The question is whether we continue to build on an economic model around promoting ever-increasing portions of obesity-causing drinks or instead adopt public policy encouraging sales of healthier alternatives. Research and common sense clearly support the latter. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Again, I thank you for your patience. Thank you for coming in. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Meghan Kincade.
I'm sorry. You can approach the witness table, but the stenographer has asked for just a five-minute break. I think we can 391 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. accommodate her. (Short recess for stenographer.)
Thank you very much. Good evening, President Verna and distinguished City Council members, those who are remaining. I'm very happy to see that the room is appropriately adorned in green, as I am Irish. So it's obviously --
I obviously feel like I'm representing a worthy cause. I'm the Director of Shelter Services for Women Against Abuse, one of the many shelter and transitional housing programs funded through the Office of Supportive Housing. Women Against Abuse appreciates the ongoing support of Philadelphia City Council regarding issues of domestic violence. We thank 392 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. you for the opportunity to provide testimony today to support the proposed revenue-generating initiatives. It is an honor to speak on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced by domestic violence, as well as those who have survived by gaining vital shelter services. The City desperately needs additional revenue in order to maintain these essential services. Without these initiatives, the City may be forced to cut shelter and transitional housing for the most vulnerable of Philadelphians. Women Against Abuse is the largest domestic violence program in Pennsylvania and the operator of the only battered women's shelter in Philadelphia. We also operate the first domestic violence legal center in the nation, a transitional housing program, and are the lead operator of the Philadelphia Domestic Violence Hotline. Last year, Women Against Abuse served 10,406 individuals through direct service and 393 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. education programs. We urge the City Council to approve the proposed revenue-generating initiatives, specifically Keep Philly Clean and the Healthy Philly Initiative. These two programs would close the 150 million budget gap and allow essential social services to continue at their current funding levels. Without opportunities to generate revenue, essential services for our domestic violence victims and for homeless individuals in Philadelphia are in danger. 5 percent. It is imperative that City Council does not allow that to happen. Departmental budget reductions would have devastating effects on these essential services and on domestic violence services in Philadelphia. 394 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Women Against Abuse relies on funding from the Office of Supportive Housing to sustain the life-saving services offered through its emergency shelter. As the operator of the only shelter specifically for domestic violence victims and their children, Women Against Abuse provides a vital service that has helped tens of thousands of Philadelphians rebuild their lives throughout the past 30 years. We encountered major budget cuts last year because of the decreased funding from city, state and federal governments. While we were able to maintain our core services by cutting other programs and eliminating nearly 19 percent of our staff, Women Against Abuse 20 simply cannot sustain more cuts without seriously compromising its essential services. During these difficult economic times, demand for domestic violence services has increased. In 2009, Women 395 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Against Abuse was forced to turn away 4,600 women and children because the shelter was consistently at full capacity. That is the highest number of turn-aways in agency history and more than triple the number turned away in 2008. In addition, domestic violence homicides nearly doubled in Philadelphia in 2009 despite the fact that the number of overall homicides decreased. These statistics demonstrate that now is the time to do more, not less, for social services in Philadelphia. Supportive housing services are more relevant than ever to the thousands of Philadelphians suffering from abuse. Without a safe place to live, victims may have no choice but to stay with their abusers. Although current services and funding levels do not meet the needs of our society, more budget cuts will surely put lives at risk. City Council must find a way to close the $150 million budget gap without 396 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. cutting essential services like emergency and transitional housing.
Victims of domestic violence need a safe place to go. Without support like the Women Against Abuse emergency shelter, families impacted by domestic violence will be forced to choose between abusive homes or living on the street. We urge you to consider the faces of your fellow citizens whose lives have been disrupted by violence. They are sisters, sons, daughters, aunts, friends, employees and vital community members. We simply cannot withstand another major cut like the one we will incur if City Council does not approve a balanced approach to the budget by passing the Keep Philly Clean and Healthy Philly Initiative. In conclusion, we would like to thank you again, City Council, for your attention to this very important issue. Women Against Abuse strongly urges you to approve the proposed revenue-generating initiatives in order to maintain the 397 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. vital services provided to our most vulnerable Philadelphians. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Any questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Just very quickly. Thank you, and thank you for all you do. I know we've worked together on a number of things. As I read your testimony, basically your concern is making sure that the essential services stay where they are. You don't really talk about the two issues themselves. So is it fair to say you would not be opposed if we could find other alternatives as long as we kept the services where they are and filled the budget gap?
Yeah, that would probably be accurate. 398 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Yael Lehmann.
Good evening, Council President Verna, Councilmembers and guests. My name is Yael Lehmann, the Executive Director of The Food Trust. I just want to say that -- and you'll probably be happy to hear this -- I'm going to keep my remarks extremely short tonight, but I did want to come up here to make sure to go on the record to let you all know that we are strongly in support of the soda tax. We feel that the tax has the potential to greatly improve the health of Philadelphians, especially our children, who now drink more soda than milk, as Anthony (sic) from Save the Children pointed out as 399 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. well. I also just want to take a minute to talk about how excited we are that Dr. Schwarz is now the Health Commissioner for Philadelphia and to also applaud the staff of the Philadelphia Health Department, who we greatly admire. Encouraging a reduction in calorie intake is just one way the sugar-sweetened beverage tax will improve the health of Philadelphians, but let's not -- but we also should remember that the million collected from this tax 15 will go directly to the Department of 16 Public Health to further improve the 17 health of our children by expanding 18 healthy food access and promoting 19 physical activity, and this multi-faceted 20 commitment to addressing the obesity issue is vital to the health of our community. I encourage you to support the sugar-sweetened beverage tax and the health of Philadelphia children. Thank you. 400 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Ekemoa Washington. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Angelo Sgro? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Jim Omando? (Witness approached witness table.)
I'm Deborah Wagner, Director of Housing and Homeless Services for Catholic Social Services. I'm here speaking on behalf of Joe Sweeney. He's the Secretary of Catholic Human Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. He had to leave earlier. I will be brief. I'm not here to speak for or 401 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. against a particular tax. However, I am here to say that unless new revenue is generated, vital services to the most vulnerable in Philadelphia will be cut. Since the founding of St. John's Hospice in 1963, Catholic Social Services has provided housing and social services for homeless persons in Philadelphia. Currently, we operate an overnight cafe and seven residences serving 200 men, women and children a day. In addition, we reach out to over 400 men, women and children on weekdays in our day services programs operated out of Mercy Hospice and St. John's. We are very concerned that drastic cuts in transitional housing and shelter placements could take place. We are currently involved in engaging the most vulnerable off the streets, bringing them into housing and treatment. Cuts in homeless programs would result in more homeless individuals and families on the streets. This would 402 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. reverse the momentum which the City, in partnership with many providers, has been working so hard to bring about. I urge you to prevent any cuts in programs which provide a safety net for the most vulnerable. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Ayana A. Powell. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good evening, members of City Council, staff and guests. My name is Ayana Powell. I'm a registered dietician at Mercy Philadelphia Hospital located in West Philadelphia. We serve the West Philadelphia and Southwest Philadelphia communities. In addition, I am a nutritionist, who works tirelessly in my 403 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. community to encourage the people to advocate for themselves and make healthier food choices, as well as obtain healthier nutrition resources in their neighborhoods. I'm testifying before you today in support of the soda tax. As a registered dietician who works closely with a population who drinks soda and sugary beverages on a daily basis, I am keenly aware of the harmful effects that they have on the individual and, as a result, the family and the community. Every day I educate patients on weight loss, diabetes management and reducing dietary sodium, just to name a few. I also have a number of patients who I manage tube feeds for as well as other forms of nutrition, who I have likely provided education for one to two years prior. Even those who are at the end of their diseases still drink soda and eat poorly, because it is all that they know how to do. Certain eating practices 404 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. are embedded in the culture of urban Philadelphia. The local food environment, which was created by merchants, is now driven by consumers who rely on these foods and drinks and the establishments that sell them. From my testimony, I hope that you will leave here today knowing that you have the resources and authority to change the environment. By imposing a soda tax, you can limit access in the form of affordability. This can change the environment by eventually causing a reduction in the amount of sugary beverages that are sold in stores. Finally, it is important to remember the obvious, that we are human beings before we are consumers. To be a human is to interact with the environment in which we function. If soda is more readily available and significantly less expensive than water and other healthier beverages, it is human nature to consume 405 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. more soda. I wish to emphasize to you today that those consuming the most soda are those who have it in their environments the most. No one exists in a bubble. The relationship between the person and the environment is one that is reciprocal. Therefore, what exists in the environment, in a sense, is a part of the person. If we expect for rates of obesity and chronic disease to decrease, it is necessary that we impose the soda tax in order to take the first step towards changing our city. I support the soda tax because it represents progress in the fight against obesity and other chronic diseases. Making soda and other sugary beverages less affordable will reduce the amount of these items purchased by Philadelphians, thereby creating a healthier city. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you on this 406 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. very important issue.
Thank you very much, Ms. Powell. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you again. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Tim Lau. (Witness approached witness table.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good evening. My name is Timothy Lau. I am the Developing and Marketing Director for the Utility Emergency Services Fund of Philadelphia. Council President Verna, distinguished members of City Council and fellow supporter of services provided by the great City of Philadelphia, thank you for providing me with this opportunity 407 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. and this forum to speak tonight. The testimony that I wish to present doesn't relate directly to the sugary beverage tax or the trash tax. My testimony focuses on the potential cuts to City services to make up the potential shortfall from the defeat of these bills. I'll dispense with the explanation of my organization. I believe that the Utility Emergency Service Fund has a good working relationship with many members of Council here tonight and appreciate their support and all their efforts. One of the programs that UESF is engaged in is homelessness prevention. Through the homelessness prevention program, payments for rental and utility arrearages for up to six months in arrears and future rental and utility payments for up to 12 months may be made totalling $2,500 or more, if authorized. The homelessness prevention program is funded through the federal stimulus 408 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and administered locally by the Office of Supportive Housing. Today, I come to you as a daily witness to the effective work performed by the Office of Supportive Housing. I understand that the City is facing a severe financial crisis in the upcoming fiscal year, but I ask that the good work performed by the Office of Supportive Housing not be subjected to any budget cuts that would result in reduced services. OSH is the primary resource for the City of Philadelphia for our homeless population. A seven and a half percent budget reduction would require OSH to reduce emergency housing capacity by over 200 beds, reduce transitional housing capacity by 40 units. Reductions in homeless family capacity may result in OSH having to identify priorities for family placements and turn non-priority families away. Reduction in homeless single placements 409 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. may lead to more homeless persons living and sleeping on the streets. Reductions in the transitional housing inventory may result in households currently in some specific transitional housing programs being unable to be transitioned elsewhere in the system and those waiting on the waiting lists unable to be housed at all. UESF sees the staggering number of families on the edge of homelessness caused by the loss of utility service. The costs saved through program cuts would have a damaging -- would have damaging effects in the long run. Homelessness, housing abandonment and the loss of utility services are only three of many factors that de-value property in Philadelphia. If the proposed cuts occur, more families living on the edge will be forced to live on the streets. Please help OSH, UESF and other community-based organizations to do their best to reduce the homeless population in Philadelphia. 410 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
And we thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you again. MR. McPHERSON: Lauren Huminski. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good evening. My name is Lauren Huminski. On behalf of Health Promotion Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of the proposed Philadelphia soda tax. I am a registered dietician at HPC and I manage a nutrition education and outreach program targeting Philadelphia students. I would like to share some alarming statistics concerning 411 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. obesity in this country and, more importantly, in Philadelphia. In 2008, about 64 percent of adults and about 57 percent of children were considered overweight or obese. Additionally, about one-third of Philadelphia adults suffer from a chronic health condition such as diabetes, hypertension or heart disease. Not to overwhelm you with numbers, but consider this: The average American consumes about 50 gallons of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages each year. That 50 gallons of soda equates to 6,400 ounces of soda, which is worth about 80,000 excess empty calories, and that equates to about pounds of weight gain 19 in a year. 20 If you recall, not too long ago 21 Philadelphia was named the fattest city 22 in the United States, and it remains in 23 the top 20 of the fattest, least fit cities. I think you will all agree that we cannot afford the additional pounds or 412 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. the overall negative health effects of soda consumption. Let's not forget that this is not an issue of weight or obesity alone. Excess weight and low fitness affects our overall health and puts us at risk for multiple chronic diseases. It's really sad to hear that approximately 70 percent of obese youth have at least one additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease, such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol, leading children to have diseases that were once thought to only affect adults. Nearly one in three children that enroll in Head Start programs are overweight or obese. It's really sad to see students walking to school in the morning carrying their soda and their bag of chips and that's considered breakfast. And it's even sadder to see women pushing strollers down the street with babies holding bottles filled with soda or brightly colored fruit drinks in their 413 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. bottles. What type of future do our children really have? Study upon study shows a dietary change as simple as lowering calorie consumption can contribute significantly to weight loss and chronic disease risk reduction. Recent research also shows that taxing less nutritious food options such as soda can have a positive effect on shopping and eating habits. Since soda itself is such a calorically dense, yet nutritionally void product, virtually anything a consumer buys in place of soda will have better nutritional quality. I agree with Health Commissioner Schwarz's quoted comment that we should all drink Philly tap water and save money. It is good health advice overall. We need to work on not only educating people to make better choices, but also changing the environment so that children will learn to make better food 414 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. choices. This proposed soda tax is a good first step in changing the unhealthy dietary culture of this city, and Health Promotion Council stands behind it. As such, we feel that this tax will ultimately benefit the health and wellbeing of all Philadelphians.
Thank you very much. Are there questions from members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now call the next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Lawrence Washington? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Lawrence Washington? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Judith Robinson? (No response.) 415 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. MR. McPHERSON: Maurice Sampson? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good evening. Good evening, Council President Verna, members of City Council. My name is Maurice Sampson. I live at 129 West Gorgas Lane in Mt. Airy. I'm President of Niche Waste Reduction and Recycling Systems. I serve as the Chair on the RecycleNOW Campaign, which is a project of the Recycle Alliance of Philadelphia. Now, I'm speaking today as a private citizen. Just to be clear, this is not an issue where there is consensus among members of the Alliance. My comments today reflect those I wrote that were published in yesterday's Daily News Opinion column, Doing the Trash Right. I believe that if implemented 416 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. under the right conditions, the Clean City Services fee provides the opportunity for City Council to assure transparency and accountability for something you haven't had before, the opportunity to assure that we're getting the most efficient waste management at the lowest cost. We have all come to understand that recycling saves tax dollars by avoiding disposal costs. S. EPA, the average disposal costs account for only about 12 percent of total waste management costs, while collection costs can be 50 percent or more. What this means is the real opportunity to cut cost is to make collection more efficient. The anecdotal experience of other municipalities suggest that savings of 20 to 40 percent are feasible with the implementation of collection efficiency strategies. For this for Philadelphia, 417 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. this could amount to somewhere between $30 and $60 million a year. Some of those strategies include purchasing more efficient collection vehicles, collection equipment comparable to the standard rear-loader compactor. And the cost and capacity has been tested on our streets. It filled percent faster than the 10 rear-load compactor. 11 Automated waste collection: 12 Letting the truck lift an empty container 13 reduces lift-related injuries. Most 14 municipalities that have automated 15 collection have done so to reduce 16 disability costs. 17 Reduce crew size: Automation 18 allows for collection of two to three 19 times as much material per collection 20 crew with one or two workers versus the standard three for manual collections. Curb-side collection of food and yard waste: 40 percent of our waste is organic and can be handled by facilities built in Philadelphia. Every 418 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. ton of organic waste diverted to a composting facility will save money. Adopting pay-as-you-throw: The scenario that allows for unlimited recycling, charging a fee for each additional container beyond what is found to be an average household volume. Unlike the proposed flat fee, pay-as-you-throw rewards the frugal residents and charges the wasteful. Exactly which of these strategies will be best for Philadelphia can't really be determined without having a better understanding of existing waste management practices. That information would provide the foundation for planning an efficient, sustainable waste management system at the lowest possible cost. The technology is constantly improving. We need to review and modify our plans accordingly. Given these opportunities, I would encourage City Council to seek the following conditions in supporting the 419 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Clean Philadelphia Services fee: First, an independent study must be conducted of current collection practices, recommending the best ways to proceed in Philadelphia. We can't truly begin to seriously consider any of those efficiency changes in sanitation operations without having this kind of information. I believe that study should be performed in a process that includes the public and considers the full schedule of services that we would expect to receive. Second, that a plan be prepared annually with a progress report showing how the money will be spent. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires us to produce a ten-year municipal solid waste plan.
It's due this year. This is a good opportunity to get started. The waste management policy in Philadelphia is, at best, ambiguous. It needs to be transparent. The Solid Waste and Recycling Advisory Committee, or 420 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. SWRAC, has been meeting monthly in one form or another for years, and its 4 deliberations are politely ignored. 5 SWRAC should be able to be the public 6 forum for ongoing discussion of these 7 issues. Its meeting minutes and all 8 studies, reports, monthly waste disposal 9 and recycling figures generated by the 10 Streets Department should be posted to a 11 website for easy public access. 12 In conclusion, I want to point 13 out that I'm hearing two discussions here 14 today. In one instance we are talking 15 about closing the budget deficit by 16 imposing a tax and calling it a service 17 fee. At the same time, we are talking 18 about isolating and accounting for the 19 real cost of waste management, an 20 essential service that I don't think has ever been properly budgeted. The taxpayers of this city require both. We need to close the budget gap in a way that's fair and equitable, and we shouldn't pay any more 421 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. than we need to to get rid of trash. Should Council choose to adopt the Clean Philly Services fee, I would encourage you to consider my recommendations. If we resolve the budget gap in a different way, I hope that some member of Council will champion this issue, because regardless of what we do, the cost of trash will remain $150 million of uncontrolled costs that are only going to keep rising. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Sampson. Are there any questions of this witness? (No response.)
Thank you again. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Margaret Johnson. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Joshua Vincent? (Witness approached witness 422 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. table.)
Good evening, Mr. Vincent. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening. I'm Joshua Vincent. I'm the President of the Henry George Foundation/Center for the Study of Economics. We're based at 413 South 10th Street in Philadelphia, and I'd like to say good evening to Council President Verna and the members of Council. It's been a very informative day, and acknowledging that, I'm going to skip my soda tax comments, because I think it's all been covered thus far. I'd like to move down to the trash fee or the trash tax. It's not quite a property tax. I'd call it more of an address tax. If you have an address, you're going to pay it. The inescapable nature of a flat trash fee appears attractive at first glance. It will not per se lead to illegal dumping and it will compel 423 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. compliance through the nature of liens against non-payment and other penalties. Problems arise, however, when we note the narrow residential nature of the flat fee and the very regressive nature of how it will fall throughout the City. Low-income exemptions are being offered, but they require action on the part of the hard-working or elderly homeowners who have little opportunity to apply for the lower fee. As has been noted by Councilmembers in past days, existing property tax rebates or exemptions are not available for a flat fee, nor are tax deductions, such as are provided by the property tax under your federal income tax. Flat fees generally are used in more homogenous communities such as suburban communities or communities that have a straight up and down social economic demographic of rich, middle class and poor. Disparities in income and ability to pay are not as marked as 424 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. those in Philadelphia, and pay-as-you-throw is in the future. I don't want to take up much of your time, but I do want to get to the nub of some of the research that we've conducted, just looking at the current property tax and what a garbage tax would do. And the first chart is simply the trash fee is a share of the current residential tax bill for each average home in each Council district, and right away I think we run into regressivity on a rather severe scale. I would start with District 7 where the average city and school property tax bill is $736 and the flat rate that is being proposed would be $300, immediately bumping up taxes to a very high level. I would also cite Council District 3 where the average city and school tax bill is about $643 a year, and adding another 300 would essentially be hitting the lower earners, the seniors and neighborhoods that are at risk. 425 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Since this is a City tax and City tax is about 40 percent of the total, you can go to the next chart and then see how dramatic it really becomes. In District the average City property 7 tax is $294 a year. So what we'd be ending up with is a trash fee that would actually exceed the current property tax bill of an average house in District 7. In District 3, it's actually a bit worse, $257 is the City share of the property tax, and $300 of a trash fee would be indeed higher than the average tax bill. And what I did on the final page was just do it as a percentage, show what the percentage of the trash fee of the current property tax bill would be. So the Foundation would suggest that aspects of the Council and Administration's plans would include exploring viable alternatives to bring in the same revenue but in a different way. And we're always busy at the Center 426 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. running numbers on the assessments, and we are going to find out and determine whether the property tax may provide a resolution. The recent traumas with the property tax and particularly the values upon which they are based are well known. The system of valuation does need fixing. Yet, the real property tax right now raises over a billion dollars a year for both city and schools. It's not going anywhere.
So I urge Council to arrange a more in-depth study and hearings on this particular issue of the trash flat fee at its earliest opportunity before adopting the FY2011 budget. And I thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. One moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you. 427 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Thank you so much for your patience with us today. Earlier today I asked the Administration about a land value tax, and what they said to me was that that system was just as bad as our assessment system. In your review of our land tax portion of our real estate, do you believe it is as far off as our assessment part of our real estate?
No, Councilwoman, I don't. As a matter of fact, we helped during the recent assessment increases in Bella Vista, we helped about 16 homeowners get significant reductions on 17 the increases, and we split out the land 18 and building values, and the building 19 values are very spiky. Land values are 20 more consistent. They're still not 21 great, I'll be the first to say, but at 22 the same time, we do raise a billion 23 dollars a year, city and school, from 24 this bad system. 25 So just running the numbers 428 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. with a land value tax as sort of a user fee for garbage would affect low-income areas and more dense neighborhoods in a far more sensitive way by a factor of several hundred dollars in some districts.
So in your review of our land value piece, you're saying it's more consistent at least even in this bad system? We all agree it's such a bad system.
If I were going to find a rainbow in the storm, that's about it, that in residential areas I would say that they're fairly consistent. If we go to any district that's a row home district, you'll see pretty stable land values side by side by side. Drexel University did a study some years ago for Controller Saidel at the time, who was putting forth his tax reform effort, and their adjudication, if you will, was that the splits between land and building values were not that 429 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. bad. I wish I could say they were great, but I couldn't sit here in front of you and say that.
I think it's going to be very helpful to us. Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of Dr. Jane Jue and George Hacker. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
If you will bear with us just a moment, please. We're going to recess the 430 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. public hearing for just a moment so that we could go into a public meeting regarding Bill No. 100136, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the amendment was circulated much earlier in the day. I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 100136. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and, again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Real quick, Madam President. The amendment is an amendment to the hospital authorities 431 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. bill for Temple University Hospital.
So we will be able to consider that at our next session of Council.
Yes. Madam President, I move that Bill No. 100136, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 100136 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. Thank you very much. We will now go back -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm just very anxious and brain dead. All in favor? (Aye.)
Those 432 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it, and this bill will be placed at our next session of Council. We will now go back into our public hearing. I appreciate your patience. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Jane Jue. I'm an internal medicine physician at the University of Pennsylvania and I live in the City of Philadelphia. Good evening, Council President Verna and members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I am here today because I care deeply about the health of Philadelphians, and as such, I support the Healthy Philadelphia Initiative. We have heard already the staggering numbers of overweight and obese children and adults in Philadelphia. As a physician, I see the 433 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. truly devastating impact of this on too many of my patients - arthritis, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, diabetes and heart attacks, just to name a few. Many miss days from work, become disabled or even lose their jobs. That is why the tax proposed by Mayor Nutter on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages is about more than just closing a budget deficit. It could be the key to reversing a dangerous decline in the public health of Philadelphia. As a physician, one thing I've come to understand is that there are many causes of obesity - genetics, environment, economics, personal behavior. They all matter. Research shows that many environmental factors influence diet habits, including increasing soft drink availability. While these sugar-sweetened beverages are not the only source of extra calories, they are one of the most ubiquitous forms that have insidiously become part of the 434 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. daily American diet. Over the last 30 years, daily calories from intake from sugar-sweetened beverages has risen steadily. The evidence is clear, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with increased weight, poor nutrition and increased risk of obesity and diabetes. People are concerned that this tax will affect those who can afford it least, and that's who I'm most concerned about. Actually, obesity disproportionately devastates low-income communities and minority communities, particularly our African American and Latino communities. This is no surprise given healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy foods. So those who purported can afford a soda tax the least are the ones with the most at stake in terms of their health and also have the most to gain from this tax. They are the ones that cannot afford not to have this tax. They need it the most. 435 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Most approaches to reduce obesity that focus on individual behavior have limited success. A better understanding of the factors underlying obesity has led to more emphasis on changing the environment through policy. Local governments and public health departments are poised to be role models for this type of environmental change, having the means to shape policies and practices to promote health in their communities. Philadelphians need their policymakers and public officials not only to recognize the dire health situation of our city, but also to become agents for change. Philadelphia is now being noticed nationally in our efforts to curb obesity. This is a chance to lead with a policy that will be one of the most effective policies in the nation to decrease consumption of empty calories. I drink soda, not every day, maybe once a week, and diet when I have 436 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. the option. Like any other penny-pincher, I really don't want to pay more for anything. Some argue, I'm not obese, why should I be punished for the poor choices of others? Actually, it's already affecting us all in the public healthcare we fund and society's lost productivity. When half of our city is suffering, we all suffer. If the Healthy Philadelphia Initiative means that I will be able to tell fewer of my patients that they have diabetes or send fewer of them for bypass heart surgery or hold fewer family member hands when their loved ones have passed from a heart attack, then by all means, take my two cents per ounce.
As mentioned earlier, losing jobs is a serious issue, but I believe, and think you would agree, so is losing lives. Thank you.
Thank you very much. That was very interesting. Any questions? 437 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. (No response.)
I see not. Thank you. Thank you again. Good evening. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, Madam President and members of the stalwart Council who are still here. My name is George Hacker and I'm with the Health Promotion Project -- Health Promotion Policy Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, DC. Since 1971, CSPI has worked to improve the foods we eat and promoted governmental policies to enhance personal and societal health. We're the publishers of Nutrition Action Health Letter, the world's largest circulation nutrition newsletter. Approximately 2,700 of our more than 900,000 subscribers live in Philadelphia. I will not dare repeat all of what was said today so eloquently in 438 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. support of the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. However, I would like to make a couple of points which I don't think have been sufficiently made. First, predictably, the soft drink industry and its allies have loudly opposed a public health tax that might shrink their profits. Their messages come straight from Big Tobacco's playbook. As Big Tobacco denied the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer, Big Soda now denies the connection between soft drink consumption and obesity. As Big Tobacco hid behind front groups, Big Soda has established the Americans Against Food Taxes, an industry-led front claiming to protect the pocketbooks of American families but really looking out for companies' bottom lines. Coca-Cola, for example, recently introduced a "mini" 7.5 ounce can with calorie labeling on the front. According to Coke, the Coca-Cola "mini" 439 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. can innovation reinforces the company's support for healthy active life-styles, but it seems more likely that Coke's downsizing is geared more for profit than for health. It now delivers Coke at about $9 per gallon compared to $6 per gallon when offered in 12-ounce cans. This price gouging hardly squares with industry's purported concern for consumer costs, a reason often asserted by industry in opposing taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. If Coke really cares about the economic difficulties of its low-income consumers, why is it selling healthier products, smaller cans at far greater prices than their normal gargantuan portions? Clearly, Coke thinks it's entitled to what it can squeeze out of its consumers, but Coke and its allies scorn the real needs of the citizens of Philadelphia, who would benefit in numerous ways from less damaging 440 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. alternatives to sugar-sweetened beverages rather than smaller quantities of the same junk and also from the additional public revenue available from a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages. If we are to address this country's obesity epidemic and Philadelphia's, we must find ways to reduce soft drink consumption. Imposing taxes and substantially raising the prices of sugar-sweetened beverages is one of the most effective policy means to achieve that result. The Center for Science in the Public Interest heartily supports the Council's effort to improve the health of Philadelphia's finances and that of its citizens. Thank you very much for your consideration, and I believe you already have copies of my full written testimony for the record.
Yes, we do. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. 441 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Thaddeus Squire. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Maurice Jones? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Ann Averison? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: George Mortelli? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this Committee will stand in recess until Monday, March the 22nd at 10:00 a.m. Thank you all very much. (Committee of the Whole recessed at 6:30 p.m.) - - - 442 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 17, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)