COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Weds., 5/16/01, 10:55 a.m. - - - BILL 000658 - Re commercial activities on streets. BILL 000720 - Permitting electrical conduit, service line, etc. at 16th and Locust newsstand. BILL 010150 - Establishing a parking regulation on the 5800 block of Rising Sun Avenue. BILL 010168 - Designating permitted vendor locations in Center City. BILL 010193 - Authorizing and directing revision of lines, grades on portion of City Plan 55. . . BILL 010194 - Authorizing A. Carrasquillo to construct, use, maintain one-story building. . . BILL 010212 Prohibiting sidewalk sales on portions of Front St., Frankford Ave., and Palmer St. BILL 010229 - Re "no-truck-parking" regulation. BILL 010232 - Exempting sidewalk sales on 900, 1000, and 1100 blocks of Pine Street. BILL 010263 - " " " " " BILL 010264 - Re "no-parking-anytime" regulation. BILL 010270 - Permitting owners of New Wave Cafe to operate and maintain open-air sidewalk cafe. BILL 010271, 272 - Authorizing Filbert Street Assoc. to construct, own, maintain bridge and footway over Cuthbert Street. BILL 010301 - Permitting owner of 2536 McKean St. to construct, use, maintain private water line. BILL 010304 - Authorizing Maggiano's, Filbert St. to construct, maintain various encroachments. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/16/01 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE I N D E X Bill 010150 Catherine Confair, Phila. Parking Authority Bill 010193 Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Mgr., Streets Dept. 6 Bill 010229 C. Denny, Asst. Chief Traffic Eng., Streets 8 Bill 010263 C. Denny, Asst. Chief Traffic Eng., Streets 9 Bill 010264 C. Denny, Asst. Chief Traffic Eng., Streets 9 BILL 000720 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 11 Michael Stack, Esq., Counsel to Babu Yogesh 19 Bill 010194 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 15 Bill 010270 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 16 Bill 010271, 271 17 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 18 Bill 010301 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 19 Bill 010304 20 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 25 21 Bill 010193 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I 27 22 Bill 010212 23 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I 28 24 3 5/16/01 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE (Index, cont'd.) Page Bill 010232 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I 30 John Arneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Owner of Show of Hands, Pine Street Virginia Tressino, Owner/Operator of. . . . 44 business on Pine Street since 1969 Mary Ann Cardellino, Pine Street Business 50 Owner, Blendo Past and Present Louis Verruni, Pine Street Antiques Dealer 55 Mr. Demelas (first name not given). . . . . 57 Bill 000658 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I 71 Jerry Balka, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Representing United Vendors of Philadelphia Robert Martin, President, BOMA. . . . . . . 115 4 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010150 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning and thank you for your patience. The Committee on Streets and Services, the public hearing is now in session. My name is Frank DiCicco, I'm the chair of the committee. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Blackwell; to my extreme left, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Clarke, and Councilman Mariano. We will not go in the order in which the bills are listed and the reason for that, we find that some of the bills which there's no 14 testimony involved, we can get those off the calendar much quicker than those bills that we expect to have some testimony on and get to those a lot quicker. It really work betters this way; we've been doing it for several years. And the clerk will now read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 010150, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on the 5800 block of Rising Sun Avenue. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning and 5 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010150 please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Catharine Confair, and I'm an analyst with the Philadelphia Parking Authority.
Bill 010150, introduced by Councilwoman Marian Tasco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Rising Sun Avenue, both sides, Cheltenham Avenue to Alcott Street. The following regulation is hereby established: two-hour parking, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., except Sunday. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of two months with no apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Well, thank you 6 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010193 for your testimony.
Bill No. 010193 an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 8 No. 970720) approved March 20, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 11 55 by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portions of Pierce Street extending from Adams Avenue eastwardly to Church Street, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Neither good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010193: This is not an administration ordinance 25 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Irv Levin, 7 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010229 President of Northeast Building Products Corporation, 4280 Aramingo Avenue. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the abutting property owner the ability to expand their facilities. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommend to your Committee for favorable recommendation.
Bill No. 010229, an ordinance establishing a "no-truck-parking" regulation on all streets within the area bounded by Wyoming Avenue on the north side, Erie Avenue on the south side, "G" Street on the west side, and Castor Avenue on the east side, including both sides of the streets making up the boarder of such area. (Witness comes forward.) 8 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010229
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Charles Denny. I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 7 010229. The Streets Department has no objections to this bill.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. And thank you for your testimony.
Bill No. 010263, an ordinance establishing a "no-truck-parking" regulation on Whitaker Avenue between Macalester 9 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010263 Street and East Wingohocking Street.
The Streets Department has no objections to this bill but we do recommend that the regulation be posted under a trial ordinance. A hearing will be held in six months, and area residents and businesses would have an opportunity to comment on this regulation at that time and after seeing how it operates. We can have the signs posted within three weeks with Councilman Mariano's approval.
All right. Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010264, an ordinance establishing a "no-parking-anytime" regulation on the east side of Reese Street between Cambria Street and Indiana Avenue.
Again, the Streets Department has no objections to this bill, but we do recommend that the regulation be posted under trial ordinance. A hearing will be held in six months, and the area residents would have an opportunity to comment on the regulations at that 10 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010264 time, after seeing how the regulation operates. And we can have the signs posted in three weeks with Councilman Mariano's approval.
The six months, that's six months from today or anytime?
All right. And you'll put the signs up now like the other one?
No, that's all I have. 11 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000720
Bill No. 000720, an ordinance granting permission to Babu Yogesh, owner of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 16th and Locust Streets, to conduct, use, and maintain an electrical conduit and service line and a fiber optic conduit and phone service line in and under 16th and Locust Streets for the purposes of supplying electrical service and phone service to the newsstand, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor with the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 23 000720 on behalf of the Department. This bill grants permission to Babu Yogesh, owner of the newsstand located on the 12 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000720 northwest corner of 16th and Locust Street to construct, use, and maintain an underground electrical service line and telephone service line in and under the public rights-of-way of 16th Street and Locust Street for the purpose of supplying electrical and telephone service to his newsstand, all under certain terms and conditions. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plans for this project and has no 11 objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Councilmember Rizzo?
For some personal information, I remember there was some controversy about telephone service and electric service because of the lottery machines. Is it now pretty much a given that when they make this application, it includes both electric and telephone? It's not a separate request?
It's at the discretion of the owner, but usually they come to ask for both.
But I recall that there was some controversy about whether they 13 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000720 could have phone service in the newsstand because that --
Does that mean they could automatically get a lottery machine if they wanted to?
I think it stems from the Lottery Commission. I had heard that there are certain, you know, things you have to do to be able to provide that service. So. . .
But my point being, if they have telephone service and down the road, they wanted to put a lottery machine in, they don't have to come back to us?
Right. That's -- they should have the wiring already to satisfy. It's --
But I thought that there was some concern that a lottery machine could cause confusion or cause congestion on the sidewalk and there had to be some permission to put a lottery --
I think the issue at the time was that when an application is made for electrification of a newsstand, at least at the district level, each District Councilperson makes the decision whether to support that application, and in some cases, the decision may be based on support for the application for electricity, for phone and/or heating system services but with the proviso that it would not permit lottery. So they would then have to come back if they wanted to add lottery. You can actually -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Nancy, that we can actually make that a proviso. You can get the electricity, you put the phone in, put a heater in there or an air- conditioner but that doesn't necessarily give you the right to do a lottery.
But Nancy just said that they didn't have to come back. Is there somewhere it stipulates that that activity is prohibited until they get additional approval?
I believe the legislation that was passed last summer, Council has to approve the actual connection so -- once it's 15 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000720 there.
Once the connection's there, we approve the electric, the telephone. If six months later, the owner of that newsstand want to put a lottery machine in, do you need to know that?
It's actually -- and correct me if I'm wrong again. It's part of the ordinance. If we stipulate in the ordinance 11 that the use of electricity is only for purposes of the phone and/or heating and air-conditioning, and no lottery, that would mean that if they wanted to do lottery, they would have to come back and a new ordinance would have to be created.
It depends on the language of the ordinances. In some cases, you don't put a restriction. But in other instances, on Broad Street and Walnut Street and places like that where we think it may impede the pedestrian walkway if they had a lottery, we will say in the ordinance that it's strictly for the purposes of heating, air-conditioning, and phone. 16 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010194
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010194, an ordinance authorizing Angel Carraquillo, owner of the property located at 2434 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19133, to construct, use, and maintain a one-story building addition, serving as a porch, on and over the west footway of Fifth Street adjacent to the property 2434 North Fifth Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Sen. I'm here from the Streets Department to testify on behalf of Bill No. 010194. This bill authorizes Mr. Angel Carrasquillo, owner of the property at 2434 North Fifth Street, to construct and maintain a one-story addition serving as a porch on the front 17 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010194 face of his two-story masonry rowhouse property. The porch addition is the entire width of the property and is located approximately 308 feet north of York Street. The addition leaves a minimum of 11-feet-7-inches of unobstructed sidewalk. Since the building encroachment leaves adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010270, an ordinance granting permission to Nathan Ross and Samuel Lynagh, owners of New Wave Cafe, located at 782-784 South Third Street, to operate and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe on the west footway of South Third Street adjacent to the 782-784 South Third Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Again, Nancy Sen, here to 18 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010194 testify on Bill No. 010270 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill authorizes the owner of the New Wave Cafe to operate an open-air sidewalk cafe at their property on the northwest corner of Third and Catherine Streets. Four tables are proposed on the Third Street footway to each beside the restaurant entrance. The tables will encroach a maximum of 3-feet-10-inches into the west footway of Third Street, leaving a minimum of 8 feet for pedestrians. No rails will be used. The configuration of the tables meets the requirements of the sidewalk cafe regulations. All encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Mr. Stack, did you want to testify? I'm sorry I forgot to ask.
Please approach 19 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010194 the witness table. I apologize, Mr. Stack. I forgot that was your client. (Witness comes forward.)
And the husband of Judge Stack. I don't have a first name anymore. (Laughter.)
The newsstand is directly across the street from my office. The owner proposes -- and, in fact, it's his expectation -- that he will be able to put a lottery machine in. There have been no objections, to my knowledge, of his activities where he is located. So I don't know what Council's position is with regard to the lottery machine, but it's very important to my client that he be able to maintain one at that location. I have him here with me and he's prepared to answer any questions that the 20 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010194 committee might have.
I think that what you might want to do is speak to the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Clarke, about the future use of a lottery machine at that location because we may want to put something into the bill so that all issues are covered going forward.
I just wanted to say, Mr. Chair, that we've had extensive discussions with the applicant and the applicant's references and we were very comfortable with this particular bill but if the --
Not from this 21 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010271, 272 particular Councilperson.
Okay, thank you. And if there was, then we'd have to amend the bill to restrict a lottery -- no 6 lottery. So as long as there's no objection to the lottery, then the bill stands as is, and if he wants to do a lottery, he will be entitled to do that.
Bill No. 010271, an ordinance amending Section 4 of an ordinance (Bill 16 No. 990766) approved December 30, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing Filbert Street Associates, L&I, 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102-1424, owner of the property bounded by 12th Street, 13th Street, Filbert Street, and Cuthbert Street, to construct, own, and maintain a bridge over Cuthbert Street between 12th Street and 13th Street, under certain terms and conditions"; by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein. 22 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010271, 272
Again, my name is Nancy Sen and I'd like to offer testimony for this bill and the companion bill, 010272, on behalf of the Streets Department. Both of these bills extend the time for compliance with conditions of bills which previously authorized Filbert Street Associates to construct and maintain a bridge structure in Bill 10 271 and building footings in Bill 272 over and within the right-of-way of Filbert Street and Cuthbert Street. The structures are a part of a parking garage building under development at this site. The Streets Department had previously reviewed construction plans for the project and have no objection to the passage of the bill.
Anyone else who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The clerk will read the title of the second bill that you already 23 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010271, 272 spoke on, just for the record.
Bill No. 010272, an ordinance amending Section 4 of an ordinance (Bill 7 No. 990534) approved November 19, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing Filbert Street Associates, L&I, 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102-1424, owner of the property bounded by 12th Street, 13th Street, Filbert Street, and Cuthbert Street, to construct and maintain various building footings under the abutting footways of Filbert Street and Cuthbert Street, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010301, an ordinance granting permission to John Tripodi, owner of the property 2536 McKean Street, 24 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010271, 272 Philadelphia, PA, 19145, and his successors and assigns, to construct, use, own, and maintain a private water line under the cartway of 26th Street and the south footway of the 2500 block of McKean Street to provide water service to 2536 McKean Street; all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Sen and I'm here for the Streets Department to testify on behalf of Bill No. 010301. This bill allows Mr. John Tripodi to construct and maintain a private water main in the south footway of the 2500 block of McKean Street for servicing the needs of his property known as 2536 McKean Street. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plans for the project and has no 19 objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010304, an 25 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010301 ordinance authorizing Brinker International, Inc., d/b/a Maggiano's, a tenant of the property 1201-1239 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, to construct and maintain various encroachments projecting onto and over the north footway of Filbert Street and the west footway of 12th Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Sen and I'm here for the Streets Department to testify on Bill No. 010304. This bill authorizes Brinker International, Inc., the owners of Maggiano's and tenant of the Filbert Street Associates Limited Partnership, to construct and maintain the following encroachments on, above, and under the public footway of Filbert Street: A fabric-covered canopy structure with mounted light fixtures supported by fabric-covered posts; A revolving door; A total of 10 wall sconce fixtures; A total of 7 rigid awnings; and a cafe railing. The Streets Department has reviewed 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010304 plans for this project. All encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 5 objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you, Ms. Sen.
Bill No. 010168, an ordinance amending an ordinance approved January 3, 1992 (Bill No. 1205-AA), which, pursuant to subsection 9-204(8)(a) of the Philadelphia Code, designates the locations of Center City at which vending is permitted, by deleting all permitted vendor locations on both sides of Tenth Street between Arch Street and Chestnut Street, all under certain terms and conditions. 27 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010168
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 010168, which, if enacted, will prohibit vending on both sides of Tenth Street between Arch and Chestnut Streets. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is in charge with the responsibility for the enforcement of Section 9-204 subsection 8(a) of the Philadelphia Code related to the licensing of vendors and inspecting for compliance with the provisions of the code. In accordance with our responsibilities, the Department offers no 22 objections to the enactment of Bill No. 010168 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill 24 should Council vote for its passage. Thank you. I will be happy to answer 28 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010212 any questions you have.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010212, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk sales," by prohibiting sidewalk sales on portions of Front Street, Frankford Avenue, and Palmer Street.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 010212, which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales on portions of Front Street, Frankford Avenue, and Palmer Street. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is charged with the responsibility for 29 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010212 the enforcement of Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code related to the licensing of vendors and inspecting for compliance with the provisions of the code. In accordance with our responsibilities, the Department offers no 8 objections to the enactment of Bill 010212 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill 10 should Council vote for its passage. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010232, an ordinance amending Section 9-204 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Vendors in Center City," by exempting sidewalk sales by owners and tenants of properties in the 900, 1000, and 1100 blocks of Pine Street, and regulating such activity under the sidewalk sales provisions of Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code, all 30 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 under certain terms and conditions.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 010232, which, if enacted, will permit vending by owners and tenants of property in the 900, 1,000, and 1100 blocks of Pine Street. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of Sections 9-204 and 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code related to the licensing of vendors and inspecting for compliance with the provisions of the code. In accordance with our responsibilities, the Department offers no 22 objections to the enactment of Bill No. 010232 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill 24 should Council vote for its passage. Thank you. I will be happy to answer 31 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 any questions you have at this time.
I know there are a number of other people here who wish to testify. Do we have a list? Who will be testifying? Just raise your hand for a minute. All right, then, why don't all four of you come up. And, Otis, we're going to need you around. So all those who are testifying, please come up to the witness table and decide among yourselves, please, who's going to go first. And we'll take it from there. (Witnesses come forward.)
Before the testimony begins, for the benefit of my colleagues who are here, there was a meeting on this legislation, I guess, two months or so ago -- I lose track of time. Some of the discussion -- I mean, the discussion basically was around do we want to allow sidewalk vending on certain blocks of Pine Street? I made a decision at the time that we would do -- we would allow that to happen, the vending on Pine Street, on certain blocks, but I also made it under the condition that it would be on a probationary time schedule because we 32 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 wanted to see how it works out. There are people who are store owners and operators who are in favor of the vending and there are those who are store owners and operators who are against the vending. And as we all know, we are always in that position of trying to make everybody happy, which is impossible. So, again, there have been some discussions. Today obviously will be the more formal hearing on the bill. And we'll proceed with your testimony in whatever order you so choose. If you can't make the arrangements, then I'll have to pick and choose. Please identify yourself for the record and then proceed with your testimony.
My name is John Arneth, A-R-N-E-T-H. I own Show of Hands on Pine Street in the 1000 block, 1006. I am not an antique store; I sell handmade, one-of-a-kind, and limited-edition crafts, ceramics, glass, and metal and some fabric. I'm concerned about the appearance of the area that's under discussion from very much a safety standpoint. During the meeting that you 33 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 referred to, Councilman, you had indicated that you would include in the ordinance a prohibition of stacking and selling of items from the curbside of the street. I have never read an ordinance before -- before Irene Benedetto faxed me the Bill 8 010232. In my very limited experience with reading an ordinance, I don't see where the stacking or sales of items from the curbside is prohibited.
It's actually -- and Mr. Haigler can correct me 'cause he's the expert of this. If you read the -- do you have the pink copy, do you have the bill in front of you? Under Section 1, number 2, subsection (.1), sidewalk vending shall take place within 40 inches of the building line. And then it goes on to (.4), all items displayed for sale must be arranged in a single layer so that no such item is placed on top of another such item -- which means no stacking.
Okay. So no items stacked on top of another such item. Obviously, if 34 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 somebody is selling a table and puts a vase on top of it, that's not stacking, but if they have a table and a chair or a table and another table or something like that, that is considered stacking. I just wanted to be --
I mean, a lot of it, I guess, can be left up to interpretation, but I'm trying to make it as clean as possible.
I think the practical answer to the question is, yes, I would not -- from some of the photographs I've seen and personal observation where tables are stacked one on the other or chairs are stacked on the table or a small piece of furniture is placed on top of a table or a breakfront, that would not be permitted. I think not only does it make it look more cluttered but it also, I think, poses a public safety issue. I think it's a public safety hazard, a potential public safety hazard by allowing stacking.
Okay. One other thing I would like to point out -- I think I pointed it out to you in my letter several months back -- and 35 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 that's the issue of safety and the width of the sidewalk. A number of years ago, the City was mandated to put curb cuts for handicapped accessibility, etc. Fortunately, they also helped families with strollers and the elderly. Just recently, we have had handicapped parking spaces installed in our blocks on Pine Street to allow the two-hour parking of people with handicaps.
I still feel as though any sort of display of goods on the sidewalk is counterproductive to what the federal government and the City is trying to do by making the area more accessible to those who have some sort of a handicap. Now, obviously, not all of the people who have handicaps are wheelchair-bound or use crutches. Some, such as some of our vendors, have bad backs, which still qualifies for handicap, but I do feel as though the narrowing of the sidewalks further is counterproductive to what the City is trying to do in bringing Antique Row as a destination. 36 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 It's unfortunate that the business association that Tony Malis (ph.) and Mary Ann Cardellino have been very -- working on very hard to set up. We have only had one meeting with no 6 officers elected yet and no real topics of discussion because this would make a very good topic of discussion. But I would like to go on record that from the handicap safety standpoint, I measured my sidewalk in front of my store. At the widest part, it's approximately 10 feet, but that does not include the area where the steps come out. Where the steps come out, the sidewalk is obviously more narrow. And I think any restriction of that area any further is --
Well, let me say this to you. Again, referring to that same section (.2), a minimum of five feet of unobstructed sidewalk width shall be maintained at all times. And that, I believe, follows the ADA requirement. So in most cases, and from what I can remember about Pine Street, if you took the 40 inches from the property line out, in many cases, 37 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 you may not exceed the distance that the step exceeds. So you really will not be taking that much more of the sidewalk away. I know the issue -- for me, anyway, -- and I think I mentioned it at the meeting was more the esthetic issue.
I mean, I'm one of these fanatical people about creating order on the sidewalks and removing a lot of the street furniture that's out there and kind of putting it in a neat and tidy little package. But at the same token, I've also been a proponent of sidewalk cafes and things that put people back out onto the streets to make the streets more vibrant and alive. Now, I'm not suggesting that a stand-alone piece of furniture will accomplish the same goals that I think that sidewalk cafes will do. But it could, it could -- and I say that quite cautiously -- create some sort of an interest to that sidewalk and create a lot more people activity on the sidewalk. So that's why I say that maybe we need 38 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 to look at this on a probation period. We have to go through the process, introduce the bills, and have the hearings today. And let's see how it works out. If it doesn't work out and there's problems with it, you know, we don't go forward with the bill. I won't ask to have the bill voted out today, or even if I do ask for the bill to be voted out today, we don't have to vote it out on second and final passage. It could stay there until the six-month probationary period has expired and then make the decision whether to vote the bill up or down. And I've done that with other bills and all of us have done this with other bills. We just wait and see.
Okay. Not to beat a dead horse, but your comment about the sidewalk, the steps brings another factor which I had not thought about. And, actually, Virginia could possibly give me some information. Pine Street is a tree-lined street, and we have many businesses with a tree cut in front of it. The mandatory free space, open space that's indicated. Is that from -- and I wish I 39 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 had a diagram.
In some cases, it would be from the curb, but if there's a tree --
I think the answer to that would be, and Mr. Haigler could correct me if I'm wrong. It would be, when we say a minimum of five feet, that would be whether it's from the curb or from the tree, from the tree line to the step line, whatever it is, you need a minimum of five feet to be consistent. But Mr. Haigler will testify.
Councilman, you are quite correct in your assessment. And also, I had a question about the steps. Would the steps be -- I'm assuming the steps is part of the egress from the building, correct?
Then you would be in violation of other codes such as the fire code if 40 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 you were to place anything in proximity to the steps itself. So I don't believe that this bill 4 would allow -- even if it did, you couldn't do that anyway because the fire code says that you can't obstruct an egress from the building.
What I think we can do is maybe we can impose on the Department of Licenses and Inspections to go out, and on each individual property, basically lay out the area in which you can vend. I mean, I don't want to say you're going to paint the sidewalk, but there may be a way of putting a little mark someplace on the sidewalk that is not distracting from the esthetics of the building but to say this is the perimeter that you can vend your products in. And L&I, I think, would be more than glad to do that because going forward, I think this will prevent a lot of problems as to where you should be and where you shouldn't be. They do that with sidewalk vendors -- Ninth Street is an example of other vending areas where we have many carts. L&I would literally go out and dedicate the spot in which the vendor can vend. Is that a fair assessment of how we can 41 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 do that, Mr. Haigler?
I think that would be an excellent -- not compromise, I don't want to sound that way. But I think that would indicate to everybody the exact area where they could have items. And in closing, quite frankly, I think anything that will bring more people to Pine Street is good for Pine Street. We have a -- I'm on the Board of Washington Square West civic but I'm not here in their behalf, I'm here as a store owner. But we have a renovation going on right now, Mixto (ph.), which is the old Two Sisters. They eventually are going to have a sidewalk cafe, and Virginia is on the Washington Square West Board also, and I think it's fair to say that the board is most in favor of anything of that nature -- not that I am here to testify on that behalf. But I just want it clear that anything that can bring more people to Pine Street I'm most in favor of.
And the cafe, that would have to be done by ordinance as well so the 42 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 public community would be a part of that process. And I suspect that most people would support, but I've been known to be wrong in the past, so we'll wait and see when that bill comes across my desk. And, again, I think that -- going back to the dedicated area, and L&I will describe the area in which the person, the property or business can vend. I think during that probationary period, we'll know then if people are willing to cooperate or not. And if there's continual violations of the vending and where you should vend, that would lead me to at some point in time reject this bill and not support it. But, again, you don't know until -- I'm trying to be fair. I mean -- and, again, we're always in a position where we have to figure out how we can make everybody happy, which is virtually impossible. But at least a probationary period, I think, would get us to some point to see if there is cooperation, if it's working or if it isn't working. And L&I will be a part of that policing authority to understand and let me know, as the sponsor of the bill 'cause it's in my district, 43 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 whether people are complying or not. And we'll keep track of that. And I will also say this. I spoke to the commissioner of L&I MacLaughlin within a day or two after that meeting, the last meeting we had, and I asked him not to do any enforcement of the vending bill until this hearing and give him further notice. We may just, again, as I said, do it on a probationary period to allow people to vend. And from now until that six-month period, if we see continual infractions and violations, I would have no problem saying no more vending. I mean, you know, we got to work together. I think that's the theme I was trying to get out with the last meeting, and if you're not having meetings, I can't help you; I have enough meetings of my own and I'm not going to micro-manage another organizational meeting group. So you have to figure that out for yourselves how to do that. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next witness? Please identify yourself 44 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 for the record.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Virginia Tressino (ph.). Just in answer to John Arneth's question, our Greening Committee has planted over 400 trees in the neighborhood, and not one of them is in front of a step.
I think what he was seeing, Miss Tressino, is that regardless of where the tree is placed on that pavement, would that be a part of what the requirement for the five foot is? And the answer to that is yes.
And so whether the tree is placed directly in front of the step or in the middle of the property line going width-wise, horizontally, you would take it from the inside of the tree trunk to the property line and make sure -- as long as you have five foot, you'd be okay.
Okay. I'm here to testify on Bill 010232. I've owned and operated a 45 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 business on Pine Street since 1969. Within that time, I operated an antique business for years. 4 Items for sale were continuously placed on 5 sidewalks of most antiques and ancillary 6 businesses. There has always been a mix of fine 7 antiques and miscellaneous collectible shops on 8 Pine Street. The nature of the ambience of Pine 9 was the Street ebb and flow of inventory. 10 Looking chronologically back over the 11 history of Pine Street, there was always a mixture 12 of the age of items for sale. On Pine Street, 13 there was Michael Fiorello, who was a scholar and 14 one of the finest antique dealers in America. He 15 only handled William and Mary, early Queen Anne 16 and Chippendale and very early American antiques. 17 And at the same time, there were dealers on the 18 same street who sold items considered to be at that time secondhand furniture and collectibles. Both kinds of businesses flourished. I think by having items displayed in front of a business gives a vitality to the street. Whether it is potted palms or a rocking chair, it shows that the stores are open. The eyes of tourists who are directed to Antique Row 46 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 by City signs, hotels, and tour groups can see from a distance that the street is alive. I have a long-vested on Pine Street. I currently rent my old shop to one of the fine- antique dealers, who, by the way, does not put items on the sidewalk for sale but supports this new ordinance. I would also like you to consider extending the ordinance to include the 1200 and 1300 block of Pine Street, which includes some stores and some antique shops. I'm committed to Pine Street. It was my life and is now my living. I support Frank DiCicco in writing this ordinance with the caveats indicated. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Tressino. Councilman Rizzo, do you have a question?
Good morning. The issue of conducting business, and I assume it's considered conducting business on the sidewalk -- I'm wondering, does your business insurance allow you or does it cover you in the 47 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 event that there'd be an accident? I understand walking down the sidewalk, someone trips, but the minute you bring items outside and a incident would occur, would your insurance protect you?
I would think everyone has liability insurance, but to my recollection, the items put outside on the sidewalk rarely extended past the front step, in towards the store window and not exceeding the front step of the store.
If someone tripped over an item that was on the sidewalk and injured themselves, would your business insurance --
I would imagine if it's your furniture, it's part of your inventory, it's your store, it's your property.
Okay. I think it would be a good question to ask your insurance agent. The other question has to do with security associated with putting things on the 48 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 sidewalk.
Are you concerned about theft? You talked about a vase. Has the police department been asked to have any input at all on the --
I think just by -- I've had things stolen from inside my shop; they didn't have to be outside.
Yes. Usually the things you put outside are not easily pocketed and you take your chance.
In other words, there's going to be some risk associated with putting --
They're not going to take a chair and run down the street, most likely, but smaller items are --
I think the dealers are 49 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 knowledgeable enough to know that they shouldn't put small things out.
But I would also like to hear what the police department thought about putting valuables out and I assume when you say the word "antique," you're talking about something that's not $1.98 sitting out on the sidewalk.
I'm trying to be helpful. If you want to be sarcastic with me --
Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but there's also a certain amount of common sense here.
We're here to have a hearing to try to understand the issue that you're dealing with. So if you want to try to answer the question that I ask -- I don't even know what a Chippendale is, ma'am, but if you have one, you're very fortunate. Thank you.
Thank you. 50 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 Any other questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
Next person to testify, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, committee members, good morning, Councilman DiCicco. My name is Mary Ann Cardellino. I'm a resident of Wash. West and own a business at 1002 Pine Street. The name of my business is Blendo Past and Present. As the name implies, I sell old and new items, vintage or secondhand furniture, ceramics, glassware, gift items, cards, and an occasional antique. I believe the ordinance that Councilman DiCicco is proposing in Bill No. " This ordinance is making into law what has been a common practice on Pine Street for the better part of 100 years. In the packets I have given you, you will see a photograph of a store once located at 1237 Pine Street that a Mr. John Eham owned, an African-American. This photograph was taken in 51 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 1923 and made available to me by the Library Company of Philadelphia. I'm sure that any antique dealer today would pay top dollar for what Mr. Eham displayed in front of his store then. I also have enclosed photocopies of photographs that were taken in the 1950s, which show merchandise being displayed in front of the stores in the 900, 1,000, and 1100 blocks of Pine Street and on the corner of 13th and Pine. People often travel to foreign cities or to the Williamsburg, Virginia's of this country to capture the charm and a reminiscent look at the past. Many people come to Philadelphia to capture that glimpse of history. I think what Councilman DiCicco is proposing is allowing a vitality back onto Pine Street, giving an energy to a street that is seeing a resurgence. In the past year and a half, several new businesses have moved on to Pine Street. When a business has merchandise displayed in front of their store, it's an invitation to passerbys [sic]. It invites or allows the potential customer to get acquainted 52 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 with the business without walking through the front door, a sort of quiet introduction. I have been told on numerous occasions that people have felt intimidated by the stores that are only open a few days a week or only open by appointment. I used to sell fine jewelry in Manhattan and I learned early on that you cannot judge your customers by narrow-minded criteria. Your next sale can come from anyone, any age, any background. Antique Row is in the middle of a wonderfully diverse neighborhood. I want my neighbors to be my customers; I don't want to wait all day for an interior designer to bring in a Maine Line client. I sell to students, hospital employees, and doctors alike, and the display on the sidewalk in front of my store has only brought positive responses from my customers. It's important also for the tourists that comes down Pine Street to have a visual memory of their experience. Stores with individual character is what makes shopping in Center City different from shopping at the mall. I think the homogenization of Pine Street will 53 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 certainly kill a historic shopping area. The ordinance that Mr. DiCicco wrote is equitable. It has to be adequate -- there has to be adequate room for people, baby carriages, and shopping carts passing by. 26 feet. Also, I think that the provision to keep the items in one later and not stacked is respectful of those passing and just smart business practice. Thirty-three of the approximately forty-five businesses on these blocks of Pine Street have signed in support of displaying merchandise immediately in front of one's own business as long as it would allow for sufficient space so as not to impede sidewalk traffic.
I also have copies of letters from business owners and neighbors stating their support as well as a copy of the letter that the Washington Square West Civic Association sent to Councilman DiCicco on February 14th stating: "At last night's Washington Square West Civic Association Board meeting, a motion supporting the 54 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 writing of an ordinance allowing the outside display of merchandise on Antique Row was passed. " And signed by the president of Washington Square West. In closing, I would like to thank Councilman DiCicco for his effort to introduce this ordinance and to thank the other committee members for this time to speak about an ordinance 13 that I am confident will bring a vitality and ambience to a street with a long history that will be more inviting to residents and visitors alike. Please respect the true history of Pine Street. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hearing none, the next witness, please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Louis Verruni, 55 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 V-E-R-R-U-N-I, from Kohn & Kohn.
I'm sorry. Take your time. Just pull in and get a seat and relax.
And that's V as in"Victor," the third. I'm from Cohen & Cohen 1112 Pine Street. I've been on Pine Street since 1973 in the antique business. I own 1112 Pine Street and 1116 Pine Street. My brother owns 1118 Pine Street and 912. I'm speak for him also; he also supports us being active in setting up in front of our stores on Pine Street. I have Kohn & Kohn Antique Shop, which I've run now, which was started by Tilly Kohn and Marcus Kohn in 1935 on Pine Street. They also had furniture coming in and out. I've been there for a long time. This is something new to me that is coming. Because we all used to have furniture come and go. We all do the big business on Pine Street. It was a big 56 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 wholesale antique business. Wholesale, decorators, retail. It was a nice thing. It has died, it has went away. And it's starting to come back with maybe some new blood here on Pine Street, which is real nice. Some people weren't in support of what was going on, but if they saw what we had going on before and what we were doing before and the business that we were generating and bringing to Pine Street, they would be in support of it. There's really not much more I'm prepared to say, but I just want to thank everybody here for having us, and if anybody's in support of us continuing to do business and show wares and bring people to Pine Street, I appreciate it.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any. Questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Good morning and 57 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 please speak directly into the microphone and identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
Can I begin? I came here today to inquire, really, about a section of the bill which had some consternation in it, for me at least. I believe I passed the Council's this document, which I speak of an amendment for 12th Street. However, some of the members here already spoken about it.
I'm sorry. The stenographer's having a hard time hearing you. You need to talk directly into the microphone.
Two of the members have already spoken about it, and the 12th Street issue I'll leave to them. The second issue is the license. Now, 58 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 in 205, you have the York Street area, in which 40 inches of sidewalk is available to business owners to vend there. And in 205, in the University of Pennsylvania area, 206, which exempts those businesses there (inaudible) that have three feet. Now, in the present bill, it's (inaudible). However, the act, as written, 205, states for those people in the York area that they are on the provision of the total Act 205. Now, if I were up in York, I'd take a look at 205 and I go right to the bill that was passed in 1992, which states that I don't have to pay fees and I don't need a vendor's license. Now, this document that I passed forward to you, you Councilpersons, this document is not in the ordinances of 1999 manual. This is the original bill and what's left out is the top section, which clearly defines it and says that if you're a business owner, you sell wares on the sidewalk in front of your store, no license, no 22 fees. Therefore, those business owners in York and those under 205 in the University of Pennsylvania area can seek this protection, saying we don't have to have a license, a vendor's 59 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 license. Now, the act, as proposed today, unless I'm reading it wrong, I would maintain that this act today is the same, states the same, because it says -- it says subject to the provisions of 205, and that's plural. And including, but not limited to, the license, the license required. If you need a license, you need a fee; if you need a fee, you have to go to -- what is it now? It's hard to read here because it's a little dark in here. You have to go to 5.6 and it's in that section where it says no license required, no fees. The problem that I have with this is, is the bill as written, is this controlling over the bill here you require a license or is it not? That's the dilemma here. Which way is it? Am I reading it correctly or am I reading it wrong? Also, if I'm reading it wrong, then we would like to have that bill amended to insert that.
Okay. Why don't we get an opinion. Mr. Haigler, are you able to shed any light on this subject? (Mr. Haigler returns to the witness table.) 60 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232
Okay, under the proposed amendment -- or the proposed bill, 010232, under Section 9-204.2, Exemptions, subsection e., it says, "Sidewalk vending by owners and tenant of properties," and then it goes where the location and then it says, "Such sidewalk vending shall be subject to the provisions of 9-205, including, but not limited to, the licensing requirements of Subsection 9-205.3, with the following provisos." So if I look under 9-205.3, under licensing requirements, it says that this section 13 has to comply with that particular section 14 9-205.3. It says that it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of sidewalk selling unless he or she has first obtained a license from the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which means that you would need a license for that.
-- Section 5.6. The bill was passed in 1992, and it says -- are you familiar with that, Otis? Do you have a copy 61 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 of that up there? Unless I'm misunderstanding this thing, I'm a little confused. It's saying in the case where the business owner is engaged in the use of sidewalk sales, selling on his or her own business property, their sidewalk sales license will be eliminated.
But because they're restricted now, is that the second part of that paragraph? This amendment is not to be superseded by any ordinance placed on business owners who are restricted? So presently are they restricted from selling on sidewalks on Pine Street? And if -- am I reading that right? And then in that case, they would be required to have a license.
Excuse me. I don't understand what you just said there prior to that.
This amendment is not 62 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 superseded by any ordinance placed on business owners who are restricted to have any sidewalk sales. And currently in that section of Pine Street, they're restricted.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but that has to do with block-facing.
Block-facing on the -- in the Center City District, it is block-facing that prohibits any sales on Pine Street, not this -- this section. It's the block-facing that does it. You see? For example, this would be valid right now if there weren't any block-facing. They're claiming -- Licenses and Inspections states that you cannot use this section because block-faces prohibit all of it. Any sales on any sidewalk where there is no block-face, you cannot do it. Therefore, this doesn't apply. Your bill exempts us from block-facing; therefore, that still applies. It is the block- facing that stops us now.
I'm not an 63 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 attorney, but I don't see it that way. I mean, I see it as a restriction regardless if it's Center City block-facing or whatever. Pine Street is restricted from sidewalk sales, and this ordinance 6 would allow it, which means that there will be a license fee required.
But the bill in 205 and your bill states all of the bill is covered, and if all of the bill is covered, I am entitled to claim this section of 205. It's clear. If all of it is covered, then it's clear. Now, if you don't agree, then we would like to have an amendment to the bill, which I state, to make it short and sweet, it says -- it says -- to change your bill to read 9-205.3 and 9-205.5 and .6. That would solve the problem. There is another matter.
Excuse me, there's another matter. If you're prohibited to make us have licenses and fees, you will be discriminating. You're allowing in two other areas of the City of Philadelphia the same business people to have a mercantile license and 64 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 not have a vendor license.
I'm going to get to that. Want to ask that question of Mr. Haigler when he's done. Mr. Haigler, East Passyunk Avenue, if you're familiar with that, there's a similar legislation that was passed a few years ago, before I came to Council, that allows for sales within 40 inches of the property line east of Passyunk Avenue. Are you familiar with that?
I'm not really familiar with that; that was done before me also.
Yeah. Well, not really. You've been around a little bit longer than me.
I've been around 20 years, but I've been around doing other things.
I think this was done in the late '80s, maybe early '90s, where sidewalk sales are permitted within 40 inches of the property line. And I don't know if there's a special license or fee required on east Passyunk 65 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 Avenue either.
But as I interpret this section of the proposed bill, because it specifically mentions 205, subsection 3 that there are no exemptions under 205, subsection 3 as far as the requirements for the license.
All right. Why don't we do this? Since we're going to ask -- I'm going to ask to have the bill voted out of the committee, but we're not going to vote on the final passage of the bill because we have a six-month probationary period. In the interim, we can have the Law Department look at it and come up with a decision before the final vote is taken, assuming we agree to do the bill six months out.
And we can always do an amendment to that. If what you're suggesting is the correct and proper way, we can make an amendment to that effect. 66 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232
'Cause no fees will be posed for the next six months anyway.
Besides, I'm a veteran here. My father sold on Pine Street from 1925 to 1927. He had the best (indiscernible) restaurant in the area.
God bless you. Any other folks who wish to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
No? Any other questions of these witnesses? Yes, sir.
It's more a clarification and agreement with what Virginia said -- or Mary Ann. Can this bill be extended to include the 12 67 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 and 1300 block, because there are mercantile -- it was originally asked, I believe, by Mary Ann of you to do it 9, and 11, but there are retail in 5 the 12 and 1300 block. 6
Because with the business 9 organization that Mary Ann and Tony are trying to 10 set up, they have asked -- they they've been all-inclusive and have asked people in the and 12 hundred block -- 13
As long as it's on the east side, I can do it. If it's on the west side --
We'll stop at 12 and 13 because they've been asked to join the business association also. 68 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232
So it would be and 1300. The 1300 block would take it out to Broad.
To Broad. So we 8 would include the 12 and 1300 block. All right, 9 we'll offer that as an amendment. 10 And, again, that's all part of the 11 six-month probationary period. And just for the 12 matter of the record, let's say we will bring this bill back up -- I will decide at some point between now and November 1st. When we come back after the summer recess in September, we'll go to November 1st, barring any unforeseen major problems out there, all right, which I don't expect will happen. And then I will ask for the second and final vote sometime early in November, notwithstanding any issues that may arise during that probationary period. In the meantime, you can go vend, you got to do things as though the bill were law today, all right? You have to conduct your business as though that is the law, all right? 69 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 010232 And we'll see how it works out over a six-month period, okay?
I wanted to speak about the insurance issue. And our liability insurance takes care of the sidewalk. If somebody was to trip, whether it was merchandise out there or not, the insurance covers it.
I also want to say that I have a rider. I'm not the owner of my building but I have a rider that my insurance company covers that also.
Right. Thank you. Mr. Haigler, any other statements you wish to make? No? Okay, thank all of you for being here and thank you for your testimony. Good luck to you. And please get together over the next few months and work things out.
Thank you. It was a pleasure. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000658, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by requiring persons licensed under that chapter (including under Section 9-201 ("Curb Markets"); Section 9-203 ("Street Vendors"); Section 9-204 ("Sidewalk Vendors in Center City "); Section 9-205 (Sidewalk sales"); Section 9-206 (Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Business Districts"); Section 9-208 (Sidewalk Cafes"); Section 9-210 ("Telephone Booths"); Section 9-211 ("Boxes for the Distribution of News and Printed Material"); and Section 9-212 ("Newsstands")) to obtain the consent of the property owner abutting the location at which the licensed commercial activities are conducted, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning again and please identify yourself for the record.
Good day, Councilman 71 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on 000658, which, if enacted, will require persons licensed under the various sections of Chapter 9 9-200 to obtain permission of the abutting property owner to receiving their licenses -- prior to receiving their licenses. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code related to the licensing of activities on the public way and inspecting for compliance with the provisions of the code. The vending community is a vital part of the City. Sidewalk vendors add color and life to our sidewalks. With this in mind, the Department has concerns regarding this bill and some potential effects it might have on the vending community. While it is important for a potential sidewalk vendor to seek the cooperation of a 72 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 property owner prior to setting up business, this legislation could have unintended effects, including the potential for property owners to charge fees to potential vendors in exchange for their consent, the potential for property owners to revoke their consent at any time. As the bill 8 is written, even if consent is offered, at one point, a property owner has the ability to revoke such consent and disrupt the business of a previously approved sidewalk vendor at any time. The failure to grandfather in current vendors. As the bill is written, the vendors who are presently operating would be in violation of the bill and this could potentially disrupt the business of a previously approved sidewalk vendor. Some vendors have been in the same sidewalk position for many years, and it would be extraordinarily disruptive to establish businesses. It is important that the committee consider these potential effects. Without question, all business owners, including vendors, must act responsibly and serve the community both as good corporate citizens and as good corporate 73 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 neighbors. However, the variety and energy that vendors bring to our streets should be nurtured and supported. The Department is concerned that this legislation may discourage sidewalk vending. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Maybe you can walk me through the process. I want to be clear on it and I also want to make it a part of the record. I decide I want to go into the business of vending -- food cart, clothing, whatever, but let's just say food cart for the moment for the purposes of this conversation. I go to L&I and make application --
All right. I decide that I'd like to vend on the northwest 74 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 corner of Eleventh and Market -- just again for the purpose of this example, so I can get out exactly how this whole process works. The Streets Department and L&I work together on identifying whether that is a permitted location? Or how does that work?
Not necessarily. For certain types of activities under 9-200, like, for instance, newsstands, it specifically mentioned under those provisions where the Streets Department and L&I work together to determine those locations. In certain other sections of the code, it talks about the input of the Streets Department. But as far as I know for vending, as long as it is in a permitted area to vend, exclusive of Center City -- in Center City, there are 300 vending districts that are permitted in Center City.
Okay, but let's stop for a minute. Permitted areas, okay?
It's not a restricted area, you can vend within this area, 75 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 and let's just assume that it's Eleventh and Market. I'm just using that by say of example. You're permitted to vend there, which, in fact, they are presently.
I know the Streets Department will come out and supposedly to let you know exactly where you can't be within or 10 whatever it is of a staging area for a SEPTA 11 vehicle or whatever. 12
To keep you from 17 being close to the handicap-accessible ramps or 18 whatever. 19
So I wet up my business. The property is not owned by me, where the vending cart will be placed; it is owned by another person or an entity. Is there any contact made with that individual or that entity to ask whether or not it is okay for someone to set up a 76 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 business on that property?
I really don't know that answer. I really can't answer that. That would be something that --
I don't believe so, but that would be something that I would have to talk to our Business Compliance Unit about, but I don't believe so.
And I don't believe so either. Again, so I'm just trying for the record get some of this information on the record. I mean, I know as an example, a constituent in Society Hill around the Fourth and Pine area contacted my office about a year or two ago when I first started talking about this legislation. And it's a very expensive house, pays in excess of $8,000 a year in real-estate taxes, a single-family dwelling. He woke up one morning and there were two honor boxes on his sidewalk chained to a pole. He wanted them removed, and he's been told by various people that 77 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 they won't remove them. And the newspaper industry -- PNI, or whoever has the boxes out there, and I shouldn't say PNI, but whoever placed the boxes said, We have a constitutional right because under the freedom of speech, we can vend and put our honor box on your pavement; "your pavement" meaning the property owner's pavement. Do you have any stories that you can tell us? Is that true? Do you know anything about that? I mean, why as a -- I own a property. I live at Eleventh and Federal. No one has placed an honor box on my sidewalk, but I don't want anything on there other than planters that I put out there. What's to prevent somebody -- someone, assuming it's not a redistributed for vending -- from putting a hot dog cart or a newsstand on my pavement? Is there anything presently that can prevent that from happening?
At the present time, the only thing I can think of is as long as you're in community with all of the provisions of the code that establishes your vending location -- meaning 78 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 that you have the proper insurance, you have the proper bonding, certain requirements under different sections of the code. As long as you meet those requirements and as long as you're not vending in a prohibited area, then nothing really would prohibit you from doing that.
But who's responsibility? Robin's whispering in my ear. I mean, I'm getting to that point where it's not a restricted area, it's a permitted area, meet all the code requirements, all of the licensing, all of the insurance fees or whatever it is that you're required as a vendor, and you set up at 1207 South Eleventh Street, Frank DiCicco's property, his house. I as the property owner have no right to tell you to get off that sidewalk 'cause the City, meaning the Streets Department and L&I, have given you permission to vend on my sidewalk. I mean, conceivably that happens.
Forget a residential property. A commercial property that I own anywhere in the City of Philadelphia where it's not a restricted area, where vending is 79 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 permitted, I have no rights, even though I pay the taxes, I pay the insurance to maintain the sidewalk and liability issues and all of those things, I have no right. You mean, the City, the government can tell somebody to use my sidewalk and I have no say in it?
For the purpose of vending? Or is it for the purposes of infrastructure and utility and things like that?
Infrastructure, utilities, and the case where we by ordinance have permitted vending --
We've permitted a use on the public right-of-way by ordinance.
For the public good, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a hot dog stand on my pavement is going to be for the public good. I mean, I'm not being argumentative; I'm just trying to make a point that government 80 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 seems to have more to say about my property than I do, which led me to this bill. I mean, there are some people who have taken issue with the fact that people are conducting business on their sidewalk. When I mean their sidewalk, the sidewalk that is attached to the property in which they either live in or do their business out of.
-- but I'm trying to get something on the record. And, you know, I've been dealing with vendor bills for a while now, and we had some issues on Eleventh Street, and that seems to be working out well, and I didn't drop the hammer and get rid of them. You know, everybody's working pretty good out there these days. But I guess I just have a little problem when -- for individual property owner rights. I think that those rights are being taken 81 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 away. And I know that some people may suggest that this is an attempt to eliminate vending. You know, I kind of go both ways on that. In some areas, I think vending is appropriate and very attractive and is very useful; and there's some areas where I think it's very cumbersome and is a public safety issue. So I kind of look at vending on a case-by-case, block-by-block basis. You know, I was a proponent of outdoor cafe ordinance, and I guess you can consider that vending, but it's the property owner or the person who's conducting business that uses that sidewalk as an extension of his or her business.
And in cases like that, then in essence, the property owner who basically will be extending their business will have to give permission to themselves to place the --
Right. And we as a legislative body grant that permission to use that public sidewalk -- but with the input of the property or the business owner; it's not on our own. See, kind of like in my mind, you have it both ways. You know, we go -- say you own a 82 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 restaurant and you want to do an outdoor cafe, you pay all of the taxes, you may even own the building, who knows? We'll do an ordinance that allows you to do it. If somebody else comes along, we don't come to you and ask you anything; we're just going to let somebody else set up their business on your sidewalk, without even coming to you.
But in most cases, we've already, by virtue of different ordinances that we've enacted, the ordinance related to the neighborhood curb markets, neighborhood business districts, Center City District. We, by ordinance, have already established certain locations.
Right, and I don't want to have to -- see, I'm trying to find an area -- and maybe this isn't the right way to do it, that's why we're having this hearing -- where we don't have this blanket decision and create throughout the City all of these non-vending districts. You know what I'm saying? Because if I don't want to have or if some people come to me who don't want vending on a 83 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 particular block, we make that a non-vending district, but maybe a few of the people say, It's okay, I don't mind if they're out there. You know, I don't want to just make it as broad because conceivably, it could be that vending can be eliminated entirely in the City of Philadelphia, and that's not where I'm going. I just think -- I own a property and I know what it takes for me to keep my property, and I'd like to have a little bit of say on what goes on my sidewalk. I mean, that's the easiest way I can answer this. I mean, that's my opinion. Councilman Clarke, I know you have some questions.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Haigler.
Mr. Haigler, I understand the concern of Councilman DiCicco, which I've actually had representing Center City and other parts of the City that have business districts. I've had occasion to have to deal with 84 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 permits issued both by the Streets Department and Licenses and Inspections as it relates to activities on the sidewalk. We had one today to talk about electrification and, you know, we sometimes have this informal process where you kind of call the property owner, you know, is it okay? It's very informal. I am, though, somewhat concerned to the degree that we legislate this issue. There is some concerns as -- I have some concerns as it relates to the property owner and the discretion of that property owner. I could conceivably see a situation where that property owner starts conducting interviews, and there may be three or four individuals who are interested in locating in a very lucrative site. And this may be very farfetched but it's as I'm sitting here thinking, and he conducts these interviews and the one guy comes in and he has a red suit on, and this particular property owner may not like red suits, and he decides that this guy is barred from this activity, just because he has a red suit for -- no other reason, not even based on the wares that that individual 85 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 will sell or the type of vending cart. And I don't feel comfortable at this point in giving that property owner that discretion, with no set of criteria associated with the selection process. And then as I'm sitting here listening to your conversations with Councilman DiCicco, I'm actually thinking, well, maybe we need to just revamp the whole process and maybe we just need to authorize property owners to lease their sidewalks to vendors and take us out of the process and let them regulate all vendors and let them tax all vendors and be responsible for collecting revenue and then paying taxes on the revenue. And you see, when you go down this road, it can just kind of like take a life of its own. So I'm a little concerned about that.
Yeah. I'm not an attorney, but I don't know what the ramifications would be to lease the public right-of-way by a property owner. I don't know if they would even be able to do that, so that would be something for the Law Department to look like.
All right. Well, in a earlier discussion with one of our 86 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 colleagues, the Councilperson mentioned that that activity is going on to some degree out in West Philadelphia where the property owner is dealing with a fee associated with the vendor.
But I want to go to that same question, that in effect, the City is leasing that space, which is your property. When they say it's a non-restricted, it's a permitted vending area. For a fee, you can set up your business on this pavement. So the City in a sense is doing -- they're the leasing agent for that little piece of real estate.
But they have more rights than the actual owner of the property, which is what I'm saying. I mean, Councilman Clarke said maybe we should look at maybe revamping this whole thing and allow property 87 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 owners to make decisions who goes there and who doesn't go there and charge them a few. You said, Well, we can't allow that, for the public way for a property owner to lease the public -- what was the term you used?
The public right-of-way, but in effect, somebody's doing it. In this case, it's the government. The government is leasing the public right-of-way, which really your property. I'm not a lawyer; I guess I'm trying to split hairs here.
Where do the rights of government begin and where do the individual property owner's rights begin and end? They're kind of interwoven most of the time, I understand, and I'm trying to figure out a way of removing government from dictating, with the exception of utilities and services that are for the public good, where we need the easements for telephone poles and light fixtures for the sidewalks and the cartways. Why should government tell me that I 88 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 have to accept the guy with the eyeglasses cart at Eleventh and Market when I pay the rent and all the insurances to rent a space in the building and sell the same eye glasses? I mean, I have no say in the process, but government comes along and says it's okay 'cause we say it's okay to decide what happens on your sidewalk. And I'm not being argumentative. I mean I --
I'm sure this battle has been fought many times before.
And as the Mayor told me yesterday, I seem to come up with a lot of these controversial bills. And, again, I'm trying to see if we could find a balance and you mentioned something earlier where the competition, and that kind of goes to Councilman Clarke's question, I guess. How do you protect a vendor from not being -- and basically gouged into paying, you know -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.) 89 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
It's like the newsstand, when you see them for sale; they're really not supposed to be selling them. I mean, I got a newsstand and I work it years and I want 6 to retire and all of a sudden I say I'm selling my 7 newsstand. And people do it all the time and 8 they're not supposed to. 9
And that newsstand 11 is on someone else's property. 12
I mean, Fourth and 15 Market, it's been up for -- for three years, I'm 16 trying to get it removed, an old beat-up wooden 17 stand with a for sale sign on it. But it's the 18 public right-of-way but the people who own that 19 building and are responsible for the sidewalk -- 20
-- have no say in what that box is doing on their sidewalk. And that's -- I think that's the thing -- that is the thing that's been motivating me with this bill or 90 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 maybe some, you know, some bill that's reasonably similar to this. How does a property owner have a right?
If somehow we decided, well, let's look at an alternative and let's make the property owners responsible for all vending activities as it relates to regulation and taxing and the whole nine yards. We didn't look at a situation where if that's a blanket policy, there potentially could be a whole lot of property owners who, frankly speaking, don't want to have that authority to regulate and have to interact with vendors and tax and enforce and collection and the revenues, the whole nine yards. So I'm just saying this thing can, you know, if we decide to go the route of allowing the property owners who have this authorization or this level of discretion, I can see where it can get us into trouble either way.
Actually, I got this idea last August when I was in Los Angeles at the Democratic National Convention. Every time I go away, I come back with a new idea. Maybe they ought to keep me in the City more often and people 91 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 should restrict me from traveling. But they have it out there and they have these little brass plates embedded in the concrete, and under California ordinance, "so-and-so vending" is not permitted without the permission of the property owner. And I guess for some of the reasons that have been stated -- I know Councilman Mariano is an example when we were dealing, and we're still dealing with this honor box problem that's out there. Every day a different box shows up out of nowhere, with no 13 rhyme or reason, no respect for the public right-of-way. There's a diner in his district where there must be 15 or 20 honor boxes. The guy that owns the diner doesn't want 'em, doesn't want 'em there. He said, This is ridiculous. I got to worry about somebody knocking over the honor box, somebody comes by and trips on it, it's my responsibility, and I never asked for them in the first place. I think that business owner has a right to say I don't want this stuff on my sidewalk.
And the bill that you 92 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 sponsored a few years back that regulated the honor boxes and pretty much established a criteria for how they were to be placed on the sidewalk --
And we still can't get that right because of the revenue stream that we need to continue to maintain and protect that and police it.
But if you said his constituent, whatever the guy's name is, Mr. Bell, owns the diner on Torresdale Avenue, or wherever it is, and says I don't want these honor boxes on my pavement anymore. They're a public nuisance, they're a public safety issue, get 'em off. Doesn't he have some rights?
Then I would assume that the Councilperson could actually propose an ordinance just to deal with that one area.
Well, I guess that's an interesting point. 93 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
Just like what we do with vending for -- where we prohibit vending in a certain location on a certain street or certain block, the Councilperson would have the ability to do that for that area.
You see what drives me crazy, I guess it's honor boxes even more than vending, and some people might not believe that, but I could just point out location after location: Broad and Federal, in front of the First Union Bank, the northeast corner, six seven honor boxes. They started out with two, now there's about seven or whatever it is. People take the paper out of the honor box and put it on the little ledge of the bank building when it's cold to keep their bottom warm while they're waiting for the bus. They get up, they walk away, the newspaper is there. The people who own those honor boxes and put them out there have no consideration, they can care less what's going on because they got paid for the advertising that's in that paper, and that's all they care about. The owner of that property, that bank, or the manager of that bank 94 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 who leased that building from the owner I think have some right and should have some say. And, again, we're not arguing. I just -- these are the things that bother me out there. I, you know, wonder where individual rights are anymore. I think government is sometimes a little too intrusive. And I'm guilty of it sometimes as well, you know.
The only thing I would, I guess, suggest is that maybe an opinion from the Law Department on an issue like this probably needs to be looked into. But at the present time, I'm not able to answer questions on the property rights versus the public right-of-way.
Okay. As soon as I get a few people back, we'll move on these bills. Any questions? Anyone here testifying on these bills? If you are, please approach the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. 95 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Jerry Balka, and I'm here to speak in opposition to the bill, and I am speaking on behalf of the United Vendors of Philadelphia, the president of which is Paul Tolis (ph.), who is here with me and who is a sidewalk sale food vendor. Councilman, I don't think we've ever met, but I've been involved with sidewalk sales and vendor issues for about 29 years, going back to 1975. Paul Tolis and I worked very closely with former Councilman Burrell in the development of the Center City vending ordinance, the bill 15 which became the ordinance and which served as the model for many of the neighborhood bills. And I worked on the bills involving Drexel. I can probably answer all of your questions as to how it works and why it works, and I'll be more than pleased to do so. One of the -- going back just a little bit, Councilman, there was between 1975 and the early '90s a terrific influx into the Philadelphia area of people, immigrants who came here and who took up vending as their first occupation. As a 96 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 matter of fact, Councilman, my father, who got here in 1902, in 1918 and was a vendor in South 4 Philadelphia, where he lived. So I come by my 5 occupation somewhat because of that. 6 But in any event, we had a tremendous 7 influx of people looking for work, that the first 8 thing that they could undertake was sidewalk sale 9 vending. Paul Tolis is an immigrant of Greek 10 background. Originally we had a lot of Greeks. 11 Blacks got into this, then we began to get Asians, 12 Vietnamese, people from some of the other Asian 13 countries. And then as the next migration came 14 along, we got Russians and Poles. 15 Starting in the '90s, it became a 16 problem, especially in Center City. There were 17 too many vendors, they were fighting over 18 positions. Same thing happened out at Drexel, 19 same thing happened out at Penn. And the vending community, along with the political community and along with the Center City business community, finally got together and sat down and attempted to come up with a solution to this over meetings which must have taken six months. I remember once a week for a whole 97 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 summer we met in Councilman Burrell's office. We came up with ways to control this. We limited the number of vendors in the Center City District to no more than 300. We set up block faces so that a vendor would be licensed to work on a particular block face, 12th Street between Market and Chestnut, and there were only so many vendors who could work there, and they could work anywhere in that block face. We set up standards for carts. We set up all kinds of controls. And it's worked pretty well to the point where the vendors today have really a tremendous investment not only in that cart that you see on the street, which today runs about 15 to $20,000.
And I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but you're not talking about the aluminum folding cart table that the gentleman vends his eye glasses from at Eleventh and Market, you're not talking about them. 98 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
Absolutely I am not. And very frankly -- and I have to speak for me personally, I mean, I've lived here all my life. I'm against that.
By the way, not to interrupt you but you mentioned about standards for the carts, and I know that's something to do with size.
So do you know of anywhere, because I'm dealing with this eyeglass vendor for months who just sets up shop every day, do you know of anywhere in that legislation where an individual can set up a cart table with no 20 wheels and vend?
It's illegal. Mr. Haigler, I don't know if you heard that. That vendor who's been on Eleventh and Market for months and no one seems to be able to relocate him 99 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 out of there, he's vending his wares on a cart table; it's illegal.
Well, I think it's illegal, I keep thinking it's illegal and --
We, even in the development of this Center City vending ordinance, submitted designs for various types of carts so that vendors could get an idea of what they could use and what was nice. And to this day, I still have cart manufacturers and other people that are contacting me and offering various designs. No, card tables, a couple of orange crates, that's not in the game plan; it wasn't then and it isn't now. But getting back to the bill that's before the committee at the present time -- and by the way, it will affect every vendor in the City of Philadelphia because either the property owner is going to say good-bye, I don't want you, which is a -- and there's a high likelihood of that happening. Or the property owner is going to say, 100 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 Who's going to bid me the highest dollar? Now, I can't speak for 12th and Federal, although I was raised not too far away a long time ago, but I can speak for Center City, and I don't know, Councilman, whether you're familiar with the concept of the charter streets. The property owners in Center City, Philadelphia do not own those sidewalks. They are owned by the people of the City of Philadelphia and are controlled by its government, you. They were dedicated to the people of the City of Philadelphia by William Penn in his charter to the people of Philadelphia of the whole city. I have that charter, I have all of the research on it, I'll be more than glad to give it to you. And if anybody in Center City ever looked at their deed, it doesn't say "beginning at the curbline," as yours does down on Federal Street, by the way, but it says "beginning at the building line." And 30 feet of cartway, 10 feet of sidewalk on each side, that's a 50-foot-wide charter street. So I really bring to your attention that the property owners of Center City don't have 101 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 the right to --
And then what are the boundaries? Do you know what the boundaries were?
Yes, absolutely. Vine Street on the north, Bainbridge Street on the south, river to river. And there was one exception and I -- I think it was Lombard Street, which was the one exception that was not in the charter streets. And every east-west -- all the north-south streets, the numbered streets and all of the regular tree-named east-west streets. Market Street was in there, it was called High Street at the time.
Does it speak to the responsibility of maintenance in that charter?
If the property owners no longer own them, assuming we agree with you -- 102 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
-- then who's responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalks?
For the purpose -- this Council adopted -- and I don't want to say this one but, you know, many, many.
City Council passed ordinances which imposed on abutting property owners for the right to abut the street, the responsibility of maintenance of that public right-of-way. Now, where you are, outside of Center City, you own the sidewalk, but -- and you have to make it available to the public, but you have the obligation to maintain it. Now, let me get back to Federal Street, which I know very well. And you say, Why should I have to put up with Paul Tolis selling hot dogs in front of my house? And the answer is, you don't. Paul Tolis or no vendor would want to sell hot dogs there. Economically, it doesn't work. So economics bears a large part of this and controls 103 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 a good bit of it. Where are your vendors located? Let's face facts. Center City, where the population lunch base is; at the universities, where there's a population base; and in some of the neighborhood areas, Germantown and Cheltenham, 52nd and Market and so forth. You say, Councilman DiCicco, Well, how do we control all of this? You are controlling it. You did it today and you did it last month and the month before by introducing bills declaring whole areas of the City unavailable for vending. You didn't hear me come in and yell at you about it, I didn't say a word. I understand where you're coming from. And while I don't always agree in many respects, I absolutely respect your feeling that some areas are really residential-type areas and we shouldn't have a guy set up a vending cart. But by the same token, I really didn't agree with when you knocked everybody off of Broad Street between Snyder and Passyunk, but you did it and you didn't hear from us.
And I tried for 104 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 two years not to do it.
They were -- and two of them are related to me, so I wasn't picking on somebody that didn't mean anything to me. Well, we used to be related anyway. But we worked on it, we tried to set up a system there for two years, and it was ignored.
There is cooperation between building owners and vendors. Paul can tell you about it because he does it and he hears about it every day. First of all, the vendors are not permitted to be in the front of an entranceway to a building. Where a property owner is unloading or needs a piece of the sidewalk or something else happens, the vendor makes allowances. He can move anywhere on the block face, so he moves. He understands. And by the same token, there is cooperation between building owners, the vendor community, and the Department of Licenses and 105 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 Inspections. Let me give you an example. There is a licensed vendor location at Broad and Spruce right where the new center is going up. That vendor was displaced by the construction. The Department of Licenses and Inspections, with authority under the existing law, offered him a alternative location until the construction work was completed, and then he could go back. The vendor and I and the Department worked together because when that center, the Kimmel Center is completed, even though that's a licensed spot by the Kimmel Center, at Broad and Spruce, that's not going to be an appropriate place for a vendor, Councilman DiCicco. You know it and I know it. So we found another permanent spot where we could relocate that vendor. It took some negotiating to find it, but we did it. We all worked together. Because I want to tell you, we all have the interests of the city that we live in and love at heart. And we know what should be and what shouldn't be. Paul Tolis' original vending spot, by the way, was right where the Meridian Building 106 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 was. It burned down. He almost burned down with it. The City understood and relocated him into another spot, where he's been. I don't know if he'll ever really go back to the original spot. He's got a right to but I don't know if he ever will. It depends on what goes up there. So there is cooperation between building owners, between L&I. And with the vendors. And, lastly, if what you propose goes forward, that will be the end of the vending community. If you want to end vending in the City of Philadelphia -- and by the way, under the State law, vending is a permitted occupation. If you want to end vending, come out and say so. I don't think it's a good idea myself because I think the vendors really add a lot, as the last witness has said. They -- walking down a sterile street is one thing; walking down a street where there are people, where there are aromas, where there are a lot of other things going on helps our city. And by the way, every great city of the world -- and I've been in a heck of a lot of them -- have some form of vendors. In Amsterdam, you can buy (indiscernible) in the street. In Munich, 107 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 where I was a month or so ago, you can by sausage on the street. It's a tradition which not only is -- lends economic benefits to the City, but it makes for a better cityscape, it makes for an all-around much more pleasant way of life for all of us. Don't pass this bill.
And listen, there's no attempt on my part to eliminate vending in the City of Philadelphia. And you brought up the issue of Broad and Snyder. And politically myself and one of my staff people worked for the better part of two, maybe two and a half years, monthly meetings to talk about the way they were doing their business and what we needed to do to get some order out there and to make it a more attractive area for vending -- not to vend from their trucks, which was illegal. They were taking up 20, 30 parking spaces at a meter 8 hours a day, which, quite frankly, didn't make sense to me because that was for potential customers. But they just ignored repeated warnings for a better part of two years. And it took me 108 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 that long 'cause I'm a pretty patient person to just say that's it. The Licenses and Inspections, Streets Department, Police Department were all a part of the task force to create what I thought could be a really unique kind of like a European-type of outdoor vending district. And day after day, they continually ignored it. And not just little infractions; I'm talking about major infractions.
Side of the truck, using the parking meters, putting a pole -- attaching it to the parking meters to hang dresses and other materials and they just always figured that I really didn't mean what I said if you don't pay attention. As I said to the people on Pine Street, it's up to you to do what is proper, and if you don't, I have no problem saying you can't vend on -- you won't be able to vend on Pine Street. Again, my issue is I think the thing that drives me crazier than even vending is honor boxes, and I've been dealing with this for a long 109 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 time and it kind of ties in. What rights -- you mentioned your dad who came here and started out as a vendor. What did he vend?
My father, who came here speaking no English, graduated number one from South Philadelphia High School, got a scholarship, the University of Pennsylvania scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania Law School and practiced law here for 65 years. That generation is no more.
That doesn't exist, I know, unfortunately for all of us.
But, I mean, had your father decided to open up a storefront someplace, I don't know how you would have felt about someone vending on his sidewalk because the 110 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 government says he can -- that person could be there, and what right would your father have had? I mean, look, you can't argue, I mean you could assume what your father would have thought about that, but I have some concerns that your father, who worked very hard and succeeded in life to become a prominent person in a society, I believe that he figures a part of what his mission in life was, in this country at least, was to be able to own a piece of real estate and enjoy it and not have somebody else come along and decide what to do with his property.
We have to balance the needs of these people, the new people, with the needs of the people who have been here. Isn't it -- wasn't it the same for your folks?
Yeah, but I think, as you said, those days have -- I live near Ninth Street. There are very few vendors on Ninth Street in the street because people don't want to 111 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 do that kind of work. It's very hard work and I admire them for --
You're not talking about what we still call the Italian Market?
Yeah, but it really was an international -- it was mostly Jewish and Italian, but because Jewish people and Italians looked alike, it was always Italian. Now, the Asians looked a little bit different than the Italians and people are upset that it's no 12 longer the Italian Market. I mean, that's the reality of it.
And 40 percent of the businesses that were on Ninth Street were owned by Jewish people, but now that 40 percent are owned by Asians, people think that something happened to the Italian Market, it's no longer Italian. But needless to say --
But there are a lot of other opportunities and I don't want to debate this, we can ago on for hours, and I know 112 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 we're getting a little tired here, all of us. But, you know, there are opportunities in Center City on Chestnut Street. There are dozens, dozens of vacant storefronts that people could go into business with. It isn't as though it is the only thing you can do to make a living in this country is just to vend, although it's a good start for people who don't speak English and are not familiar with the ways. It's an opportunity -- and I'm not looking to erase that opportunity, but I think there are other opportunities as well for people who -- and I have many people in my community who are of Asian persuasion who have taken over the dry-cleaning business, as an example, because people don't want to work in those sweat shops anymore, and they're running the dry-cleaning shops, they're running the little produce and grocery stores on the corners, they're doing that. And I don't know if they started out as vendors; maybe some of them did, maybe they didn't.
And many of the vendors have moved off of the street. And let me tell you 113 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 about somebody in your district. Mario (indiscernible), Bella Vista Beer Distributor, Eleventh and Fitzwater. Know him?
He came to this country with $2 and a hole in his sock in 1975.
And from the food carts, he bought a building, and from the building, he got himself a beer license and he's got a half a block now.
And he bought the Bozio Sheet Metal Company and now has garages for vendors.
Isn't that what we really want? 114 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
It is, it is, but I don't know if he would appreciate somebody setting up a vending cart on his property to do -- to compete with his business as well.
That's right. And let's take the 300 vendors who finally were authorized for Center City back when the Center City bill was passed. I don't think that there's 200 left. They've gotten out, they've gone into business, they've gotten into storefronts. And you're going to see more and more of this, especially if we don't have another immigrant migration like we had. I think it's great, really I do.
Okay. I appreciate all of your testimony. Any questions anybody? (No questions.)
I appreciate your testimony and your time here. We're probably 115 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 going to wind up holding the bill anyway, but I appreciate your testimony. Any other witnesses? Please approach the table. And I thank all of you for your patience. Thank you, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco, members of the committee on Streets and Services. My name is Robert Martin. And as president of Building Owners Management Association, BOMA, of Philadelphia, I would like to present testimony on Bill 000658. Founded in 1916 BOMA Philadelphia represents over 500 members who own or manage approximately 100 million square feet of commercial property or provide services and supplies to the properties of the tristate area. It is also one of more than 100 local associations with 18,000 members who own or manage over 8 billion square feet of downtown and suburban commercial properties and facilities in North America and abroad. 116 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 BOMA supports Bill 000658 requiring the consent of abutting property owners to place certain forms of vending activities on their sidewalks. We support this ordinance because it would limit proliferation of such sites and ensure compatibility with building tenants. It would also help to preserve appearance of our central business district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and member of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Martin. I know it was a long day and I appreciate again your patience in waiting. Any questions for Mr. Martin?
Thank you. Good afternoon. I just have a quick question that kind of relates to my earlier statements with respects to determining what vendor or what type of vendor should be in front of any of the buildings that you represent. Have you given any thought to that, who would set the 117 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 criteria? I mean, how would you determine it?
I'm assuming the ordinance 4 would set some level of criteria. There's already an ordinance that deals with a lot of Center City, but we don't just represent just only Center City buildings; we represent buildings all over the City.
I didn't get a sense that the ordinance did and that's one of my concerns.
No, I'm saying the ordinance that was spoken about previously for vending deals with a lot of Center City. This ordinance is more global, as I read it, as it's written now.
I'm not sure how you would deal with criteria, but I'm sure certainly some of our members, if they had the opportunity, would prefer maybe not to have vending on such-and-such corner of their property.
I'm not saying any vending. Say they have a vendor today on one of 118 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 the corners of their property and if they had the opportunity, they certainly would not have that there, given the choice. Maybe it congests the sidewalk, maybe the person is leaving a mess behind periodically. Maybe it's competing with one of their tenants that's paying rent in their facility.
I'm saying you -- potentially this person would have to make this determination up front. Someone applies for a vending opportunity with L&I and that owner now has to make a decision as to whether or not I'm going to allow this person to vend on the sidewalk. What determining factors will that owner use to make that decision? That's what I'm trying to get at 'cause --
I would believe the owner would look at the mix of his tenants. If he has retail tenants on the ground floor, he certainly would look at the mix of those tenants. For instance, suppose he has a stall-box coffee tenant and they need a high-end coffee tenant in his building, he certainly is not going to want a food cart or kiosk right outside of there that's 119 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 selling high-end coffee that's competing with that tenant that's paying high dollars for that space that's he's in.
Yeah, I would -- that's the -- I am a building manager in a high-rise. I would go through that process myself.
So the bill should -- 'cause I want to have some specific language in whatever we end up doing as it relates to what criteria that person should have to determine whether or not a vendor can be in front of or on their property. If you're saying now that that property owner may say if there's a like-use tenant on the first floor, then the legislation should read that owner has the authority to deny that person an opportunity to vend.
Owners and managers today and leasing folks today have retail space, and they look at the mix of what they have today 120 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 before they bring something else in to make sure that it goes together with that. It's not something that would take away business from an existing tenant. So --
And if that person didn't have a like-use as the first-floor retail tenant as an example, then that property owner should not have the wherewithal to make a determination as to whether or not that person should --
That certainly would be one criteria. The other criteria, I think, is there sufficient space on the sidewalks to support it for egress of people. Those types of things would also enter into --
I'm assuming that L&I makes that determination and the Streets Department.
Although the Streets Department, probably more than L&I, makes 121 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 those determinations. I mean, I know there's a newsstand at southeast corner of Seventh and Chestnut that's been there for a lot of years. It was actually not in use for three years but someone just reappeared and reopened it. There is probably less than two and a half feet from the curb to the front of that newsstand. Literally people who -- if you're buying a newspaper or a product, the person has to literally walk into the street to get around to the other side of the newsstand, which is a public safety issue. You're smiling, I know, but I think that's a -- I understand where you're going and that's a good question. That's the only problem I could find with that is today you have -- you don't care if there's a fruit cart out there because you don't have any of your tenants that are selling food. But a year or two up the road you get a tenant that's going to be selling food in the building, you may not want that cart out there. It could be a temporary business for the vendor.
That's even more troublesome to me. 122 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
Yeah, it could literally turn out to be temporary. And I don't want to see that happen to anybody either. I don't want to have somebody thinking that they're going to be able to establish a business, put two years of their life into it, and then it's, oh, by the way, the coffee guy showed up, you got to go.
And if he leaves in a year and the lease is over in a year, then you can come back if you want.
And I don't think our membership's looking for that either. I think it would be a conscious decision made on the front end.
Yeah. And, again, I could be wrong, but I think in many cases -- and I don't know what the percentage would be -- that in many of the cases that the building owners don't have a problem with vendors who conduct business on their sidewalk and maintain it and 123 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 clean up at the end of the day. I think the problem I know of, at least that's been brought to my attention, is when you have the competing business. And I use the guy that sells the eyeglasses off of a cart table, and even if it was in not a cart table, it was a proper size vending cart, competing with the eyeglass company -- and the guy literally is four or five feet away from the entrance to the eyeglass business, and that's a tenant who's trying to survive and is competing with a guy who has no insurance and none of the other issues to deal with that the tenant does. And that could be problematic for business people. And I know this argument, I'm sure, has been argued many times before over the last 17 years when they were dealing with vendors, not 18 only in Center City but throughout the City, but I 19 guess it's more, you know, prominent in Center 20 City. You know, who has more rights. Anyway, did you want to add something when I mentioned Seventh and Chestnut? I saw you stand up and then --
I'm familiar with that situation and that's -- 124 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658
And that's different than every other newsstand. That's not at the curb; it's up against the building.
But there's less than two and a half feet, and I don't know the ADA requirements, maybe it was grandfathered in, maybe it preceded the ADA requirements, but it's got to be two and a half feet, I'll say three.
The building owner wanted that newsstand there and he rents the space to him. What kind of deal that ever got to be, I don't know.
That's interesting 'cause we were talking earlier about do we really 125 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 want to get into that and here we have somebody that's doing it.
As far as the newsstand you're talking about, I think, at Fourth and Market?
Yes. It's been nonoperating at least three years, probably longer.
And the Streets Department can pull it down, and they do bring down --
Well, there is a jurisdictional issue as to who is going to take it down. It's been going on for three years. I'm ready to send my guys out, 'cause it's made out of wood, and just tear it down. I think that's the best way. L&I won't do it, Streets Department won't do it, the Managing Director said he'll get it done and nobody want to take responsibility.
I'll tell you what, if you'll go on vacation and give us a nice quiet 126 5/16/01 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000658 weekend night, we'll take it down. (Laughter.)
Thank you, thank you. I have a nonprofit -- my guys are going to take it down but thanks for the offer.
'Cause I hate to admit it, but it wouldn't be the first thing we took down.
All right. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thanks again for your patience. I appreciate you coming here today. We're going to recess this committee to the call of the Chair. Do we have to vote -- we're going to the public meeting and then we'll vote -- we can't vote any bills out 'cause we don't have a quorum. We will now go into the public meeting of the Committee on Streets and Services, and since we do not have a quorum, we will continue this to a date certain: Thursday, May 24th, at 9:15 am. Thank you. (Adjourned 1:00 p.m.) 127 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, May 16, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES BILL NO.'S 000658, 000720, 010150, 010168, 010193, 010194, 010212, 010229, 010232, 010263, 010264, 010270, 010271, 010272, 010301, 010304 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter