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.