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 Subsequently, that appeal was withdrawn; am I correct?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?