Again, I'm not an attorney and I'm not sure as to whether or not we would have the ability to eliminate that expression of free speech totally. I tried a number of years ago to have eliminated what I believe -- and again, a very subjective decision on my part -- was the unsightly placement of ad circulars on your step or lawn or your driveway every Friday Saturday morning. And I learned quite quickly that commercial-free speech is a very strong element and is apparently Constitutionally protected. And I was only able to put in certain restrictions on the weight an the delivery methods as opposed to the manner and time in which it's delivered. So, again, I'm not saying that that's a reason why we can't do it. I don't know whether or not there's a restriction in that regard. 382 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and it could be that the billboards are such a hazard. I mean, I'm a slow reader. I might have my attention diverted while I'm reading the billboards about jock itch or whatever or being distracted by them and I rear-end somebody on 95. That's a stretch, I understand that.
Mr. Walker, one moment, please. Councilman Cohen has a question.
I just wanted to ask you whether you're sure you want to thank City Council for creating the environment. They're 383 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 about to muzzle your rights as a citizen.
I concur, but I look at the more organic process that's going on here and --
This a -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I appreciate the process and I'm sure that Council will be as wise on this issue as you folks are on others. And no sarcasm intended.
There was a letter from Seth Williams, Madam Chair, from the 384 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Overbrook Civic Association, and I handed it to the stenographer. (Copy of Seth Williams letter attached hereto.)
Madam Chair, may I also, as we're talking about letters, there's a letter from the Tacony Civic Association dated March 9, 2001 that's in support of Bill No. 629, with amendments. And I'll give that to you for the stenographer also. Thank you. (Copy of Tacony Civic Association letter attached hereto.)
And while we're doing letters, Jody Della Barbra from GEAR is opposed. (Copy of GEAR letter attached hereto.)
Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition is opposed. (Copy of Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition attached hereto.)
Robert Hickey. (Copy of Robert Hickey letter attached hereto.) 385 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And Lynn McConville. (Copy of Lynn McConville letter attached hereto.) (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. Good evening. My name is Beth McConnell and I'm an advocate with the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, PENNPIRG. PENNPIRG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization that represents nearly 12,000 citizen members across the State. PENNPIRG speaks outs on behalf of the public when special interests have undue influence over the political process and works on issues, including environmental preservation, consumer protection, and democratic reform. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak before you today regarding Bill No. 00629. PENNPIRG strongly opposes this bill, which aims to modify the Philadelphia Code by restricting the ability of taxpayers to appeal 386 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decisions made by Zoning Boards to the Court of Common Pleas. Zoning Boards make decisions that impact the quality of our air and water, the attractiveness of our city to tourists and businesses, as well as affect the civic pride of Philadelphia residents. These qualities transcend neighborhood boundaries. Thus, decisions made in Old City or Northern Liberties affect residents in Queen Village, Strawberry Mansion, Germantown, and every other Philadelphia neighborhood. Therefore, it is critical that we defend the right of any taxpayer to object to a decision that may negatively impact any neighborhood in our great city. When we silence concerned organizations and individuals, many of whom fill important roles in preserving our city's historic and cultural character, it has the adverse effect of increasing the influence of a select few special interests. As a result, special interests will be able to gain more power over important community decisions and change our city in ways the greater community does not support. Cities and towns have a responsibility to protect the public welfare by placing limits on 387 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the use of private property, and they cannot do so effectively without civic participation. At a time when special interests already maintain an unhealthy stronghold on our democracy at the local, State, and national levels, it is also the responsibility of this Council to limit that undue influence by fostering greater public involvement. Bill No. 000629 presents a barrier to such participation. PENNPIRG respectfully requests that this Council oppose the ordinance. Once again, thank you for the giving me the opportunity to come.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience. (Applause.)
We gave it to the stenographer. 388 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Copy of Darlene Messina letter attached hereto.)
Fred Maurer, Fred Maurer. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Fred Maurer, and I have a written copy of my testimony for the clerk, but I 389 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would like to give some asides before I give my report. In the last Zoning Board hearing I attended, I was denied the opportunity to stand at a hearing. I had to fight my way through the people, the hearing examiners, to be heard. I could not have fought if I didn't know we had this right to speak as a taxpayer. The record of me objecting to being dismissed was never entered into the official hearing record. If they can't transcribe my objection, how can I file an appeal further on. They eventually gave up 'cause I just kept standing there dumbly, until they had no 15 opportunity to get rid of me. I did -- I come here today to speak on the bill. I have read about the bill in the legal notices of the Inquirer. I do not know of any letter ever sent out, and I'm speaking from (indiscernible) because I have a citizen's right to appear in this area. I don't know anything about the billboard situation, but I thought this was a bill 24 about zoning. This is a broad-based zoning issue, and it doesn't say anything about billboards. If 390 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that's part of the thing, then I think the ordinance is being misdrafted because that's a single item which should be addressed independently and not be made a part of the zoning issues. So I think my testimony that you should receive is what relates to the ordinance that's being proposed. My name is Fred Maurer. I am a taxpayer in this city. I have participated in zoning hearings and respect the process, but my reward -- my regard for the process has not been vindicated by the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I feel that many of their rulings were wrong, and they violated the sanctity of fair judgment on behalf of the welfare residents. Too many rulings seem a rubber stamp on unseen motives. They were not influenced by the public testimony. They accepted testimony in private forums and had personal contacts that are prejudicial. Many more decisions need to be appealed but the poverty of ordinary citizens inhibit undertaking that appeal. I regard the taxpayer right as an excellent turn to satisfy all of the diverse 391 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 interested persons on zoning issues. When we zone for this health and welfare of the citizens, it is a matter for everyone. We each have an interest that zoning laws be applied correctly and fairly. But when we see our brother is denied unfairly on a public matter, then we should have a legitimate right to assist them in the appeal process. If zoning decisions are wrong, then it is a public failure. We need an appellate process to redress the inherent abuse of a commission that is politically tainted by our strong mayor system. We have that right now by anyone willing to chase for the truth. Why should we lose it in this century. When the Home Rule Charter was given, we adopted new zoning rules and expressly added this clause about taxpayer rights. It was not an accident. I am sure it was debated adequately before adoption. So why should we choose to remove it now? I have not seen any public outcry to justify any revisions. Before any amendment is considered, it should be accompanied with hearings and findings of fact to demonstrate the failure of 392 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the law. I haven't seen any attempt to demonstrate the harms from this decades' old law. I see this amendment as an infringement of my rights of participation in Philadelphia and of my help from other people who are concerned on my behalf. We all have a stake in keeping fairness in the zoning matters. Zoning faults hurt the City afterwards and establish bad precedents. Small cases predominate and are equally important. Every variance case is an attempt to evade the high principles of the zoning laws. Someone is hurt in every dispute, mostly the poor.
The advocates of the amendment are seeking to impose the burden of zoning disputes to the smallest and least denominator of community representation. They want to transform public issues to a private action while the whole assets of the city would be arranged against the private individual. Spot zoning hurts the City and inflames a wider community of interest than are represented by a single resident or a community group. We 393 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 only know of them after the Zoning Board fact, after they decide. In my own volunteer work with the Friends of Tacony Creek Park, I represent two City District Councils and neighborhoods. My work 7 at the Fairmount Park Commission relates me with 8 73 friends and groups. My work with the 9 Philadelphia Water Department represents 38 10 communities and a tenth of the City population. 11 My drinking water comes from the Schuylkill River, 12 and I worry about zoning my water shed. 13 We could not identify all of the 14 classes of persons and organizations or groups who 15 should be included in a case. Zoning notices are 16 only posted in the smallest zone, which precludes 17 wide common knowledge. 18 The proposed amendment is a major revision of a long-standing ordinance after adopting the Home Rule Charter. The amendment would prohibit all taxpayers who have any interest in zoning justice. If the clause is removed, it will result in greater harms from inherent abuse of the system. It would convert public matters into a private lawsuit of unequals and no appeal. 394 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment acts as a legal precedence affecting all future decisions on a citywide basis. If we remove the rights of all taxpayers, all other affected cases will be denied regardless of the current merit. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is not a public court competent to hear all cases. It is not a court for rebuttal and evidence is being determined, nor is it a court where you can contradict or testify and challenge them on the witness stand. It is correct to use the universal term of "taxpayers" to specify anyone with an interest. It is a safe name to use. I recommend the Rules Committee should deny the amendment, and I would suggest any amendments should be addressed to the unsolved Zoning Board of Adjustment faults. Thank you. )
Tina Nelsen, Executive 395 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Director of CEPA. I am here today on behalf of CEPA, the Consumers Education and Protective Association. Philadelphia is the home of the Bill of Rights. What Bill No. 000629 does is remove the rights of the taxpayers. Bill 000629 is another attempt by the government to try and take power away from the people. If it passes, no longer will concerned citizens have the right to legally challenge what have often been decisions by the Zoning Board. This tilts the playing field heavily towards the investors and speculators who usually have the resources to retain attorneys. If this bill is passed, these attorneys will argue that citizens and community groups do not have the rights to appeal a Zoning Board decision. The community groups and citizens will be forced to spend their energy and resources just to have their day in court. The people of Philadelphia care about the growth and the future of the city. It is our Constitutional right to have access to the court system to challenge bureaucratic decisions that hurt the public. Why would you want to take that 396 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 away. I urge you to vote no on Bill 000629 and use your voice for what so many others have fought for, the right of all Americans to seek redress for their grievances and to have their day in court. Thank you.
I'm Lorraine Brill, President of Upper Northwood Community Council. UNCC represents home and school associations, playgrounds, libraries, religious institutions, and veteran organizations within our boundaries at Cottman Avenue on the north, Roosevelt Boulevard on the east, Oxford Circle on the south, and 397 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Oxford Avenue on the west, comprising the 53rd and 54th Wards. In the 1970s, UNCC worked with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission to remap and rezone the 53rd and 54th Wards. We have continued to monitor zoning issues in our community for many years. Although we have never filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas about a Zoning Board decision, we know that currently, under Section 11 14-1807 of the Philadelphia Code, we have the right to appeal. Bill No. 000629 proposes to take away that right by deleting the words "or any taxpayer." When an applicant seeking a variance is turned down by the Zoning Board, the applicant as the aggrieved party will still have the right to appeal. However, when the Zoning Board grants a variance which is opposed by a civic association or various individuals, environmental groups, historic preservation groups, or any other organization, all or any of these groups will lose their right to appeal the Zoning Board's decision if the words "or any taxpayer" is deleted. If we lose the right to appeal, the Zoning Board may no 398 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 longer pay much attention to the testimony of any individual or organization at a Zoning Board hearing. I do not understand why anyone would want to deny any individual or organization the right to appeal a Zoning Board decision. Since filing an appeal is an expensive and time-consuming effort, the person or group involved should have the right to present their case before a court of law, and the court should have the final decision. I have been informed that there is a proposal to amend this bill to include certain civic associations to be allowed to appeal. This amendment would only confuse the issue more. In many neighborhoods, there are various types of groups. Who would decide which is the one group that could appeal. This is a bad idea. It still would deny the right of appeal to individuals or other concerned groups. Upper Northwood Community Council requests the Committee on Rules vote against Bill 24 No. 000629. And if I have another minute or two, I 399 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 mean, just some of the issues that we've encountered in the Zoning Board, we've had neighbors that are afraid to sign petitions because of issues of the applicant, or we've had people that have signed petitions but it was the wrong decision, like putting a commercial area in a residential area. And they do it as a favor. We've been lucky. The Zoning Board normally goes along with our issues. But in one case, we had -- the whole community group had a -- we had an agreement with the applicant, everybody was in favor of it, the business and all, but our Councilperson was not, so the applicant was denied permission to -- he wasn't granted the variance. So it doesn't always work that, you know, when the community group wants something that they get it. And that's it basically. But we think that this is a bad case and it would take our rights away. And the court should be the deciding factor on this.
No, it will not because it would deny my right. I don't live near a lot of 400 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the cases that we go to you.
Well, but, you know, there are many neighborhoods -- there's about six or seven or eight different groups, there are block watches, there are other groups. Who's to say which is a group. And suppose that -- and there's one case of a civic association in the Northeast where they went along with something, but individuals opposed it, the individuals decided to go to court on it. Now, this would say that those individuals wouldn't have any rights, and so not everybody agrees with the community groups.
And I know we've repeated it a thousand times today, but most people, obviously, who are opposed to the bill 5 just don't see it the way -- as one of the sponsors of the bill, the way I see it.
Madam President, I just want to say I believe you're right. I believe that this bill would deny many people, many groups the standing that would enable them to file effective appeals so that they could be heard. The best the amendment does is to enter a tiny wedge which a court would probably disregard and examine into whether or not people are really aggrieved because that's the clear intent of this bill today. And I think those who believe to the contrary are dreaming, and I haven't heard any lawyer member of the City Council ever voice the view. It's the hope of the non-lawyers that the 402 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 court will permit community groups to be heard. But as I've repeated several times already today, the courts have adopted the position where aggrievement is necessary to say that Friends of the FDR Park, for example, are not eligible in connection with matters involving FDR Park unless they can show that they have membership that lives directly in the affected area, and I am very concerned that that will be the interpretation of the amendment by a court, once the issue reaches the courts. So I think you're right in being concerned. And it's one thing for those who are seeking to limit -- in fact, made it very clear in the original bill that they wanted to exclude everyone. They can say with confidence, Oh, don't worry, nobody's going to be excluded, because apparently, they're not concerned about the question of exclusion. And exclusion is a very real threat.
If we don't have the right to the appeal, we don't get as many agreements with the applicants as we do now.
Why are you 403 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 saying you don't have the right to appeal?
If you read the word "or any taxpayer" that's taken out, you have to --
But you belong to the Upper Northwood Community Council.
But I'm saying we don't have the money to do it. We would have to coordinate with --
How do you presently appeal a Zoning Board decision?
We never have. We would have to get it pro bono and we would have to raise money with the people of --
So you have -- did you ever appeal? 404 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Fine. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Please come to the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I'm Jane Glenn (ph.), President of Manayunk Neighborhood Council. Currently, Councilman Nutter has an appeal against a Zoning Board decision on our behalf, and Manayunk Neighborhood Council is appealing two decisions by the Zoning Board. It's a very difficult process, and I can't imagine that 405 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you would think anyone would go and try to do an appeal in a frivolous way. Our civic groups, individuals in this city, we have a lot at stake. And to give this up, this right to appeal, it makes no sense to me. Fairmount Park is a treasure to the whole City. I don't live within 500 feet of Fairmount Park. If something happens to Fairmount Park, the whole city is at stake. So it's important that we -- we all have a vested interest in our city and what goes on in our city. We were involved with the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club joined us on our case against development on Venice Island. They did not join us because we are uneducated or stupid; we asked them to join us because we are fighting Goliath. And it is very hard for us to do. We need all of the help we can get. And I think this bill, it removes the democratic process. We need our rights protected, not removed. (Applause.)
What makes you think you would not be able to appeal a 406 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decision rendered by the Zoning Board?
Because I would have to go through some approval process that would say I had a right to do so because either I was an aggrieved party -- I would have to be approved to be able to even appeal.
Well, wouldn't you have to be an aggrieved party now?
Wouldn't you have to be an aggrieved party presently?
And wouldn't you automatically go to your District Councilman to seek support?
Yes. But he might not support me. I might have to go on without him.
And I don't mean to interrupt, Madam Chair but, I mean, Miss Glenn is certainly lays out something that -- that might be rare, but it does in fact happen sometimes, and 407 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 we've surely been on the same side in a lot of issues, but in some instances, we haven't. And if your only route under that circumstance was through my office, you might feel that you were not getting the highest form of representation, and you might have to do something on your own. Your example, though, is quite good with regard to the Fairmount Park situation. And I'm not sure what, you know, the court somewhere would decide as to whether or not this, you know, rose to the level of you being affected because you didn't think that X-Y-Z should happen on a piece of Fairmount Park property and maybe it required a variance for that. And I think there is a serious issue about what standard would be applied to you as a resident of the City, a person in the neighborhood, but having an interest about something that maybe was going on in the Wissahickon. I don't think anybody's going to say that that's necessarily in the vicinity of your house. And so the question still becomes, where do you get your voice and what is your right 408 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 as the individual citizen in that regard.
Let me try to clear up the question on the right to appeal. Just like anybody has a right to sue anybody in the world, that doesn't mean they'll win. They can file a paper, and if the paper doesn't add up factually and legally, they're going to lose. Someone goes and files an appeal in Commonwealth Court to a decision by the Zoning Board Zoning Board. Now, the appeal can be filed. We're not talking about the technical right to appeal; we're talking about the right to have an effective appeal. As soon as the appeal is filed the other side, in the normal course of events will immediately raise questions of standing. First thing, was the party represented to the Zoning Board. If they didn't appear at the Zoning Board, it will be found that they have no 25 standing on the appeal because you have to be 409 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 first at the Zoning Board. Second question immediately. The developer -- say, it's some developer that's involved, it will immediately raise the second question: Is the party aggrieved? You will bring in your amendment. The court will read that and say a number of different things. One of the things the court very likely will say -- the whole context of this amendment is an effort to limit appeals to people who are directly affected. If you have a community organization covering the area fine. Now, was there any evidence as to the membership in the community organization of people within 300 or 500 feet of the incident? That's what happened in the case I keep referring to. If there was no evidence in the Zoning Board that people within that group, even though they were Friends of the Park and even though the issue involved the park, if there was no evidence that people live very close, the court might very well rule that the appeal falls because of lack of standing -- there's no showing of people being aggrieved. 410 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Now, that's the risk. Some people in the Council may be willing to run the risk, particularly those who believe -- and I'm not impugning anybody, I'm just saying it's a fact that some people don't believe it's important to let others appeal unless they're directly aggrieved. So those who believe that way say with impunity, Well, they'll probably be allowed in, but the very real likelihood is that they won't be allowed in, that the court will find that they do not have standing, and that's when the appeal will ends. Now, we're in shorthand terms saying you don't have a right to appeal. It means that you appeal under circumstances which make it very likely that your appeal is going to fail before you even get to the substance of the appeal, the issue that, you know, caused the appeal in the first place. That is what is meant when folks are saying that you lose your right to appeal.
Madam Chair, if I may, and I don't want to -- it's been a long day and I don't want to argue with Councilman Cohen again, but I think it's somewhat unfair to say to 411 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 people who are representing civic associations in a specific area that their right to go to the Zoning Board and be heard, their right for a de facto appeal to Common Pleas Court, because of this bill, will be abrogated. That is not true. It is true, however, that organizations and interest groups and advocacy groups outside of the general area of the proposal will have to, under this bill, meet a certain level or standard of standing in order to have their appeal go forward. The only disagreement I have with Councilmember Cohen in his position is not the second part of the argument; it's the first part of the argument. The first part of the argument is, it's unfair in my opinion to portray to people who live in a particular community that somehow because this bill passes, they will not be able to go to the Zoning Board and will not have immediate standing at the appeals process if this bill 22 passes. I do agree with you. There's a different standard that outside groups will have to meet as opposed to the people who live in that 412 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neighborhood, and that's where we maybe disagree. But I think it's unfair to portray this as somehow taking the away individual neighbors' rights both to be heard at the Zoning Board and to appeal this as a matter of right. That's only our disagreement here.
Just very briefly. Councilman, I guess the only thing that troubles me about that is -- and I agree with what you just said in terms of the clarification and the understanding. What I an struggling very deeply with, though, is while at the one hand on the City level, we basically allow almost anyone to go to the Zoning Board to express their view for what we'll say is Part 1 of the case. What we're then saying, or what is in essence being said, is you can participate in Part 1 without demonstrating anything other than you are maybe a relatively lucid person and that you can articulate some position, but that anything after that the standards and the stakes change based on either proximity or relationship to a community organization. 413 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And I guess the part of the question that's being asked here is, why is it okay to participate in the first part, but you can't follow your action through all the other parts of this, which are appeals as one of the fundamental components of any action taken by an administrative agency that automatically allows, in most instances and through the courts, a 30-day appeal process for anything that was decided, and why is the distinction made between everybody coming to the first part and only some people get to come to the second part of the dance.
Well, I think the distinction is that once either the Board has ruled or the community association in the area immediately affected comes to some agreement, some settlement, some agreement. That still is the opening for an organization that is not directly harmed potentially by this development to still continue to draw out the process, even when the immediate neighbors have agreed or come to some settlement or some agreement. And I think that's part of what has been, I guess, bothersome for some Councilmembers who engage in this process is 414 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that, in fact, they go through the due diligence of trying to get an agreement, obtain the agreement, and then there's still a group, or groups, that have no real direct impact to their area still pursuing the appeal as a matter of right.
Let me just start off with a very quick hypothetical. How about if you have a situation in the community where some members of the community group reach agreement with the proposal or the developer or the applicant, and some other group of people who live in the particular area or relatively nearby don't have the same agreement or don't come to the same agreement or same conclusion? What are their rights and who gets to go forward and who does what? I mean, sometimes the developers start working where they can't find support and start working with other, whether existing or soon-to- be-manufactured groups and organizations and start trying to figure out how to reach agreement with other people.
Then anyone 415 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 involved has a right to appeal that decision. And based on what put forth in that appeal to the court as to what their concern is relative to the harm, the potential harm, that the court -- and that's why we have judges, is to make that decision on whether or not that in fact is a legitimate position that that group is taking. I mean, at some point in time, some person is going to make this decision one way or the other, whether it's the Zoning Board or whether it's a judge, that individual is charged with the duty of making that decision. And I think that -- I mean that's -- I mean, that's where it is at that point. I mean, you file your appeal. If your appeal is justified, the judge will agree with you and take the appropriate action or require the appropriate discussion relative to that.
So you agree that if your case is a legitimate case or your appeal is a legitimate appeal, regardless of who it's filed by, the court should look at the merits of the case and make a decision, notwithstanding whatever agreement may have been made or may not 416 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have been made or what group came to what resolution. I mean, it does ultimately come down to --
Well, the judge would take that into consideration that the -- I would think, I would hope that the judge would take into consideration that the people who live in the immediate neighborhood, who have come to this agreement and settlement, would get more weight than those who live in another area of the City, who may not be as directly harmed potentially by the action of the Zoning Board and the court.
Just lastly. Just at least based on the variety of opinions that I've read out of the courts -- good, bad or different, supporting position or not supporting position -- I have rarely gave anything that gave any indication that the court took anything that the groups or organizations may or may not have agreed with the applicant upon as a part of the consideration of how they ruled in the case. I mean, I'm not saying that the judges are perfect or blind to, you know, the realities of the 417 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 universe. But at least in terms of the written work, I've never read anything anywhere that indicated that they thought anything about an agreement that was made. It was, what's the code of that particular jurisdiction or municipality or township or whatever, what are the standards, what has been their decision-making or, you know, rule of law and interpretation of it in the past, and this is our decision. I mean, you either met standard or you didn't. So -- okay.
I also wanted to express my disagreement with Councilman Kenney. I believe that a community organization, even under this amendment, may very well have to establish a membership presence very close to wherever the issue developed, whatever the project may have been. That the court would find that it is clear that what was attempted by this bill is a narrowing to people directly affected. And if the membership organization, like the case I've cited, does not have membership right close by, the membership organization will be found in that 418 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 particular case to have no standing.
In addition, I adopt the views of Councilman Nutter and point especially to what I think will also inevitably occur: Once the Zoning Board understands that certain people may not have standing, you will find immediately an effort made to limit the testimony at the Zoning Board.
Because it is absolutely foolish to spend time by the Zoning Board on matters raised by people who will have no 16 standing, and the Zoning Board will eliminate that. But whether or not they did that, I believe it's a wrong thing, a terribly wrong thing to deny interested groups, without our having to define what "interested groups" means. Groups show their interest by taking action, and that is all that ought to be necessary.
Well, let me give the reverse argument then as it relates -- and Councilman DiCicco raised the issue of liquor 419 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 license approvals in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Would you argue on that same theory that an individual group in Manayunk who's opposing a liquor license on Main Street should be given less weight or equal weight than a group of people who like to go out and party and would like another liquor license on Main Street and are upset and opposed to the Manayunk group's opposition to that liquor license? Should they have the same standing in Common Pleas Court that this group has in opposing that intrusion in their neighborhood?
They should have standing. It's not a matter of same standing. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Should a group -- should a Mummers Association group from South Philadelphia have standing in Common Pleas Court against a community association that is opposing a liquor license on Main Street?
If they have a reason to believe that -- 420 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, whatever the reason is, they ought to have a right to present it.
That's -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And they will learn very quickly in the process that they've wasted their money and wasted their energy. And they will never do it again.
And that's why the Zoning Board deals with real cases, not these hypothetical ones.
It's not hypothetical, it's a liquor license application.
You seem to be concerned that questions are being raised -- I don't know by whom -- about agreements between --
This happens all 421 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the time. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You have a liquor license applicant who wants to transfer a liquor license to a certain entertainment area. You have the owner of that -- the potential operator of that establishment --
Let me finish. The establishment owner goes around and gets signatures from people all around the City who don't live in that particular area off of South Street, for example, and presents those items, those signatures on a petition to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and to the Appeals Court, saying, Look, the overwhelming number of people who signed petition this position are in favor of this liquor license transfer, and the people in South Street Neighbors Association say, Well, we don't want it because it's right in our neighborhood. The people who signed that petition should have equal standing to those on South Street? 422 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, why do you insult intelligence of the hearing examiner? He will say --
The hearing examiner will look at the petitions, will see where the addresses are.
You just insulted the intelligence of the -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
In the Liquor Board case, there's a statute that provides certain things and certain limitations.
-- that provide those kind of limitations, for good reason -- because it's understood that liquor --
'Cause you don't agree with it. 423 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But if people are foolish enough to participate in a hearing and file an appeal, they have a right to do it, and there's been no evidence whatever of any practice of people filing foolish appeals. What you're trying to do apparently -- maybe you're concerned about some of these agreements some community groups may have signed with developers. I've never heard any such criticism that you've alluding to.
But what we're saying is that everybody ought to have a right to appeal, and then let the trier of the facts and of the law, whether it's the Zoning Board initially or the court later --
No, you don't trust them. They will make the decision, and whether it's right or wrong, that decision may or may not be subject to a further appeal.
I understand. As usual, you like it both ways. I understand. Thank you.
There is no 16 differentiation of standing, there is no such thing. Madam President, I would like to continue for a moment. Madam President --
But this is a debate between two Councilmember, and we have people that are still waiting to testify.
And they've 425 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 been here since o'clock this morning. I think we should afford them the opportunity to do that.
Oh, Madam President, 5 these people have been very patient. 6
And all of the 9 people in support of the bill were permitted to 10 testify first.
And I said nothing, and the people who were opposed to the bill were all held later and I said nothing, but what I'm trying to --
We took people as they were called, as they called in, not whether they were in favor or in opposition to it. In fact, I've got the list that was made by Joan DePaul.
Who is the next witness, please? 426 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I'm Raydell Fisher, and I'm representing the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
Yes, we gave it to the stenographer. (Copy of Raydell Fisher letter attached hereto.)
My name is Yvonne Hicks, and I'm part of the newly-designed zoning board in the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
As you stated, I did send a letter on behalf to every member of the Rules Committee. I will not, in the interest of time, of course, read that letter, but I would like it 427 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to be entered into the record.
Okay. But I do not have a prepared statement, but I do want to go on record that our organization, and particularly our zoning committee, is in opposition to Bill No. 000629, and for many of the reasons that have already been articulated by the other community groups who were represented here. But I think what we have that is somewhat different to say is that, number one, our neighborhood organization is only two years old, and our zoning and enforcement code committee is just about two months old. The need has -- in the years that I have lived in the Hawthorne 18 community, we have never had any type of representation as far as zoning issues are concerned. The need for representation is just absolutely tremendous. Then as a result of the amendment to this particular bill -- it's ironic for us, it's just bad timing for us in the sense that this language has been on the book, in the code, for 428 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 over 40 years, and here we finally organize a neighborhood association with the zoning committee to meet a tremendous need in our community, and then all of a sudden, there's just this sweeping deletion of the language. And in our community, when there's even the perception that a right is being taken away, it is detrimental and harmful, because many of the people in our community feel in general that they just do not have a voice. They feel that way because they just feel so beat up over the years in that our community, given that in the City of Philadelphia, the neighborhoods are considered -- the City is considered a city of neighborhoods. When we say Hawthorne, there's an awful lot of people in the City who don't even know that means, they don't even know that we exist, and our boundaries are from South Street to Washington Avenue and from Eleventh Street to Broad. And it's a very exciting time for us as members of the zoning committee given that we are getting some attention because of the focus on the Avenue of the Arts. But we would not be sitting here today 429 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and as organized as we are today had it not been for the help of other surrounding community organizations. We work very closely with Washington Square West Association, we work with Queen Village Neighbors Association, we work with Bella Vista Town Watch, as well as their civic association. And quite frankly, Queen Village has been mentoring us as a zoning committee. So when there's a problem in Queen Village, there's a problem in Hawthorne. That's how closely we are located to one another. When there's a problem in Hawthorne, what happens also affects Bella Vista. So we've had -- they are established community groups with a long record, and we've had their support to help us just to get organized and to have us have some recognition in the City. And with this language, where you just -- all of a sudden, it's just too sweeping. We would like very much if the language would stay the way that it is, and that we would have a chance to have some practical experience so that we too can benefit in the same way that many of the other civic organizations have for the last 40 430 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to 45 years.
I'm very familiar with Hawthorne, as you know. Recently, a matter of an expansion to an existing facility along Bainbridge Street, the 1100 block of Bainbridge -- the 1200 block of Bainbridge was proposed. That facility, I believe, is a halfway house.
Through a lot of time and effort on behalf of your community and my office and a few others, we all reached the conclusion that the expansion of this facility would not be the appropriate thing for the Hawthorne community.
Letters of 431 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opposition were submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustments from my office. Councilman Kenney sent --
But if you recall, there was a gentleman who lives in the South Street neighborhood -- the South Street Neighbors District, Gray Smith.
Who was a proponent of the expansion of that facility. He supported that facility.
Well, initially. I think in the end, he still supported it 'cause I don't remember ever getting a letter from him opposing it. But the point I'm making is, after all of the time that we spent in negotiations and meetings with the developer and the owner of that property, the conclusion was that this was not the appropriate thing for our community.
Do you think that Mr. Smith, or someone like Mr. Smith, who lives blocks away, should have standing at the Zoning Board to try to influence them to overturn their decision?
Yes. In that particular instance, Mr. Smith turned out to be very beneficial to us when --
No, I said initially he did. And the reason why he was doing that was because, actually our organization, we did not have a voice. So it was very easy -- it was better to support having the facility there, take the risk of having the facility there with certain provisos in effect.
But didn't you think you had a voice in your elected officials?
So we became organized around that particular issue. 433 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I started a civic association back in 1989 as a result of zoning matters that were going on in my neighborhood.