Good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. Julia Camburn. I'm a resident of Philadelphia for 50-plus years, a business owner, and President of East Falls Business Association. I had not received a call back from your office. I did not realize I was to testify, so I will be very brief.
And as a resident and as the president of a 50-plus-member organization in a very small community, as Carolyn just told you, within the City, we are opposed to this revision with this Bill 629. The community of East Falls is one not unlike many others. Our five civic organizations, civic and business organizations, are enhanced by many, many Friends groups, which look to various endeavors, whether it be trees or the riverside or parks or streets or what have you. 254 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 It's very difficult as a volunteer, as someone who's trying to run a business, run a family, maintain some kind of semblance of a quality of life in the City to be apprised at all times of all issues. When you have organizations such as SCRUB who focus in on individual items and bring that to the attention of the communities and let people know about it, it's very important. We cannot allow ourselves as association members, as residents, as taxpayers of the City to be run over by political -- what's the -- political -- I'm sorry, I'm lost for the words -- interests. And I would wonder, I would wonder, since Miss Tracy was asked so vociferously about whether or not her organization had received a contribution from a certain association or of its affiliates, if we can then come back to Council and ask if individuals who are proposing certain ordinances are themselves receiving any kind of contribution from affiliates. (Applause.).
It is our opinion that the taxpayer needs to be heard. It is our opinion that the taxpayer needs a voice. It is our 255 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opinion that if this is to go forward, it must go forward in a way that speaks for the entire city, all 57 neighborhoods working and enhancing each other. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm sorry. I was just finishing lunch. Every Councilmember of the City of Philadelphia, every elected official in the State is required to file a campaign disclosure form at least once a year, sometimes more than once a year. Mine is on record. If you'd like to have me send it to you from my office, I'd be happy to do so. The concern that we have, I guess, is some of us are required to disclose and other groups are not required to disclose. And I do believe -- and I don't know whether true or not, 256 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 but I do believe it is significant that if an organization that purports itself to be an advocate or a group that is on a crusade against these type of billboards that in some instances can remove opposition, if in fact it's true, remove opposition from a billboard, accept money from a billboard company or someone affiliated with a billboard company, but a Community Association in some part of the City isn't permitted to make their own arrangement with a billboard outdoor advertising company, that's looked at as somehow being a little low-class, a little gauche. But a group like SCRUB, if in fact they've done that, that's okay, because they don't have to disclose it. My disclosure's there are for all to see. And organizations in our neighborhood where I live have a right to make arrangements with whatever developers or advertisers that they think they have a right to make a deal with in order to improve their neighborhood, without having people who don't live in that neighborhood second-guess and somehow look upon that effort as somehow being less than worthy, and I think that that's the 257 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 concern. Mary Tracy, SCRUB can disclose it or not disclose it. If they in fact did it and did not disclose it, I think it's some what duplicitous and not really fair to the other groups who try to do the same thing. That's -- so I'm on record. You can find my campaign contributions anytime you want.
After the Eastwick PAC, it will be Jack Minnis. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Joseph Warren. I'm a vice president of the Eastwick Project Area Committee, here to represent Maggie Powell, the Executive Director.
Joe, you're going to have to pull the microphone closer to 258 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you, please.
My name is Joseph Warren, Vice President of the Eastwick Project Area Committee.
We're here to let Council know that we oppose this amendment 000629. We are aware of the amendment that the Councilman may (indiscernible) our discussion and our vote on this particular amendment had to do with it whether or not a taxpayer should not be allowed standing. We have our statement -- I believe you have our statement, but we are very conscious of the fact that standing is very important, standing for the taxpayer. Residents of -- taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia ought to have the ability to challenge rulings of the Zoning Board.
I just want to add that when we went to appeal the sign boards in Eastwick, the first thing the Zoning Board asked us was how close were we to the location. So, therefore, I see no reason for changing the rule 259 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that was on the records, and leave it the way it was. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much for your patience. Jack Minnis, Janet Benedetto. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Okay, I'm Jack Minnis Chair, and I'm Zoning Chair of the Powelton Village Civic Association. And I am going to have to depart from my prepared text, which I have distributed because it was toward the amendment that Councilman DiCicco originally submitted. But we still strongly oppose Bill 23 000629 and its amendment. And there is a committee to defeat then both. Now, we have been told that Bill 629 would prevent an outsider from 260 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 appealing an agreement between the community and the developer. Now, changing the Zoning Code to prevent such a rare situation is an unacceptable reason for eliminating the right of any taxpayer to appeal. Instead, the bill effectively excludes anyone or any group from the appeal process, even if the zoning ruling obviously affects them, unless they go through the tortuous, expensive exercise of gaining standing. Now, the amendment introduced today does not really assuage our opposition to the bill 13 because there is still too many undefined terms in the definition of "affected persons." And I -- I made a list of the things that were wrong with the first amendment that Mr. DiCicco presented, but we are very concerned about the definition of "the neighborhood," we're very concerned about the definition of "an affected neighborhood," and more than anything else, we are most concerned about whose definitions are going to be used. And if we are going to use the one in (7)(c), then it must be clarified to mean the same thing for everyone. Now, adding the amendment to the bill 25 was apparently done to protect the rights of the 261 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 many civic associations in the City. What it really does, however -- what it really did however, it raised many more problems than it has solved, and it does not significantly change the crucial fault that is engendered by the bill. What neither the bill nor the amendment addresses is the problem raised if there is a zoning ruling for an area where there is no neighborhood association. For example, near Powelton, where we live, in West Philadelphia, we have such areas along the Schuylkill, around the main post office, and surrounding 30th Street Station and its yards. The original Zoning Code you're being asked to change adequately provides for this problem. Now, even if the amendment is not accepted, Bill 629 still must be defeated. The bill would severely limit Powelton and other neighborhoods near it expanding colleges. These neighborhoods are under siege by large numbers of students moving into off-campus housing. In many cases, they are moving into large buildings at the edge of the neighborhood, surrounded by other buildings recently purchased by developers, who 262 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have filled them with students and who have little, if any, interest in the interest of the neighborhood. If such neighborhoods are to remain viable, any taxpayer and we must have the right to oppose and appeal Zoning variances that contribute to this erosion. And any question about whether or not we are aggrieved must be completely clear. We strongly urge you to vote against bill and its amendments unless you can make the amendments more clear so that it's acceptable to us. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I want to ask the same quick question that I've asked the last witness. As a result of your community involvement in your particular community and the results of some of this development that has concerned the community and potentially may aggrieve the community, where do you believe, or how do you believe, that this bill 24 limits your civic association's or your organization's ability to oppose as a matter of 263 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 right these proposed developments?
Well, the term "aggrieved parties" is rather -- specifies -- is specific, but in the Paragraph (7)(c), it says something about tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity. I don't know what "vicinity" means. Does that mean 500 feet, 1,000 feet, a mile, or what?
So your suggestion is that we try to tighten up that language?
I think the introducer of the amendment should have made it very specific of what have that meant, yes.
That's fine. Thank you. I appreciate it. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Janet Benedetto. I live in Overbrook Farms, which is in the West Philadelphia area of the City of Philadelphia, and I also own property in South Philadelphia. So when you take these to two spatial areas, I am an owner and a taxpayer for both parcels. However, I am actually a resident of only one, so I think 264 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 this kind of dovetails with some of the rhetoric issues that have been floating around here today. I came with a prepared statement, and at the risk of -- I don't want to be redundant because things have been really affirmed here on the part of people much like myself who represent civic associations and pursue their love of Philadelphia, especially in the areas of zoning, the spatial issues. I mean, zoning is the number-one environmental issue that this city is facing. And I think that that position would be strongly concurred if you even took the time and, hopefully, the interest to confer with the academics at Temple University and their School of Geography and Urban Planning and also at the University of Penn. That being said, what I've come to realize in listening to all of the testimony today, which most of it was absolutely wonderful, is that today's proceedings really are about a word and the power of a word. From a personal point of view, in the last two years, I've become a proud grandmother. And Sophia Rose Benedetto and Julia Christine 265 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Benedetto were born, and the first thing before they were placed into the loving arms of their family is, they were given a Social Security number. They became, at the day of their birth, taxpayers. I really truly believe that the word "taxpayer," which I do not want removed from any of these writings, has become synonymous with people's identity as a citizen and as a member of the public and a person who has a right to participate in the process. Also, as a former junior high school civics teacher, this really goes to the heart of the spirit with which I conducted classes on civics. If this bill is rewritten the way you're proposing, I will have to personally send an apology and a retraction to all of the students that I have taught, telling them what I taught them, helped them to learn, hopefully to exercise is no longer quite the way I presented it to them. And I really don't want to incur that process. Also, I think there has been some misunderstanding as to really what is -- and 266 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 perhaps it's only in my own mind. What we're really talking about today is not zoning in its entirety; we were talking about a specific area of zoning called "fiscal zoning," which speaks directly to the possibility, the potential of earning revenues for a municipal treasury without any expenditures. So I think that perhaps there needs to be a redress as to just how comprehensive the area of zoning is. Again, you could validate that through any of the schools and the literature on zoning. But fiscal zoning is something very separate and distinct to the whole body of knowledge concerning zoning. I just want to put in a commercial for cities. Cities -- and our city is a marketplace for ideas, for our cultural values, our changing values, our changing ideas, as well as material goods. And they're the repository of our cultural memory. And in my experience in representing the Overbrook Farms Club, all of the issues that I ever brought before this body had to do with issues of zoning, and there was always a great deal of input from those who felt they needed to 267 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 give the input. And also, at the point of being blunt and perhaps rude, Councilman Kenney, shame on you for taking money from companies to fund what you have rationalized to be a good thing. (Applause.)
I want you to be more clear on your comment, 'cause you're not being clear.
And what are they getting -- and what are they getting -- and what is that sports equipment company getting -- 268 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
No -- well, I just -- no -- well, you're telling me shame on me, so I want to make sure I --
Yeah, exactly. Shame on you. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And what do you think that sporting goods company's going to get for giving free of charge --
This is years ago, and whenever I had -- 269 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
-- which I would consider recent relative to the proceedings today.
But shame on you for taking that money and rationalizing it as a good deed.
Well, it is, and let me tell you why it is, because those kids are more important than your sense of aesthetics, and I'll tell you why --
And let me tell you something, let me tell you something. So you said shame on me. Shame on you. Why don't you come 270 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 out with me one morning at o'clock in the morning to Rizzo Rink or to EOM Athletic Association or to Port Richmond Tigers or to any of those other groups in the City that we go on our best efforts to make sure they stay afloat so these kids are recreated.
Now, if you want to sit there and be offensive, do what you want, but let me tell you something: I will never, ever stop doing that 'cause every kid I get involved -- you know, Cobbs Creek Ice Rink, do you know how many kids we had involved out there? About 12. We must have about 150 to 170 out there now. Do you know that the kids in that neighborhood can't afford goalee equipment? You know how much that goalee equipment costs? It costs up to $1,000 to outfit a goal-tender. And those young kids who live in West Philadelphia who can't afford that equipment, don't tell me shame on me, Miss, because I'm going to tell you something, I'm proud of that, what we've been able to do out there. And I will continue to do that as long as every kid, or any 271 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 kid, has a need. Now, if you want to sit on your perch and give me a lecture, you do what you want, but don't insult me about my efforts and my work in the community with these children. I think it's offensive to me, and I will not stop doing it because those kids need that help. And I want to know what you do to help them, other than come in here and tell people off.
You crossed the line. You tell me what you do to help any young black kid in West Philadelphia get outfitted as a goal-tender. Tell me, 'cause I'm interested. You live in Overbrook, you go to Cobbs Creek. Have you been to Cobbs Creek Ice Rink? 272 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And what have you raised -- and what money have you raised for them --
When you start doing it, come back and criticize me. Thank you.
Thank you. Cirel Magen, please. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible, off-mic.)
Thank you. Mr. John Furey, also, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Sure, of course. My name is Elizabeth Armor (ph.) and I'm a resident of Society Hill. I'm here as a resident taxpayer as well as a business taxpayer, and I've also been asked to represent the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee of the civic association here today.
Yes. I just was realizing that this morning so my comments will be brief. As you know, Society Hill became a City-certified historic district a little bit more 274 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 than two years ago almost to the day, and we fought for that for a number of years, as you all know, and I would like to thank those of you who are here today who helped us in that endeavor. We're very appreciative of that.
What I would like to say is we are in support of many of the groups that have testified here today, most notably the Queen Village neighborhood group, as well as East Falls Development Corporation, in say that the language of the bill, as we have seen it, not necessarily with the last changes -- I do want to make that qualification obviously -- is contrary to and we feel completely emasculates sections of Bill No. 17 318. This is amending Section 14-207 of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Historic Buildings." That bill states that, and I quote, "The citizens of Philadelphia. . ." -- it doesn't say "neighborhoods." It says, "The citizens of Philadelphia have a constitutionally mandated right to preservation of their historic and their aesthetic environment." And contrary to stated declaration of 275 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 public policy, as expressed in this bill, paragraph 1.b.4, to be specific, taking away our rights as taxpayers of -- and I underline again -- the City, not neighborhoods, the City. As interested persons has the unintended consequence, end of quote. It has the unintended consequence of eliminating the opportunity to participate in the preservations of buildings, structures, sites, objects that constitute and contribute to the character of historic districts. And I just want to make a personal statement here. I think we're going down a very slippery slope when we start discussing that somehow someone or some group has more rights than someone or some other group. When we start qualifying and putting a value judgment on the level of people's rights, quote/unquote, we start to deprive those very people of their rights. We are taking away with the language in this bill, as proposed, our right to participation in the process. And that in my mind is one of the basic tenets of democracy. (Applause.)
Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Rules Committee. My name is John Furey. I'm President of the Broad Street West Civic Association. We're located down in the South Philadelphia area. Our organization is concerned with the proliferation of billboards along the gateways and fringe areas of our neighborhood. We are opposed to Bill 629 for the following reasons: The amendment does nothing to reinforce an ordinance that is virtually ignored and never enforced; The amendment serves the needs of the corporate community, not the neighborhood; The amendment seek to weaken taxpayers' rights; The amendment will cause financial hardships to groups not able to file these appeals. Also, the question of standing should 277 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be left to the courts to decide on case-by-case basis. Currently, we have our hands full trying to monitor apartment conversions with the Zoning Board and their variances. We receive notification from Mary Tracy when there is billboard activity in our area. Frankly, I wasn't even aware of the amount of construction on billboards behind the FDR Park if it wasn't for this organization alerting us. Like I said, we're busy with neighborhood problems, primarily apartment conversions and L&I problems, and we don't have the resources, the time, or the money to dedicate to monitoring billboards. The other thing is that billboards, by their nature, wind up in the least restricted areas of the community, far from homes and neighborhood groups. So many times, the immediate area is not even aware of the activity until it is too late. We participated in a number of Zoning Board hearings. We went to the Zoning Board to oppose putting the billboards up in FDR Park, and we were chastised and reminded that we live quite a distance away from FDR Park and what did we have 278 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to say about it, you know. I know that the head of the Friends of FDR was told that the people -- that the Friends of FDR were from all over and they didn't live in the park and they weren't really interfered with by these billboards, so what were they doing there. So these least restricted areas are a distance away from your residential community. Then you're told you're too far from the site to have standing. So it is a struggle. And I think it's wrong, the language of this amendment. I think the bill itself needs to be reinforced. I think there needs to be more enforcement. And thank you for your time. (Applause.)
I believe she was here earlier and did leave a letter, which will be made a part of the record, and I would 279 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 like the record to reflect that she is in opposition to the bill. Do you have a copy of this? STENOGRAPHER: Yes.
Would you like to read it? She asked me to read it. It's up to you.
If you can abbreviate it, because we have people waiting here for another hearing. Identify yourself for the record, please.
My name is Judith Eden. I live in Center City, and I have the letter before me of Ann Butchart, who wrote the letter wearing multiple many hats. And she lives in the 1st Councilmatic District. I know that Frank DiCicco is committed to strong neighborhoods. He demonstrated this in 1966 when my community, Kensington South, opposed a land owner who sought a variance in order to 280 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 erect a 120-foot cellular tower in a residential neighborhood. And she goes through the zoning battle and the legislative battle that this ensued. And wrote, "We still had to appeal the Zoning Board decision to Common Pleas Court. We were successful, but only because the neighborhood took extraordinary means to wage a legal fight. In the course of our struggle, which included working on the legislation, my neighborhood was supported by other community organizations and leaders who had fought similar struggles and understood the legal and legislature process. "And that is what the proposed amendment is really about. By deleting the word 'taxpayer' from the group of recognized individuals and parties who can appear in zoning cases, it becomes unclear who has the legal standing to challenge critical zoning decisions which affect our neighborhoods. This amendment cedes participation in zoning matters to those who can afford to be represented by attorneys. That excludes most neighborhoods. "In our city, there are very few issues 281 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that affect a single neighborhood. The problems that make neighborhoods unattractive, unsafe, and unappealing do not confine themselves to any one part of the city. Crime, drug sales, unenforced building codes, potholes, absentee owners, these issues impact Philadelphians no matter where they live. Our good residents have for generations responded, organizing groups that address issues that are at the heart of our communities. The Historical Commission can speak to any historical site in the city, whether it is Independence Hall, a mansion in Frankford, or a church in South Philadelphia. We have the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, the Art Commission, Penn State Urban Gardening Program, Clean Air Council, CEPA, the Coalition of Philadelphia Neighborhoods, our Town Watch system, the Friends of Fairmount Park, any number of organizations dedicated to citywide issues. These groups are resources for Philadelphians who want to stay where they live and make things better. "The legislation proposed today will discourage civic-minded residents from addressing difficult urban issues. The only people motivated 282 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to challenge zoning decisions will be those who can afford to, those who can pay to play. An organization or a business may have the means to compensate a community group for the privilege of weighting the restrictions of the Zoning Code, but that does not mean that the community will be better off for the bargain. "Further, the proposed legislation will fracture community groups, diminish the voice of citizens, and amplify the effect of wealthy interests who have agendas other than those of the City's citizens. "If our elected representatives want to grow our neighborhoods, encourage participation, and staunch the flow of population from the city, then this bill should not be passed. The Appellate Courts have upheld the language of our Zoning Code as it is written, recognizing the decisions made by an administrative body profoundly affect the fabric of the community, and that all the stakeholders -- that is, we the taxpayers -- have standing to challenge those decisions. "If anything, the number of people 283 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 eligible to participate should be expanded, not contracted. This bill, either in its original language or as it may be amended should not be passed." Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. This committee will stand in recess for minutes, and we will now have a public hearings 12 of the Streets and Services Committee, but this -- 13 it will only take 15 minutes. 14
We are only going 15 to do two bills on the list for the Streets and Services Committee so that we can get back into this hearing, but there are a couple of people here who have requested that we get their bills out today. - - - (Meeting of Council Committee on Streets and Services is held.) - - - (Meeting of Council Committee on Rules resumes.) 284 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 - - -.
This is the continued public hearing of the Rules Committee regarding Bill No. 629. Our next witness is Janet Potter. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Janet Potter, the Director of Advocacy and Communications for the Foundation for Architecture. For more than two decades, the Foundation for Architecture has been a strong voice for public involvement in the design and development of Philadelphia. We are dismayed by the proposed Bill 18 000629 amendment to the Philadelphia Code, which would drastically restrict public process before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. We would like to see a published copy of the most recent amendment to which we are supposed to speak today. We think that that would be a fair matter of public process, rather than appearing here today and listening to and listening to an amendment when we 285 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 had expected something else. We are concerned no matter that removing three words and then adding some back in will not preserve the standing of the average taxpayer. Zoning boards in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania are merely tolerant, rather than enthusiastic, about hearing from the annoying, pesky public. Zoning boards will use any opportunity to deter people from speaking. I make this observation in my position for the Foundation for Architecture and as a lifelong community activist in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. The diminution of the chance for citizens to be heard at the Zoning Board will be gradual -- maybe not next week or next year, but it will happen. We cannot depend on the benevolence of the current City Council to insist that the Zoning Board allow the voice of every citizen to be heard. Sooner or later, the Zoning Board will realize that if people -- and I will clarify who I mean by "people" in a moment -- do not have the right of appeal. Their standing will be challenged right up front by the Zoning Board 286 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and their voices silenced. They will no longer even attempt to participate. Bill 629 would delete three simple but powerful words from the code, "or any taxpayer," cancelling out the rights of at least four categories of people. Advocacy organizations, such as the Foundation for Architecture; civic associations, despite the added-in words to the amendment; ad hoc committees, and that's a really serious issue, groups that come together on an emergency basis to address a zoning issue in Philadelphia; and individual citizens, who would no longer be permitted to confront zoning matters in the legal arena. Time will be consumed on battles about legal standing while the actual zoning issues, which should be the subject of public discussion, fail to be addressed. When developing and redeveloping a city, disagreements are inevitable. We must not silence the voices of our citizens, whether those voices are approving or disapproving, whether those voice cause delay or cause progress, whether those voice come from a near neighbor or from a group concerned with the 287 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 overall issues of zoning, land use, and planning in Philadelphia. Public deliberation, which often moves slowly to a conclusion, is our best assurance of fair-minded, solid, and satisfying growth for Philadelphia. The Foundation for Architecture respectfully asks the members of City Council to reject any amendment that harms the citizen's right to appeal. The crucial words "or any taxpayer" must remain. No diluting of the strength of those words, no quibbling about a citizen's standing before the Zoning Board, and no 14 adding of qualifiers that would hinder public process. We can understand the frustration, for example, of Councilman DiCicco and Kenny, but this amendment throws out the proverbial baby with the bath water. The baby is public process; the bath water is an overzealous desire to eliminate the comments or influence of, quote, outsiders. Philadelphia taxpayers are not outsiders; they are citizens with legal rights, which should be maintained. Thank you. 288 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. To the remaining survivors who have been here since o'clock this morning and 9 before, I want to say I very much appreciate -- 10 I'm not sure I'm surviving, but I very much appreciate your participation, and I think all of the citizens of Philadelphia do. Until your testimony, it wasn't as clear to me the total danger here. All organizations are told, Get out, get out of our sight, you don't live right here, you don't have any business being involved in anything. I thought mainly it was community organizations, but all of the these special groups, those interested in the historical preservation, there are even groups outside the City that have a strong attachment to Philadelphia. Are we saying to them, You don't count, we don't want you here? You know there was a senator -- used to be a state senator from Philadelphia who wanted to 289 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 extract the Northeast and call it -- what was it, "Liberty County"? He wanted to establish -- is that what we're doing? Are we going to create, you know, maybe 20, 30, 50, 100 different Liberty Counties in Philadelphia? I think in the 33 years since I first entered City Council, I have to say this is the most shortsighted bill I've ever seen, because what it does is just strike at the heart of citizen participation in government. And I don't know what the final decision will be. Maybe the decision of the committee may be for or (indiscernible), but I have great deal of confidence that in the period between an action by the committee and an action by the Council, there may well be second thoughts by many people. And I hope folks out in the community and all of these groups, the Historical Preservation group, the Horticultural Society, which has been involved in Zoning Board appeals, the Foundation for Architecture, all of these groups, as well as the standard environmental community groups, unite to make clear to the City Council, which is your legislative body, what you 290 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 think the decision ought to be. So just thank you for your perseverance here today. Thank you.
Councilman Cohen, if I may respond to what you are saying. I've notice that the focus today was on civic associations. And so far, I think the Foundation for Architecture is the only group so far to speak. And the concern about the words "or any taxpayer" was attempted to be alleviated by putting back in the words about civic associations, but it ignores advocacy groups, it ignores the emergency ad hoc committee, and it actually ignores the individual. And if in an attempt to get this bill, the words "or any taxpayer" continue to be removed and each one of those phrases is added back in, we've just created a clutter and a catastrophe, and things are actually rather neat and tidy now with "or any taxpayer." Granted, there are situations where that might be abused, but the far greater danger is that the organizations will be abused. 291 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
One doesn't abolish democracy because somebody may abuse it; one seeks to strengthen the democratic functioning of society. I don't understand. We're talking -- the hypothetical questions raised constantly indicate the City is falling down. We've never had the development in Philadelphia that we've had in the last 45 years since this original language was first inserted in the bill, "or any taxpayer." And we're conjuring up all kinds of hypothetical days of doom, when there are none in sight. There's been one case, one organization involved -- SCRUB -- which has been found to be apparently too annoying to folks interested in putting billboards wherever they want. And that's the whole basis that's being seized upon, I believe, by developers to conjure up these weird tales of, My God, people are coming from the outside somehow, outside interests, interlopers, people that got no business interfering in other people's business. I've never heard such kind of nonsense before. 292 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The City is strong, and we're going to make it stronger by giving people rights, not by taking away their rights. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Thank you. Miss Phillips, can you approach the witness table, please, and then I can I think you can go back to your business. (Miss Phillips returns to witness table.)
But I think the record has to be made crystal-clear. I thought I understood you earlier, but I'd like you to reiterate. This bill certainly not ignore an individual?
Would it ignore any community group if they, in fact, did not have a civic association in their community? Couldn't they get together and file an appeal?
Yes. And also, they would probably do it in the names of the 293 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 individuals that live nearby. And that's the practice, that's always been the practice.
Now, you have heard witness after witness testify this afternoon. Can you make this record clear for us, please, as to what you see this bill doing. I know you testified earlier, and I think I may have heard something differently than other people did.
What this bill would do is to take out the word "taxpayer" and remove the concept that a bare taxpayer status, just the fact of paying taxes in the City alone, would give you standing to appear -- to bring an appeal at the Court of Common Pleas. It doesn't take away the civic association rights, individual rights. And there have been a lot of discussions that this has been on the books for 45 years, and it has because it was always interpreted that a taxpayer also had to be aggrieved. The same language that's in the code right now. The SCRUB case, in 1999, changed that interpretation to say we don't need to look at aggrievement, we don't need to look at anything other than whether you pay taxes. 294 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And the issue of standing has always been a preliminary matter in any court appeal. It has to be raised by one side. The judge doesn't raise it on his own or her own. If one party can raise the issue of standing, it's a preliminary matter in many -- I guess in all jurisprudence that you have to show why it is that you're in court. And this is just eliminating the bare taxpayer status. There's no way that the Administration would support an ordinance that was taking away the right of communities to voice their concern to appear before the Board. I'm trying to focus that these are land-use decisions that impact, you know, the land use. What does it affect. And I think we tend to want to use zoning for everything, and we're looking at it a zoning matter, a land-use matter. And it is upsetting that people believe that their rights are being taken away. I don't think that's accurate at all.
I have a couple questions, Madam Chair. 295 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Phillips, 'cause I had some questions in this regard as well. Now, in response to the Chair's question with regard to the individuals, could you say your answer again, please.
I think individuals have a right to bring a zoning appeal at the Board and Court of Common Pleas if they're aggrieved, meaning that they're impacted somehow by the decision. Community groups that are an association, an unincorporated association, or an incorporated 501(c.)(3), if there's a group of people that come together and there's no legal entity, they would typically say, you know, there's a group, but they --
Well, the people. Say that the neighbors of block 100 come together over an issue. They don't have a legal -- there is no 296 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 legal entity, they haven't incorporated or become an unincorporated association.
That want to challenge something that affects their life, their quality of life from a land-use decision. And in all fairness, the reason the taxpayer was really -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
There was a very recent argument made by a good lawyers, I guess, and he won that argument.
What is it that 297 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 concerns you so much about the "or any taxpayer" component of this? If there are all of these rights out there, if everybody is protected currently, then why is it something that should be subtracted?
I don't think it is being subtracted. I think we're putting ourselves back the way we were before the SCRUB --
If you delete three words, I think it's a subtraction, so why does that need to be done?
I think it makes us consistent with the rest of the State, including the suburbs of which we have to compete with, they have an aggrievement standard.
We could be consistent and compete with everyone around us if we would drop our wage tax to about 1 percent.
So what we need to do is look at all the ways that we do business in the 298 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 City.
And I really -- the reason I don't see it as a deletion, it is taking it back to the way it was for 45 years, which was, you had to be aggrieved. The other thing is just to make it a part of the --
It wasn't like that 45 years ago. It said "aggrieved person or any other taxpayer." That's been the language for at least 45 years. I can't talk about what the practice was. But in your own words, I thought you said to the Council President, 'cause you didn't exactly say what you said in the earlier answer, I thought you said that some group people would come together and they would be some group but they'd also probably file or they also should file 21 individually as the nearby neighbors.
You continue to emphasize the nearby neighbor aspect of this. Now, what's the definition of that? 299 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Any neighbor that's impacted or resident or business owner or property owner. You don't even have to be a resident.
But we talked about this earlier, and so now you'll have to go back and give us the explanation of what does a court define as the "aggrieved person"?
It's not a quantifiable thing that says you live one mile from this site or one block from a site. It is an issue related to impact.
They didn't say anything about distance in that case, did they?
Isn't the standard that the party must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the particular litigation, otherwise he can have no standing to appeal. And 300 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 not only must the party desiring to appeal have a direct interest in the particular question litigated, but his interest must be immediate and pecuniary and not a remote consequence of the judgment. The court further went on to say that in particular, it is not sufficient for the person claiming to be aggrieved to assert the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law now. Now, isn't that the standard?
I'm sorry, I disagree with you in the fact that you said there had to be a pecuniary interest. I don't believe that's what the court has held.
Well, so am I, so am I. And that's what -- I mean, I did read the 301 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 language correctly.
Councilman, I don't want to argue over it. I mean, we can have differences of opinion on this. I am telling you that as a --
Miss Phillips, wait a minute. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Hold on. I asked you to hold on. Did I read the words correctly or not? Now, I don't want to dispute about whether I can read or not.
Why don't we go to the section, and then you can state for the record whether I read it correctly.
If you can give me a chance to read from another section if I disagree with you.
Sure. You can say 302 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 whatever it is you want I don't want you to say, but I don't want you to say that I didn't read the section correctly. I do know how to read.
Let her know what section you're reading so she could look at it.
Well, the copy I have is -- starts at ,so maybe you can give me the keynote number, if that would help.
If I knew what a keynote number was, I may be able to direct you to it. What's a keynote number?
Well, at the beginning of certain paragraphs, there's a number.
And that typically holds. 303 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
This isn't the only case either, while we're looking for that. And please read it to me. This has been developed over -- since 1975.
Miss Phillips, I only cited this case because you cited the case.
What it means is, it's the beginning case of a long line of cases --
-- that discuss standing, which are in many cases. You know, Robert Ryan's On Zoning has a chapter on standing. There are lots of cases.
I asked you to give us for the record what the standard was for the aggrieved person. You began to give a response. I asked you, isn't it this set of information because it's out of the William Penn case? You said you didn't think so and that I was wrong. I said, why don't we go to the case because you left 304 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the record with the impression that I could not read correctly. So I'd like to clear that up.
I apologize if that's the impression I left. I didn't mean to and let's go --