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?