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