. If you have a community organization covering the area fine. Now, was there any evidence as to the membership in the community organization of people within 300 or 500 feet of the incident? That's what happened in the case I keep referring to. If there was no evidence in the Zoning Board that people within that group, even though they were Friends of the Park and even though the issue involved the park, if there was no evidence that people live very close, the court might very well rule that the appeal falls because of lack of standing -- there's no showing of people being aggrieved. 410 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Now, that's the risk. Some people in the Council may be willing to run the risk, particularly those who believe -- and I'm not impugning anybody, I'm just saying it's a fact that some people don't believe it's important to let others appeal unless they're directly aggrieved. So those who believe that way say with impunity, Well, they'll probably be allowed in, but the very real likelihood is that they won't be allowed in, that the court will find that they do not have standing, and that's when the appeal will ends. Now, we're in shorthand terms saying you don't have a right to appeal. It means that you appeal under circumstances which make it very likely that your appeal is going to fail before you even get to the substance of the appeal, the issue that, you know, caused the appeal in the first place. That is what is meant when folks are saying that you lose your right to appeal.
Madam Chair, if I may, and I don't want to -- it's been a long day and I don't want to argue with Councilman Cohen again, but I think it's somewhat unfair to say to 411 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 people who are representing civic associations in a specific area that their right to go to the Zoning Board and be heard, their right for a de facto appeal to Common Pleas Court, because of this bill, will be abrogated. That is not true. It is true, however, that organizations and interest groups and advocacy groups outside of the general area of the proposal will have to, under this bill, meet a certain level or standard of standing in order to have their appeal go forward. The only disagreement I have with Councilmember Cohen in his position is not the second part of the argument; it's the first part of the argument. The first part of the argument is, it's unfair in my opinion to portray to people who live in a particular community that somehow because this bill passes, they will not be able to go to the Zoning Board and will not have immediate standing at the appeals process if this bill 22 passes. I do agree with you. There's a different standard that outside groups will have to meet as opposed to the people who live in that 412 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neighborhood, and that's where we maybe disagree. But I think it's unfair to portray this as somehow taking the away individual neighbors' rights both to be heard at the Zoning Board and to appeal this as a matter of right. That's only our disagreement here.
Just very briefly. Councilman, I guess the only thing that troubles me about that is -- and I agree with what you just said in terms of the clarification and the understanding. What I an struggling very deeply with, though, is while at the one hand on the City level, we basically allow almost anyone to go to the Zoning Board to express their view for what we'll say is Part 1 of the case. What we're then saying, or what is in essence being said, is you can participate in Part 1 without demonstrating anything other than you are maybe a relatively lucid person and that you can articulate some position, but that anything after that the standards and the stakes change based on either proximity or relationship to a community organization. 413 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And I guess the part of the question that's being asked here is, why is it okay to participate in the first part, but you can't follow your action through all the other parts of this, which are appeals as one of the fundamental components of any action taken by an administrative agency that automatically allows, in most instances and through the courts, a 30-day appeal process for anything that was decided, and why is the distinction made between everybody coming to the first part and only some people get to come to the second part of the dance.
Well, I think the distinction is that once either the Board has ruled or the community association in the area immediately affected comes to some agreement, some settlement, some agreement. That still is the opening for an organization that is not directly harmed potentially by this development to still continue to draw out the process, even when the immediate neighbors have agreed or come to some settlement or some agreement. And I think that's part of what has been, I guess, bothersome for some Councilmembers who engage in this process is 414 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that, in fact, they go through the due diligence of trying to get an agreement, obtain the agreement, and then there's still a group, or groups, that have no real direct impact to their area still pursuing the appeal as a matter of right.
Let me just start off with a very quick hypothetical. How about if you have a situation in the community where some members of the community group reach agreement with the proposal or the developer or the applicant, and some other group of people who live in the particular area or relatively nearby don't have the same agreement or don't come to the same agreement or same conclusion? What are their rights and who gets to go forward and who does what? I mean, sometimes the developers start working where they can't find support and start working with other, whether existing or soon-to- be-manufactured groups and organizations and start trying to figure out how to reach agreement with other people.
Then anyone 415 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 involved has a right to appeal that decision. And based on what put forth in that appeal to the court as to what their concern is relative to the harm, the potential harm, that the court -- and that's why we have judges, is to make that decision on whether or not that in fact is a legitimate position that that group is taking. I mean, at some point in time, some person is going to make this decision one way or the other, whether it's the Zoning Board or whether it's a judge, that individual is charged with the duty of making that decision. And I think that -- I mean that's -- I mean, that's where it is at that point. I mean, you file your appeal. If your appeal is justified, the judge will agree with you and take the appropriate action or require the appropriate discussion relative to that.
So you agree that if your case is a legitimate case or your appeal is a legitimate appeal, regardless of who it's filed by, the court should look at the merits of the case and make a decision, notwithstanding whatever agreement may have been made or may not 416 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have been made or what group came to what resolution. I mean, it does ultimately come down to --
Well, the judge would take that into consideration that the -- I would think, I would hope that the judge would take into consideration that the people who live in the immediate neighborhood, who have come to this agreement and settlement, would get more weight than those who live in another area of the City, who may not be as directly harmed potentially by the action of the Zoning Board and the court.
Just lastly. Just at least based on the variety of opinions that I've read out of the courts -- good, bad or different, supporting position or not supporting position -- I have rarely gave anything that gave any indication that the court took anything that the groups or organizations may or may not have agreed with the applicant upon as a part of the consideration of how they ruled in the case. I mean, I'm not saying that the judges are perfect or blind to, you know, the realities of the 417 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 universe. But at least in terms of the written work, I've never read anything anywhere that indicated that they thought anything about an agreement that was made. It was, what's the code of that particular jurisdiction or municipality or township or whatever, what are the standards, what has been their decision-making or, you know, rule of law and interpretation of it in the past, and this is our decision. I mean, you either met standard or you didn't. So -- okay.
I also wanted to express my disagreement with Councilman Kenney. I believe that a community organization, even under this amendment, may very well have to establish a membership presence very close to wherever the issue developed, whatever the project may have been. That the court would find that it is clear that what was attempted by this bill is a narrowing to people directly affected. And if the membership organization, like the case I've cited, does not have membership right close by, the membership organization will be found in that 418 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 particular case to have no standing.
In addition, I adopt the views of Councilman Nutter and point especially to what I think will also inevitably occur: Once the Zoning Board understands that certain people may not have standing, you will find immediately an effort made to limit the testimony at the Zoning Board.
Because it is absolutely foolish to spend time by the Zoning Board on matters raised by people who will have no 16 standing, and the Zoning Board will eliminate that. But whether or not they did that, I believe it's a wrong thing, a terribly wrong thing to deny interested groups, without our having to define what "interested groups" means. Groups show their interest by taking action, and that is all that ought to be necessary.
Well, let me give the reverse argument then as it relates -- and Councilman DiCicco raised the issue of liquor 419 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 license approvals in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Would you argue on that same theory that an individual group in Manayunk who's opposing a liquor license on Main Street should be given less weight or equal weight than a group of people who like to go out and party and would like another liquor license on Main Street and are upset and opposed to the Manayunk group's opposition to that liquor license? Should they have the same standing in Common Pleas Court that this group has in opposing that intrusion in their neighborhood?
They should have standing. It's not a matter of same standing. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Should a group -- should a Mummers Association group from South Philadelphia have standing in Common Pleas Court against a community association that is opposing a liquor license on Main Street?
If they have a reason to believe that -- 420 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, whatever the reason is, they ought to have a right to present it.
That's -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And they will learn very quickly in the process that they've wasted their money and wasted their energy. And they will never do it again.
And that's why the Zoning Board deals with real cases, not these hypothetical ones.
It's not hypothetical, it's a liquor license application.
You seem to be concerned that questions are being raised -- I don't know by whom -- about agreements between --
This happens all 421 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the time. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You have a liquor license applicant who wants to transfer a liquor license to a certain entertainment area. You have the owner of that -- the potential operator of that establishment --
Let me finish. The establishment owner goes around and gets signatures from people all around the City who don't live in that particular area off of South Street, for example, and presents those items, those signatures on a petition to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and to the Appeals Court, saying, Look, the overwhelming number of people who signed petition this position are in favor of this liquor license transfer, and the people in South Street Neighbors Association say, Well, we don't want it because it's right in our neighborhood. The people who signed that petition should have equal standing to those on South Street? 422 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, why do you insult intelligence of the hearing examiner? He will say --
The hearing examiner will look at the petitions, will see where the addresses are.
You just insulted the intelligence of the -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
In the Liquor Board case, there's a statute that provides certain things and certain limitations.
-- that provide those kind of limitations, for good reason -- because it's understood that liquor --
'Cause you don't agree with it. 423 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But if people are foolish enough to participate in a hearing and file an appeal, they have a right to do it, and there's been no evidence whatever of any practice of people filing foolish appeals. What you're trying to do apparently -- maybe you're concerned about some of these agreements some community groups may have signed with developers. I've never heard any such criticism that you've alluding to.
But what we're saying is that everybody ought to have a right to appeal, and then let the trier of the facts and of the law, whether it's the Zoning Board initially or the court later --
No, you don't trust them. They will make the decision, and whether it's right or wrong, that decision may or may not be subject to a further appeal.
I understand. As usual, you like it both ways. I understand. Thank you.
There is no 16 differentiation of standing, there is no such thing. Madam President, I would like to continue for a moment. Madam President --
But this is a debate between two Councilmember, and we have people that are still waiting to testify.
And they've 425 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 been here since o'clock this morning. I think we should afford them the opportunity to do that.
Oh, Madam President, 5 these people have been very patient. 6
And all of the 9 people in support of the bill were permitted to 10 testify first.
And I said nothing, and the people who were opposed to the bill were all held later and I said nothing, but what I'm trying to --
We took people as they were called, as they called in, not whether they were in favor or in opposition to it. In fact, I've got the list that was made by Joan DePaul.
Who is the next witness, please? 426 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I'm Raydell Fisher, and I'm representing the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
Yes, we gave it to the stenographer. (Copy of Raydell Fisher letter attached hereto.)
My name is Yvonne Hicks, and I'm part of the newly-designed zoning board in the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
As you stated, I did send a letter on behalf to every member of the Rules Committee. I will not, in the interest of time, of course, read that letter, but I would like it 427 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to be entered into the record.
Okay. But I do not have a prepared statement, but I do want to go on record that our organization, and particularly our zoning committee, is in opposition to Bill No. 000629, and for many of the reasons that have already been articulated by the other community groups who were represented here. But I think what we have that is somewhat different to say is that, number one, our neighborhood organization is only two years old, and our zoning and enforcement code committee is just about two months old. The need has -- in the years that I have lived in the Hawthorne 18 community, we have never had any type of representation as far as zoning issues are concerned. The need for representation is just absolutely tremendous. Then as a result of the amendment to this particular bill -- it's ironic for us, it's just bad timing for us in the sense that this language has been on the book, in the code, for 428 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 over 40 years, and here we finally organize a neighborhood association with the zoning committee to meet a tremendous need in our community, and then all of a sudden, there's just this sweeping deletion of the language. And in our community, when there's even the perception that a right is being taken away, it is detrimental and harmful, because many of the people in our community feel in general that they just do not have a voice. They feel that way because they just feel so beat up over the years in that our community, given that in the City of Philadelphia, the neighborhoods are considered -- the City is considered a city of neighborhoods. When we say Hawthorne, there's an awful lot of people in the City who don't even know that means, they don't even know that we exist, and our boundaries are from South Street to Washington Avenue and from Eleventh Street to Broad. And it's a very exciting time for us as members of the zoning committee given that we are getting some attention because of the focus on the Avenue of the Arts. But we would not be sitting here today 429 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and as organized as we are today had it not been for the help of other surrounding community organizations. We work very closely with Washington Square West Association, we work with Queen Village Neighbors Association, we work with Bella Vista Town Watch, as well as their civic association. And quite frankly, Queen Village has been mentoring us as a zoning committee. So when there's a problem in Queen Village, there's a problem in Hawthorne. That's how closely we are located to one another. When there's a problem in Hawthorne, what happens also affects Bella Vista. So we've had -- they are established community groups with a long record, and we've had their support to help us just to get organized and to have us have some recognition in the City. And with this language, where you just -- all of a sudden, it's just too sweeping. We would like very much if the language would stay the way that it is, and that we would have a chance to have some practical experience so that we too can benefit in the same way that many of the other civic organizations have for the last 40 430 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to 45 years.
I'm very familiar with Hawthorne, as you know. Recently, a matter of an expansion to an existing facility along Bainbridge Street, the 1100 block of Bainbridge -- the 1200 block of Bainbridge was proposed. That facility, I believe, is a halfway house.
Through a lot of time and effort on behalf of your community and my office and a few others, we all reached the conclusion that the expansion of this facility would not be the appropriate thing for the Hawthorne community.
Letters of 431 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opposition were submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustments from my office. Councilman Kenney sent --
But if you recall, there was a gentleman who lives in the South Street neighborhood -- the South Street Neighbors District, Gray Smith.
Who was a proponent of the expansion of that facility. He supported that facility.
Well, initially. I think in the end, he still supported it 'cause I don't remember ever getting a letter from him opposing it. But the point I'm making is, after all of the time that we spent in negotiations and meetings with the developer and the owner of that property, the conclusion was that this was not the appropriate thing for our community.
Do you think that Mr. Smith, or someone like Mr. Smith, who lives blocks away, should have standing at the Zoning Board to try to influence them to overturn their decision?
Yes. In that particular instance, Mr. Smith turned out to be very beneficial to us when --
No, I said initially he did. And the reason why he was doing that was because, actually our organization, we did not have a voice. So it was very easy -- it was better to support having the facility there, take the risk of having the facility there with certain provisos in effect.
But didn't you think you had a voice in your elected officials?
So we became organized around that particular issue. 433 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I started a civic association back in 1989 as a result of zoning matters that were going on in my neighborhood.
But my point again is, did you not -- and at the time, in 1989, even though we created a civic association, I was relying on the support from my elected officials, who supported our community, even though we did not have --
We only had a civic association that was in existence for a couple of months. They supported our position because we were their constituents.
And you supported our position. I'm not arguing with you in any way along those lines.
I appreciate the support that you supplied as far as that particular issue is concerned, and I'll appreciate your support as far as defeating this bill as well. 434 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Applause.)
Well, I'm the sponsor of the bill and I don't think that will happen. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I've been listening to this all day, and I can think of numerous cases where -- in the City of Philadelphia where a zoning issue surfaced in a particular community, where people had concern about that particular issue not spreading to their neighborhood. And I can very much appreciate people being concerned about what effect a particular zoning change or variance would have in one community and how it would affect their neighborhood, even if in fact they live in Roxborough or they live in North Philadelphia. So this issue personally concerns me, why we would not want people to have an interest in what happens in other parts of their city. Thank you.
Councilman Cohen had mentioned a young lady who had talked to him outside, and her name is Sunny Payne, and she is a member of our zoning board. And as a matter of fact, before she left, she did have a letter, which she would like me to read for her, which included some of the words of Councilman Cohen. And that was: "The City is working to retain citizens and stem blight. If those citizens are deprived a voice in both their immediate neighborhoods and the city as a whole, then flight will not only continue, it will accelerate. We citizens want to a part of determining our immediate environment and the quality of life in the city as a whole." And that was her words. (Applause.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
I would like to ask 436 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Robert Jaffe to testify based on our experience. Is it all right?
Thank you, Councilmembers. I thought actually the hour was so late, I would end up not testifying. I think it's appropriate to tell the Rules Committee why it's appropriate for me to testify. I'm the attorney who litigated the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that resulted in the change of the interpretation of the law that you're here today, and I have some disagreements with A very fine lawyer and sometimes friendly adversary, Joanne, previously of the Ballard law firm, when I knew her. And I want you to be clear that you're eliminating from going to the Zoning Board people that I've represented, such as the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society as well as SCRUB, people who have an interest. And Councilman DiCicco, please --
I'm sorry, could you clarify that. 437 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Did you say "Zoning Board" or "the Court of Common Pleas"?
'Cause you got to, I think -- I don't know how you limit anybody from going to the Zoning Board.
You are making a distinction without meaning. It is a false and misleading distinction. The real distinction is whether someone can be a party to a lawsuit so as to effectuate their interest in the matter before any court, before the judicial body. So that if you say that someone can have the technical -- see, it's funny. The people who are non-lawyers today are the ones who are talking with legalese and technical words and incorrectly. Totally, quite honestly, and with all due respect, misleading the record to what's going to happen.
Let me make a suggestion: I would suggest that you testify to what you want to testify, and not be lecturing me, who was elected in this entire city -- don't -- please, 'cause it's been a long day, and if you have something to say that you want to put on the record, you put it on the record.
But I don't necessarily need to be lectured by staff; do you understand? If you want to give me some information, go right ahead, it's your right. You do it, you put it on the record, but don't be lecturing me --
Don't be lecturing me. I don't take it from staff; do you understand? Fine. As long as we understand, testify away.
I'm testifying on behalf of myself; if Councilman Cohen would let me, on his behalf on behalf; on behalf of clients who I have represented with the blessing of Councilman Cohen. 439 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I think you ought to deal just particularly with the material based on your experience.
I can tell you that we -- that you should expect -- you should expect groups that go before the ZBA to be trapped in a very long and complex Zoning Board argument, where every little detail would have to be put on the record and challenged by both sides. That groups will spend any time from months to 36 months 14 just litigating this standing, this change in the 15 law that you're talking about that. That the 16 groups that you're eliminating, including the 17 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, are broad and 18 diverse in their interests. 19 You're talking about supported housing organizations, such as the Mental Health Association of Southeast Pennsylvania, Action Alliance of Senior Citizens, Tenants Action Group, the Pennsylvania Prison Society. In disabilities and elderly law, you are taking away the right from the Housing 440 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Consortium for People with Disabilities, Liberty Resources, Disabled in Actions, Project HOME even, Judicare, the Gray Panthers. In minority issues, you're taking away the NAACP's possibility of entering into an action. And you've heard about Sierra Club, but also the Clean Air Council. You're affecting health issues, Action AIDS. You're talking at the American Lung Association, the Asthma Allergy Foundation of Southeast Pennsylvania. All of these do not have residential locations probably near the property in your individual neighborhoods. So first of all, I suggest that you're making a quagmire for these organizations. I'd like to say now why you're making a quagmire for individuals such as myself, such as my family. We live in Oxford Circle now. I go to FDR Park. I frankly love FDR Park.
I fought really hard to and continue for FDR Park because not only do I care about the Friends of FDR Park, but because of the personal commitment that I have to the FDR Park. 441 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Have you ever been a member of the friends of FDR Park? 'Cause I was a founding member of that organization.
Have you ever attended a meeting of the Friends of FDR Park?
Have you ever raised any money for the Friends of FDR Park?
Other than using the park, have you ever cleaned up FDR Park.
Other than using FDR Park, what other relationship do you have with it? A founding member, three of us sitting right here.
Then why do you want to hurt it? 442 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I want to tell you, it's my legal opinion as the attorney that litigated this up to the Supreme Court and wrote the brief on this, that you are eliminating my right to go to court to fight for FDR Park.
What was the last thing you did in fighting for it? Just out of curiosity.
What was the last thing you've done to help FDR Park since you fight for it so much? What is it you've done?
Have you been to a cleanup? I haven't seen you at one.
Since I live in that neighborhood, I'd be interested in how much you know.
Thank you. I spent every working hour that I physically could during the last two weeks preparing for seven Commonwealth Court arguments during the last week, well and beyond any consideration of 40, 50, 50, or even 80 hours of work. I do it, not only because I'm paid for my 40 hours of work, but I do it because I am committed to the work. I litigated in Commonwealth Court before Judge Pelligrini, Judge Smith, and Judge Giuliani this past week concerning the billboards, the eight billboards that border it, that Councilwoman Verna was a party in the appellate argument, that Friends of FDR Park are the party of the appellate argument. And I'm going to tell you that if you change the law, as you very well may, that I would 444 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 not, as a resident of a working-class neighborhood in Councilwoman Krajewski's district, be able to go to court and fight concerning FDR Park because I just go there with my dog, I just go there to watch trains, I just go there to sit by the pond, I just go there to walk on the stone fence. But I'm not a nearby resident. And, in fact, if I may finish -- and I can read from the briefs filed by Conrail and Eller, which I grave to the President of City Council, that all the attorneys, the Chancellor of the Bar representing, Tommy Leonard representing, the highest counsel, the highest-paid attorneys they could get fighting on the other side, argued to the court that the Friends of FDR Park and Council President Verna do not have standing because they do not reside in an area near the park. That's what they argued for standing. It's not that they had an interest, but that they didn't reside close enough. And you are closing the door that allows people, not only individually myself, as someone who enjoys Fairmount Park, including FDR Park, but even your own friends from really doing 445 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 what they want to do. And I suggest -- moving on to another issue -- that there's a problem of unequal applications, using just lingo, unequal application of the law in this change in deleting it. That -- that -- are you telling me that my daughter, when she wants to go a to a free library, is supposed to only go to the Oxford Circle branch, that she can't go to another branch because it's out of her residence?
Demagogue it up, go ahead, just keep on talking. Come on, just give it to us. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement -- I'm telling your daughter she can't go to another library. 446 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You're going to sit there and tell me I said your daughter can't go to the South Philadelphia Branch of the Free Library; is that what you're saying?
If you would let me finish, I would be happy to explain. If this passes, you are implying for one of the first times in ordinance that a person's right to a facility to support or attack is determined by the very immediate neighborhood that they live in. Yes, it's what Councilman Ortiz is saying, but much more specifically, as in showing that I attest, as a member of the Bar, as someone who has known you from a long time, from when I was a law clerk first, that I go to FDR Park and I could no longer be a party in fighting for FDR Park if this changes.
You can be a party 447 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to any next cleanup we have, we'd be happy to have you, and I'll give you the broom myself.
But I don't reside in the area of impact. And I want to point out in disagreement with Joanne that the courts have given a very limited and strict interpretation of the word "aggrieved." They don't give a broad to, say, open the doors. The courts in this Commonwealth have narrowed the definition of "aggrievement" as much as possible. And that this is going to affect individuals like myself, organizations that I've represented, and that it's not necessary. And it's not necessary because very few, if any, have actually gone to the Zoning Board and appealed from the outside. This is an imagined problem based upon -- based upon the billboards. This is not a problem based upon the real aggrievement of communities losing power in any way. And as I sat here during the day, I had other notes. If you're concerned about outsiders, and that's really what we're concerned about, I have a suggestion, a drafting suggestion, and I 448 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have drafted ordinances for this Council. And that is, put in "resident taxpayer." If you're concerned about someone coming from New Jersey, say "a resident of Philadelphia taxpayer." That way, you don't have the person that Councilman DiCicco spoke about earlier coming up from Delaware County to Bridesburg. By the way, I also represent Bridesburg Civic Association in cases that are before the Appellate Courts. And that -- why kill the baby, throw it out with the bath water, when all you have to do is put in "resident taxpayer" in. And that way, we have people who live and have offices in Philadelphia protected. I apologize about -- if I've insulted you, Councilman Kenney, who I have great respect for from the time I met you with Justice Nigro years ago when I was his law clerk. It's just that this is something of great importance to the citizens of Philadelphia, to the organizations that I represent, and to my family who goes to places like FDR Park. And if I do get heated, I hope that you forgive me. 449 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Mr. Jaffe, did I hear you testify that you represent SCRUB or have in the past?
I have represented SCRUB in the past. In the past week, I did not. I take that back. In one of the seven cases, I did represent SCRUB; in six of the cases, I represented other parties, not SCRUB.
Were you here earlier this morning when Miss Tracy was at the witness stand and I asked about the applications, the appeal to the application that was withdrawn by SCRUB for the billboard in the Food Distribution Center?
I do -- first of all, if I did have knowledge, I would tell that that would be confidential client-attorney information.
Let me ask -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over 450 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
I would say that it's inappropriate. I couldn't enter into the line of questioning because once I do, then I would have to continue.
I'm not the lawyer here, so you're going to educate me. Let me ask you this question: Did you represent SCRUB in that case?
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. At the request of the sponsor, Bill No. 24 629 will be held until the call of the Chair. This will conclude our public hearing. 451 3/12/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING This will conclude our public hearing on Bill No. 3 010100. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 010100 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and second that Bill No. 010100 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and Bill No. 010100 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Thank you all very much for your patience and time. (Adjourned 6:10 p.m.) 452 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 Monday, March 12, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 000629, 010100 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter