COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 6/12/01, 10:14 a.m. - - - BILL 000657 - Prohibiting placement of temporary signs and political campaign posters upon public utility poles, streetlights, and various other public fixtures. BILL 010269 - Requiring any establishment that sells alcoholic beverages for consumption on or off the premises to install, maintain, and use electronic equipment that scans identification cards and displays age of person as indicated on card. BILL 010274 - Amending Philadelphia Building Code by adding provisions for dumping of waste materials. BILL 010369 - Amending designated area in which properties must be located for participation in Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER 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 6/12/01 L&I COMMITTEE I N D E X Page Bill 000657 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I Bill 010369 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I 30 Belinda Mayo, Director, Neighborhood. . . . . 32 Program Coordination and Community Development Jessica Diaz, Mayor's Office. . . . . . . . . 34 of Neighborhood Transformation Bill 010269 Ray Swardlow, Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Amazing and Fabulous Six Pack Store Lt. Sean Carr, Commanding Officer . . . . . . 105 Citywide Vice Enforcement Unit, Philadelphia PD Lt. Michael Clemens, PA State Police. . . . . 110 BILL 010274 Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs, L&I 118 3 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 P R O C E E D I N G S
The Committee on L&I is in session to hear testimony on Bill NO. 5 000657, 010369, 010269, 010274. Present is: myself, Councilman Mariano; Councilman Nutter; Councilwoman Krajewski; Councilwoman Reynolds Brown; and Councilman Darrell Clarke; and Councilman Frank Rizzo. The clerk will read Bill No. 000657.
Bill No. 000657, an ordinance amending Chapter 10-1200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Posting of Temporary Signs," by amending Section 10-1202 to prohibit the placement of temporary signs and political campaign posters upon public utility poles, streetlights, and various other public fixtures without the owner's permission, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Anyone here to testify for this bill? Mr. Haigler, state your name. (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative 4 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 000657, which, if enacted, will amend Section 10-1200 of the Philadelphia Code to require permission prior to the placement of any temporary sign or political campaign poster to public utility poles, street lights, and other appurtenances without the permission of the owner or of the agency responsible for the maintenance of such fixture or appurtenances. With respect to Bill 000657, the Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no 15 objections to the enactment of the proposed bill. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Any questions from members of the committee for Mr. Haigler? Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Haigler, the present requirement -- I believe that political posters aren't permitted at all. Tell us exactly what the utility and what the understanding of the utility has in the City of Philadelphia presently of 5 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 placing anything on the pole. Any attachment, I believe, is appropriate.
The present requirement does allow for it but it just says you can't use any type of adhesive to attach the poster to the sign.
A wood utility pole in the City of Philadelphia, do you know what the present...
I'm a little confused on where we are and where we're going, because I thought for years and years and years, there was a prohibition of placing anything on a wood pole and definitely the glue, the permanent adhesive on the --
Well, I worked for the utility company for a lot of years, and I know that we used to get lots of calls and there was an 6 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 ordinance that prohibited the attachment of campaign posters, and basically the utility looked the other way 'cause they didn't want to create a problem, but I believe we have something on the books right now that's very clear.
Well, I'm looking at Section 10-1202 of the Philadelphia Code from the bill that we have, and it deals with prohibited conduct. And if I could just go down the list of what it says, that it currently would be a prohibition on where you could place the signs. It says, under "Prohibited Conduct," under number 1: "No stickers, as defined under Section 15 10-1201-6, shall be permitted to be affixed to any public or private property except with the permission of the owner. "No temporary signs which advertises or promotes a service, business, or other event..." -- no, that would not be it. Number 3, "No ground signs shall be permitted unless securely attached to a pole or other immoveable supporting structures." Number 4, "No political campaign poster shall be affixed in any manner [and under the 7 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 current provision] to any type of metal utility pole or any type of tree." Number 4(b), "No political campaign poster shall be allowed to remain posted for over 30 days." So there's nothing, as I can see under the current requirements under the prohibition, that speaks of wooden utility poles.
So you're telling me today it is before this legislation that there's no 12 restriction on placing a campaign poster on a wood utility pole.
That's another ordinance, Councilman. Point of information, Mr. Haigler. In a nutshell, basically the reason that I'm doing this bill is, these stickers, these posters, if it's for my Council campaign, for anything, if it's for a diet supplement, if it's for a roofing company, if it's for anything, it's actually another form of 8 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 graffiti in my opinion. And if we're going to start cleaning up the City and start doing things, that's the reason this bill is here, and we'll work on that in this Council. But I think maybe what Councilman Rizzo was working on -- I mean, at one time, you could go pay 50 cents or cents a sticker, and for every 9 poster you put up -- I mean, there's some political 10 candidates -- there's one candidate that just ran 11 successfully for Judge Kevin Dougherty, who's a 12 friend of mine. Kevin has a campaign where he takes 13 posters down and he pays people to take posters 14 down. And even if there are other people's posters 15 -- after the election of course -- and he pays 'em 16 so much a poster and other -- I think Councilman 17 DiCicco had done that in the past and maybe some 18 other people. 19
I don't put posters 22 on poles and I -- and anyone who accepts my posters, 23 I instruct them not to do that. 24
They can put 'em in 9 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 their windows.
Your point was well taken. I think my point was, you were involved at one time in a campaign to take posters down, and your group paid --
Yeah, I was almost run out of these chambers because I was told I was ripping up the Constitution at the time. So what can I tell you.
We can adjust a little, but I think that's where we're at, Mr. Haigler. Okay, does that answer your question?
Just if you could, I'm still not clear where we are today and what exists today that will change.
Well, Councilman, in my opinion, where we are today is everybody does pretty much what they want. When this is done, there will be no posters anywhere, anything -- political -- not just political, anything. And 10 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 that's where we're going to be. And if you want to, like Councilman DiCicco said, if you want to put a Councilman DiCicco reelection poster, put it in the window of your house, put it on your front lawn, but if you don't want to, you don't have to. But, you know, that's where we're at. After today if this passes in the committee and it passes in the Council of the Whole, there will be no more posters of any kinds on any billboards --
Are there restrictions today that are just being over -- not enforced? In other words, are we reinventing the wheel? Is it already there?
No. No matter what -- I'm not sure exactly what it is. I have an idea of what the rules are. I think L&I may not be able to comply with every rule. I don't think they have the wherewithal or the means. I'm not speaking for Mr. Haigler; that's what I think. They do go around if people complain 11 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 'cause I've complained. There's somebody that sells part-time jobs; they've taken theirs down and there was a guy putting it in windows all over the Northeast. They get fined and they go to certain administrative things. After this bill, there will no more signs of any kind on any poles -- metal, wood, fiberglass, or anything new that comes out.
From the perspective of the utility company, which I don't believe anything's changed --
Obviously. The utility company today is of the impression that any attachment, other than one that's authorized by the utility and the utility has allowed SEPTA to place the SEPTA bus stop identifications on the utility pole and -- but as far as I'm concerned today, we've already got the legislation that prohibits what we're here discussing, and I'm just --
Point of order to Councilman Rizzo's question. I'm not clear what you're saying. You're saying we already have it, but we don't have a ban. I think there are 12 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 procedures -- and Mr. Haigler, I apologize for getting here late -- in which one who wants to post posters would have to follow certain regulations. You have to, I think, make application and pay for each poster and you get a little sticker and then you have a certain amount of time in which the posters must be removed.
Today, the impression of the utility company is that any attachment to their pole is an illegal, inappropriate --
Point of order. And, Councilman DiCicco, hold on. Councilman Rizzo, we get the point for the utility company and we understand. I think this will help the utility company. The problem -- and, Councilman DiCicco, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- is we have something on the books that's not working. We don't enforce it and nobody goes and pays the fines and nobody pays the 50 cents or whatever, right?
What you have on the books 13 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 right now primarily allows campaign posters to be installed on the poles as long as they're not installed with certain types of adhesives or glues. What you are attempting to pass will, in essence, prohibit that unless they get the permission of the utility company prior to installing. So whether you want to install it with some other method, you'd be --
Mr. Haigler, but that's just campaign. If we want to do our business, there's no way we can do that, right?
Is that just political posters that can do that, pay for that little sticker that nobody uses anyhow? And I emphasize that point.
Any temporary sign or political campaign poster, any temporary sign.
Yeah, again, I 14 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 apologize. I don't know if you spoke to this, Mr. Haigler, before I came here. Currently, if you want to put a poster on a pole, whether it's political or a carnival or what you have what, is the timeframe? Is it 30 days prior to the election?
And then how many days after do you have to take them down?
So it's 75 days. So, hypothetically, you have a primary election, so prior to the election and subsequent to the election, it's a total of 75 days. Now you go into the general, you get another 75 days. So 150 days all told, there's a possibility that posters would be up, assuming everyone followed the law as it is that you put 'em up no sooner than 45 days and you take 'em down no later than 30 days. So for almost 50 percent of the year, posters -- political 15 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 carnival, whatever it is -- theoretically could stay up legally.
So I want to know how you get rid of the visual pollution. 'Cause it's six months of the year legally you could keep 'em up -- if you do everything according to the books, you take out the permit, you pay for the sticker, whatever the stamp is, and you do it within the 45 days and the 30 days --
So, Councilman, your point is, half the year, we have this "visual pollution," as you call it.
And when we're dealing with issues on blight, which is a very hot issue right now in this Council, I know about three, four weeks ago, I was out in the New Hope area, took a Sunday ride, and I remember when I came back into the City, I came back by way of 611, North Broad Street, and I knew I was in the City immediately from the political posters that were all over the 16 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 poles along North Broad Street, where the City spent literally millions of dollars for new light fixtures. And in fact, some people from Councilman Clarke's district were complaining about the auto dealers that are along Broad Street and they also had a problem with the posters. And I can tell you right now, on Columbus Boulevard, which is not yet complete on the reconstruction, but when they're done, between the City, the State, and the feds, we will have spent about $75 million of taxpayers' dollars to beautify that boulevard, streetscape enhancements, and if you went out there today, it is a disgrace when you see the posters and all of the other paraphernalia that have been plastered onto those poles. I just don't get how we can allow that kind of blight to continue in this city.
What about the center islands on that boulevard that are plastered by the lawn signs that are put into the public areas? I mean, if you're going to include it, then -- you talk about the beautiful suburbs, the off-ramps of 309 are plastered with the lawn signs and --
Councilman, I think 17 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 the bill already reads "any public or private property without the express written consent of --
That's up to you. I don't -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And you know what's going to happen here, if we have the intestinal fortitude to do this bill, and we're all guilty of it -- if nobody in here is not guilty of it, then hooray for you. Councilman, I know you're the only one in the political history of Philadelphia that didn't put a sign up and I commend you for that. But what happens here is, there's always going to be somebody complaining. Some carnival's going to give us a hard time, but you can always take them posters and put 'em in a store or put 'em in your front window. There's always, you know, 18 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 there's -- if somebody's going to have a yard sale always, you can always put 'em in your front window, you can always put 'em in a store. So unless we do this, like Councilman DiCicco says, it's only being done half the year, so let's totally do it and do away with all of 'em and start looking like we live in the suburbs instead of complaining about it all the time. Councilwoman Brown, do you have a question?
Yes. We are what we are. We're not the suburbs, we're the City of Philadelphia. I'm interested in knowing to what level is there any information that speaks to the extent to which after political campaign posters are taken down or not taken down by the candidates.
Yes. In the bill -- or in the current law, under current law, I believe there is a provision that says that each candidate or campaign committee that does not remove his or her political or campaign poster from where it was posted, as required by the section, and then it talks about 1202, subsection 4(b) above, shall be 19 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 assessed or fined $1 for each such unremoved poster.
Can you speak at all to the enforcement piece of that? Can you speak at all to recent elections where candidates have not honored those rules?
I really have no 8 information on that that I really can speak on, I really don't know. (Committee members confer among themselves off the record.)
I don't know if it is enforced or not enforced, I just don't know. I would have to check with our Business Compliance Unit to determine that. I really don't know.
It appears if it were enforced, we wouldn't be talking about this.
A point of information. I would venture to guess it's not enforced, okay? And for obvious reasons, it's not enforced. And, you know, many of us here have reasons to want to have posters and let's just get 20 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 down to the nitty-gritty. We'll do this hearing, we'll vote on it, and everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Mr. Chairman and to Councilwoman Reynolds Brown's question, I'd be curious -- not only are people complying with the removal of posters, but I'd be curious if anyone even pays the fees for the stickers that go on the posters in the first place. I don't -- I can't imagine, I've never seen them, and I'm not saying 'cause I haven't seen 'em, they're not out there, but I'd be surprised if 1 percent of the people who put posters up actually pay for the stickers and do what they're supposed to do. I mean, I'm out there every day, I see them. I have a gentleman behind me who lives on South Broad Street. He and about 15 other neighbors every -- once a month they get together and they take a three square-block area of South Broad Street and they do a cleanup. Half their day is spent removing posters. There's $5 million on 21 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 South Broad Street south of Washington Avenue, and all they do is tear down posters. And the tape -- when they do it without the glue, we appreciate that, but the tape that they use, when you peel the tape off, it literally takes the paint off the metal.
And, again, I don't want us to be the suburbs either, Councilwoman. I'm not suggesting that, but I think that there's a certain amount of respect that we should give the communities.
Many community groups like to string a banner across the roadway when they're having a festival or a block party. They tie it off to utility poles from one side of the street to the other. What would this do to the ability for the community association in northwest to string a banner across Germantown Avenue to announce their festival?
Mr. Haigler, do you want to take a shot at Councilman Rizzo's question? 22 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657
As I understand your question about stringing banners across the --
I'll give you an example. Fifth and Lehigh, there's going to be an event in the business district on Fifth Street, and the community group wants to put -- or the business association wants to string a banner from her pole to pole across the street to announce the --
A banner is still considered a temporary sign, so they still would need permission to do that.
Right. I think we need to talk to the utilities, you know, do they have a process? Who does the community group -- I can't imagine PECO Energy giving anybody permission to put anything, for liability reasons, written 23 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 permission in the event that a truck would snag the banner and break off the pole, I just can't imagine the electric utility company giving written or verbal permission to anyone.
Excuse me. The bottom line here, Councilman, is, we have more laws on the books that are not enforced and we keep making more and more. My problem -- and I'm sure everyone else here feels the same way -- is that the laws that are not on the books are not enforced. We do have a bill, but my -- what is the answer? How do we enforce the laws that are on the books now?
And that will still allow some level of freedom of speech with those who oftentimes have the need to get their message across?
The only thing I can say, Councilman, is that with limited staff and resources of our department -- we only have 20 inspectors within our Business Compliance Unit that also deal with other issues that they have to enforce related to business regulatory enforcement. And with those issues and the limited amount of staff that we have, 24 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 we do the best we can with our resources. So that's the only answer I can really give.
Councilman Cohen. He's been waiting patiently. Go ahead, Councilman.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. First, there's a distinction between the commercial advertising that's attached to poles and the political posters. I think the political posters raise a First Amendment question. Secondly, it is very interesting that we're talking about eliminating blight and that most of the speeches are being made by somebody who supports what many people in the country regard as the biggest blight of all -- the billboards. So it seems very strange to me to be talking about removal of posters as a serious approach to the removal of blight.
Well, I believe the billboards is a separate bill. Let's go on with --
We're elected officials. We could do what we want, but the rest 25 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 of society can't do it.
Councilman, you know, I would hate to do this but if we could stay to this bill. I know you feel very strong about that other bill, but keep everything germane to this bill.
Yeah, well, I think it's very germane because there's been a discussion about blight.
But, Councilman, this is posters; this isn't billboards.
I'm not going to 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 spend the day talking about billboards, Councilman. We've done that till the cows come home and we'll have that vote this week, hopefully. Let's just do this. This is political posters and other posters on poles. This is it.
And I don't think it's a matter of blight. With respect to political posters, it's always very comfortable for incumbents to want to make it as difficult as possible for anybody else to ever run for office. The poles have been a means by which new people -- and I think we want to encourage new people coming into the political system at all times to --
Well, what are you trying to say, Councilman, that you're for this?
If you permit me to say it, I will say it. I'm not very bashful, Councilwoman, about saying what I believe in.
Oh, I know that. And I'm not very shy either. 27 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657
What I'm saying is that I believe that it will be a violation of the First Amendment rights if you ban political postering.
Point of order. Councilman, you and I know that five years ago when I attempted this same bill -- I don't have the information in front of me. There was a ban on political posters that was proposed in the State of California. The case went up to the United States Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a violation of individual rights or freedom of speech to eliminate posters from being erected because there are other means of advertisement and getting your information out. Now, you know that and I know that. I was run out of Council almost five years ago. I don't think we need to rehash that. The Supreme Court of the United States said -- 28 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657
It's not the interpretation. The Supreme Court of the United States said it is not a violation of your civil rights, right to freedom of speech to prohibit political posters. It's not interpretation; it's what they said.
I don't agree with that interpretation of the court's decision and, therefore, I believe that we are raising a serious First Amendment question. And, secondly, I think we're depriving people that have small income that get involved in the political process from having an approach of getting their names known. And I believe this is a bad deal. 29 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 I also believe that the issue is with respect to the commercial purveyors who put their advertiser on is totally different. They are seeking to make a profit out of the electric poles or any other things to which they can attach a sign. On that I believe, there has been a prohibition over many years and there the question is one clearly of enforcement.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions for Mr. Haigler? (No further questions.)
Could Mr. Haigler get us information as to why these laws are not enforced? And if they are enforced, what has been the effect of it and the revenues to be gotten from it? If they enforce it, they should be able to get something, a nice piece of change.
How fast can you do that, Mr. Haigler? We might want to vote this bill 5 out today. Any other questions for Mr. Haigler? (No further questions.)
Okay, will the clerk read the title for Bill No. 010369.
Bill No. 010369, an ordinance amending Section PM 309.0 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program," by amending the designated area in which properties must be located in order to be eligible for participation in the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program under certain terms and conditions.
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee. 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 31 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 Bill 010369, which, if enacted, will amend Section 3 PM-309 of the property maintenance code to add wards and locations which will be subject to the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program. With respect to Bill 6 010369, the Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no objections to the enactment of the proposed bill. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
Any questions for Mr. Haigler from anyone from the committee?
What is the impact of these amendments? Can you tell me what adding these wards will do?
I believe, under Section 17 PM-309, there are certain wards designated in the City as part of the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program. These wards are looked upon for relief relative to lots, vacant buildings for abatement. I don't have the code specifically in front of me to go into all of the code requirements of that, but there are certain provisions under Section PM-309 that periodically Council Councilmembers add particular wards to the list of 32 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 wards for emergency nuisance abatement, and that includes vacant lots as well as vacant buildings for abatement.
Councilman Ortiz, this might help you. The Administration is going to testify next, and I think they'll be able to answer your question better; is that right, ladies? Would you just come up and testify? Can stay there too, Mr. Haigler. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Chairman Mariano and members of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. I am Belinda Mayo, the Director of Neighborhood Program Coordination and Community Development at the Office of Housing and Community Development. I am pleased to be here today to offer the Administration's support for Bill 010369. Which would expand the number of wards and divisions that are included by ordinance in the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program and will allow the City to 33 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 actively implement the Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program. Attached to my testimony for your information is a complete description of the program. As many of you are aware, there are thousands of small vacant and abandoned lots scattered throughout the City of Philadelphia that are eyesores in the neighborhoods and communities. Many are encumbered by municipal liens and delinquent taxes that often exceed both the property's economic development value. Others are the result of demolition of vacant and dilapidated structures. Although many of these properties are in public ownership many more are privately owned but long since abandoned. The Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program is an effort to eliminate blight caused by these small trash-filled lots. Unfortunately, the current system by which to acquire and dispose of these small lots is cumbersome and lengthy. The Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program provides a cost- effective and efficient mechanism to clean, acquire, and dispose of these small --
Miss Mayo, if I may. 34 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 I think we know about the program. I just -- we're here just to discuss why weren't these wards included when this bill was first introduced and heard?
I believe that was the Councilmembers' choice as to whether or not wards in their particular districts were --
Well, there must have been testimony as to why the exclusion.
There must have been some testimony as to why the exclusion.
Councilman, if I could. My name is Jessica Diaz, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Transformation. This ordinance was already on the books 35 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 and in place prior to this administration taking office. What we did was basically help to launch the program and get it operational.
It is my understanding that not every single ward -- THIS IS still not a citywide program. However, all Councilmembers have been polled by the Administration and those wards that were not originally included, you know, are now listed under this amendment to be included.
No. Still at this point, it is not a citywide program. There are certain wards that are still excluded as per choice of certain Councilmembers.
Could you give me one moment, Councilman? (Witness confers with colleague off the record.)
I just want it for 36 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the record.
Councilman, I guess in response to your question, I can get that information to you. It is my understanding that Council President Verna's office polled each individual Councilmember to see and compare, I guess, from the original ordinance what wards were not included or that they wished to include under this, I guess, amendment that's before you today. But it is, of course, the official position of the Administration that we do not object to the addition of any wards in this program.
The position of the Administration is that we hoped that this would be a citywide program.
I'd like for you to submit that list of the wards that are excluded.
It's in the ordinance in the 37 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 current code. The new --
Wait a second, hold it. Point of information. What are we reading into the record, all the ones that are included?
I would just like it for the record just to see what parts of the City are excluded from certain legislation and --
Can I talk to you a minute on the side, Councilman. (Councilmembers Mariano and Ortiz confer off the record.)
The ward in which I'm 38 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the ward leader, am I included or excluded? No 3 one's ever spoken to me about it.
There's additional wards than the wards that are currently eligible.
Okay. The ordinance 8 currently includes wards that are already --
The ordinance includes the wards that are currently eligible as well as the ones that are being proposed today.
I'm not following you. Is the 17th Ward included currently prior to this amendment?
Point of order. I think Councilman Ortiz has the floor and he has a question on the floor. Do you still want that question answered?
Mr. Chairman, if it's your desire that these not be in the record, that's fine with me. I guess I --
Well, you know, let's just say it as it is. I mean, I think 39 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 everybody knows what this bill is about, and the magic word here is --
Well, I'm going to tell you and I'm going to tell you on the record: It's about squatters. Originally when this was written -- and the person that had my Council seat's deceased so I can actually tell you there was certain areas where he did this bill, he probably didn't want in this bill 'cause I think it was perceived as a bill that gave squatters more rights, okay? Now, we're all laughing and smiling and trying to do this politically right, but there are certain District Councilpeople that are not present here now and they may not want you to read that, I don't know. I'm okay with the 7th Council District -- we do what we got to do there. Now, we can do the whole city or --
I'd like to know whether the ward of which I'm the ward leader is included currently or whether it's --
And you have that right and so does he. 40 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
No one's ever spoken to me either about inclusion or exclusion.
Well, looking at the proposed, I guess, amendment to this bill, it looks like the 17th Ward is --
Is that the 18th Ward, Councilman? Is that the 18th Ward you're --
Looking at a draft of the ordinance in front of me, Councilman, it looks like the 17th Ward is included. It's listed as number 33 on the ordinance.
Councilman, again, I think what happened was, when the original people that constructed this bill left things out, and as the Council District changed through redistricting, it still may have said the 8th Council District, but there may have been some wards that were originally 41 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 not on there and they were technically never put into the bill. And I think that's what this bill is doing. It's adding -- we should do the whole thing, but for whatever reason, we're not. They asked the District Councilpeople to look at it and see what was missing 'cause I had forgotten about it and I was just scrambling with Hughie when we started. Is the 42nd Ward in there, divisions I have, the 43rd? I wanted to make sure they're all in there.
And I think that's what the rest of the District Councilpeople -- the only thing one I can't speak for is Councilman O'Neill, who's not here. Councilwoman Krajewski's here and her whole district's in it.
I don't understand the difficulty in the people testifying giving us specific information.
Well, that was me, Councilman, and I just went into a sidebar with Councilman DiCicco. I was concerned about other District Councilpeople that weren't here and for 42 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 whatever reason might not have wanted that in there, but I don't think there's a problem now.
With respects to the bill before us, three years ago when we had suggested this particular program, we had initially requested a bill to deal specifically with vacant lots, calling it "a nuisance abatement bill." In discussions with the Administration at the time, it was felt that it made more sense to simply amend 1202-A, which was a similar bill.
Do you know when that was around from, Councilman? I mean, we're talking about the --
Right. And we made a decision to amend the existing 1202-A. When we did that, it only included those particular wards that were in the original bill. Subsequently, when the discussion about the vacant lot program came 43 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 about, people understood the significance of having the vacant lot aspect of that bill in there but not necessarily were in agreement of the vacant property portion of that bill. I would like to ask, though, for clarification standpoint 'cause I'm not sure that all Councilmembers know that by placing these particular wards in this particular bill, it's my understanding that now vacant properties will in fact be subject to the original 1202 bill. So I think that point of clarification needs to be understood before members place those particular wards in their areas. Is that correct?
In order to enforce any provisions of the bill, the people enforcing it have to know in what parts of the City they have the power currently -- I'm talking prior to the amendment. And, therefore, it would seem to me that you would have readily accessible to you those wards where you have the power.
Okay, I have no idea why it was not included originally. I raise it, Mr. Chairman, because just before this meeting --
The Mayor nabbed me outside the building to urge me and other District Councilpersons and Councilmembers-at-large to come Saturday when the City is beginning its campaign to clean up the lots, and there's going to be some kind of a tour. And he urged upon me the important role of the 8th Councilmatic District and the 17th Ward, so I'd like to know what is the status of the 17th Ward. You say it was not included originally but it would be included with this amendment.
Thank you for the 45 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 information.
I'd just like to offer some other information. The Neighborhood Program Coordination Unit at Office of Housing has been working with the Administration to implement the Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program. We currently have 778 applications that we're processing to this program. These are people who have stepped forward and who have agreed to take the responsibility to clean and maintain these lots while the City attempts to acquire them. We've also gotten support from Home Depot in that Home Depot was providing $100 vouchers to people who come forward and volunteer to abate the violations and nuisance on those lots. It's an opportunity and effort for community residents to be able to take over vacant lots in a legal way that they've been maintaining illegally over the years. It also helps people access those lots while waiting to get into the Gift Property Program or for the City to take the lots to sheriff's sale. So what we're doing here is, we're trying to make sure that in areas of the City where 46 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 there are vacant lots and there are citizens who are willing to step forward and take care of those lots have the opportunity to do so.
Thank you. Anybody else have any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter?
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to a request from Council, we would like to offer two amendments to the bill. I think you have those in front of you.
Yeah. Could you give them to the clerk. Councilman Nutter, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple questions with regard to where we are and what the process is. First, I don't have any issue about the wards of the 4th Councilmatic District. The other five that were never in the 1202-A Program have been added in and I don't have any issue with that. I told the Council President that a long time ago. This issue came up at a briefing. At the time, I'm not even sure that NTI 47 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 had necessarily been created as an acronym. I think we were still dealing with the blight elimination program back last year at the briefing at the University of Pennsylvania for Councilmembers. And it was at that time that this discussion came up about expanding this particular program, I think, more specifically around the vacant lots to a citywide program. As I understand it, the Council President then asked, I believe, District Councilmembers to let her know of their interest in this, and I responded to the President. From a process standpoint, one, it's clear to me that because of what our calendar is and given the date that we're having this hearing, we're not going to be able to vote on this bill before we go out of session; is that your understanding?
Okay. So even if the bill came out of committee, and I know that there's some confusion about what wards are in and not in, and it appears that there's a disagreement about some of the parameters of the larger scope of this section of the code and how it impacts or may impact certain areas. 48 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 What, if any, benefit is it to you to have this bill come out of committee? And I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't, but I'm just trying to understand, given our timing here, what do you get as a result of a bill coming out that we can't vote on?
A point on that before you answer that, and I would say this to the Councilman. I think we've been hearing something, and maybe you can answer that. We can process these actual applications if it comes out of committee. Is that what we're looking at?
Well, currently I guess, Councilman, if I can answer your question. Right now, I guess as Belinda Mayo testified, we have currently 778 applications currently in-house. Approximately half of those residents requested lots that were not eligible for this program. So we had not processed those applications.
And why weren't they eligible, because of something we need to do legislatively?
Because they were not located in wards that were eligible to participate in this 49 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 program.
But on Councilman Nutter's point, if we vote this out of committee -- I'm not saying we're -- it's still not through the Council as a whole, does that help these people?
That will at least give us some authorization to go ahead and put in the time and the effort over the summer to prepare those applications so that once you do return to Council in the fall and, you know, if it comes out of Council, then they are ready to be processed and those applicants are ready to participate in the program.
I understand. Let me assure you that I understood that that was the answer that you were going to give. It just needed to be placed on the record.
Let me, though, ask this question: With the significant increase, it seems like about almost the other half of the City gets added into the provisions of this particular section of the code. Does it also mean that those 50 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 areas are then eligible for all of the other components of what was the 1202-A Program, which maybe its name, for the most part, now has been changed or more officially become the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program, which is more encompassing than just vacant lots. Isn't that correct?
Okay, so why don't you tell us about the other components of this particular section of the code that expands beyond just vacant lots. Because, I mean, you have to understand, and I think even the testimony is primarily geared toward the small vacant lot program. I'm just seeing the testimony here this morning. I don't get the impression that the testimony lays out with particulars what the other components of this particular section are and what it allows people to do beyond small vacant lots.
I'm sorry, Councilman. What was the question? You want to know the impact of the --
The section of the 51 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 code under the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program has actually two components today. It used to just be, before it got its new name, the 1202-A Program, which only dealt with vacant properties, a property that actually had a structure on it.
At a subsequent point in time, that section of the code was amended and then we created this new property maintenance section of the code, but it added in this new vacant lot component, all under the same section. The testimony in front of us today, which I, again, say for the record, because I'm just seeing it this morning, I have not read it with a fine-toothed comb, but my impression is, the testimony is primarily, if not solely, about the small vacant lot program. In reality, by adding all of these wards to this section of the code, they are also eligible for all of the other components of the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program, which is not just about vacant lots.
It also makes those wards or subjects those wards or makes those wards 52 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 eligible for people to participate in what was or still is the 1202-A Program, which is about vacant property structures that are still on the lot.
Okay. And so, having said that, we started the hearing with the impression -- I'm not saying anybody's trying to mislead anybody, but I was coming with the impression that we were only talking about vacant lots, and I thought that the bill that was being introduced was about a small vacant lot program that was being taken citywide. Now, you're not responsible for what I thought. That was just -- based on the information that I was getting, that was my belief or assumption. And I know assumptions are a bad thing to make.
My testimony pretty much said buildings and lots and -- 53 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
I understand that. I never saw your testimony; I only saw Miss Mayo's testimony. So the question comes back, you're primarily concerned about small vacant lots at the moment; is that correct?
Are you necessarily trying to expand the parameters of the 1202-A Program, which dealt with the vacant structure component that is now a part of the property maintenance doe?
And now that that's been raised as a concern, we'll have to go back and brief Council further and talk to them about how that impacts the bill that we're offering and the amendments that we're offering.
So now going to the last point, if the bill does come out -- and I'm not saying that there isn't a way to try to fix it. If I had to glance at the code, I might even have an 54 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 idea or two. But if the bill were to come out of the committee in line with what your earlier testimony was about if the bill comes out of committee, what you're able true, is it not true that just as you're able to process applications for what your intention is, which is a small vacant lot program, doesn't a person at the same time have a right to try to access whatever their rights are under the 1202-A Program dealing with vacant structures in these same areas?
All right. Well, I don't think that was necessarily any of our collective intentions at the time. And, again, it was my belief or assumption -- it's my fault -- that you were bringing us soley a small vacant lot program, expanding it citywide because everyone cares about vacant lots, and I don't think that we were necessarily trying at the moment, at least without good information, to expand the 1202-A Program as it related to vacant structures. 55 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Yes. You should just know that 1202-A (NTI) under the part of the bill that deals with vacant structures has not been active for quite some time now.
I understand that, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't have a right to access it.
Could you tell us what that is? 'Cause, you know, the suspension's killing everybody here.
What the Councilman's alluded to, 1202-A, which is, what does it do if they decide to act on it? I have a general idea, but let's say it for the record so we're not growing mushrooms in the dark here.
As it's related to the lots 56 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 or the structures?
As a person who, way back in my history, was an inspector who used to inspect for the 1202-A Program, I can explain to you exactly how we handled it in L&I way back in the early '80s, mid-'80s. The Redevelopment Authority primarily administered the program over at 1234 Market Street. We would get a listing of properties to go out and inspect. We would inspect those properties to determine whether or not the properties were viable for persons to take over the properties for rehab purposes. If we made our determination that the properties were structurally viable and viable for the program, then we would send our report back to the Redevelopment Authority, and the Redevelopment Authority in turn would go through the process of acquiring the property through proper sheriff's sale. If they were to acquire the property, then they would turn that property over to the 57 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 person who made application for it, and the person who made application for it would be given a specific amount of time to bring the property up to code requirements. And if they were successful in doing that, in meeting all of the other parameters of the program, that's what was explained to me back in those days. This was back in the early '80s.
Why don't we have a veteran -- not that you're not, 'cause you're a veteran of many, many things. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
If not a qualified expert, and the 1202-A Program sits with us now at the table.
It's not quite accurate. The program -- it wasn't administered by OHCD. The program called for the applicant to be an agent on behalf of the City of Philadelphia to abate a nuisance. That individual as an agent was allowed to gain access to the property and abate the 58 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 nuisance. In the interim period, they were able to spend whatever dollar amount it took to bring that building up to code and some additional activities. Each portion of the activity was placed as a lien on that property, and subsequently, the liens were built up to the point where people felt comfortable that the City would initially bid on sheriff's sale, as you said, and acquire that property. So it wasn't a lot of interim use, it wasn't -- kind of what we do now is just go out and give the person the time. That property was not conveyed until that person actually abated the nuisances on that property.
And I thank you, Councilman, because you filled in all of the gaps from my inspectional part of that to the actual behind-the-scenes part of it, but I'm just giving it to you from the inspectional part of it.
Yeah. And I just want to say that in response to Councilman Nutter's question, this whole issue came up, I believe, maybe a year and a half, closer to two years ago, when there was a discussion about the 1202-A Program and the 1202 Vacant Lot Nuisance Abatement Program, and 59 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the Councilpeople initiated the request to have those areas included. And as I can remember in the testimony, people did not understand why they were not included in the vacant lot portion of this bill. At that time, it was explained that, in fact, this was an addendum to the original 1202-A, and it did speak of the 1202-A Program as originally intended, including vacant properties, but there was not a question asked such as was asked today earlier about this particular aspect of the amendment and would it in fact include vacant properties. So it was driven by Council, not by the Office of Housing or the Redevelopment Authority or the Licenses and Inspections.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, if I may, we can certainly offer an amendment that will specifically address your concern, Councilman Nutter. We can limit the wards that we are wishing to include in this program strictly toward the vacant lot program, and we can offer that to you.
I'm sorry, say the last part that you said again. I'm sorry, I got distracted. 60 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
We can limit the amendment that's before you today, we can limit the inclusion of these additional wards and separate the Vacant Lot Abatement Program separate and apart from the 1202-A portion that deals with structures.
That's what I wanted to explore, and as I was looking in the code --
We can do that for you. If you would like to recess for five minutes, we can have that.
Well, that's a great idea, 'cause I can't find it real quick. What section of the code specifically deals with vacant lots as distinguished from vacant properties? I'm looking in 309, which is the only place that we would be able to amend today since that's in the title of the bill, but I can't find lots. Would you bring the supplement, Hugh?
Yeah. It bothers me, just the very concept of it, that we're excluding part -- I think that any legislation that we approve should be approved for the whole city. It smacks of 61 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 a certain type of legislation that occurred in previous years, and that is redlining almost. And it's -- I'm voting no if this bill 5 remains. I think we should approve citywide bills for citywide policies, and I think every neighborhood, every part of the City comes under it and should be part of any strategy that we have. All right, just to get down to the very philosophical aspect if one considers why we're here.
Thank you, Councilman. I'm going to take a five-minute recess. It's 10 after 11. Nobody leave the room, please. (Short recess taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
The committee session is back in order. We're going to skip over this bill and we're going to come back to it and we're going to go right on to Bill 010 -- I'll first let Councilman Nutter ask this operational question, then we'll go to the next bill.
Thanks. 62 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 Back to 010369. Let's say we fix what we propose to fix today and the bill comes out of committee. You now have -- what was the information, 700-some applications?
The thing I did see in the testimony, you're talking about processing 250? What's the -- how --
The goal was to process -- originally when we launched the program, the goal was to process 250 applications originally.
That was the current capacity that the various departments could accommodate.
And what is that based on and what do you mean by -- I mean, know the definition of the word "capacity," but tell me the context in which you mean --
The staff time, the administrative time, the sheriff's sale process, current staff that they have available both at OHCD and the RDA and Licenses and Inspections.
Okay, let's talk a 63 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 little bit about those particulars. As I can best understand the scenario, a person comes along, they say they want to do whatever they want to do, and we can have a discussion about what they do with the vacant car that might be on it or something like that later. The person signs whatever they sign, they agree that -- what is it, a nuisance abatement agreement, I think, with the City, they go on, they spend their money, they're doing whatever they're doing. You know hopefully --
I don't mean to interrupt you, Councilman, but they cannot make any kind of permanent improvements until they actually --
Well, I understand. I mean, they can clean up and -- I mean, can they put a fence on it?
What do you mean, not really? What's not really? I mean, it's like 64 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the Hertz commercial. I mean, you know, not really?
I mean, we cannot say to people that they cannot install a fence on a lot without the proper permits from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And in order to apply for those permits, you have to be the owner of the lot, and they just have a license agreement.
Okay, let's go from today and give me the short version of -- let's say the bill comes out today, you've got 750 applications, let's say the property's not in the tax lien sale portfolio 'cause that's a whole 'nother discussion and we can get into that as well. Let's just say somehow they slipped under the radar, nobody's been paying attention to this particular property, and the person says, I'd like to get it. Say it's a recently demolished next-door neighbor lot. All right, tell me what they document.
They would complete an application to the Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program and return the application to the Office of Housing and Community Development. 65 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Miss Mayo, as you're doing this, if you can add some timelines to -- let's say the house came down last week, let's say the person's really been paying attention to what we do down here -- it would be one, like, one of the five people in the City that actually pays attention to what we do -- and they read in the paper tomorrow that this bill has come out of committee and there's a nice reporter that writes a story and says, you know, stuff's available. They call Friday, after the thing gets a first reading, and they say, I got this property next door, I think it's a prime candidate for this program. Take me on a timeline scenario of what's going on at what points in time.
It's going to be difficult to attach a period of time to the process, but what happens is that the person completes an application, returns it to the Office of Housing and Community Development. The application is reviewed for accuracy in terms of the information and whether or not the information included in the application meets the program guidelines. Once that clearance is done, the next step is to determine whether or not the applicant is current in their own property 66 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 taxes.
If they are current in their property taxes, then we check the status the of the lot in that they're requesting to make sure that the lot is in close proximity to where they live, that the it doesn't exceed 2500 square feet. And if it meets that test, the next step is to determine whether or not the lot is tax delinquent. If the lot is not tax delinquent --
I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. The determination about the square footage, are we just doing that for my records or does somebody have to go out and take a look at it?
Well, I mean, basically, the footprint of a rowhouse in Philadelphia is about 900 square feet.
So a person can technically apply for up to three of those vacant lots, as long as they're in close proximity to where they live -- either they abut the property, they're adjacent to the property, or they're across the street from the 67 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 property of the applicant.
And once we've determined that the property is in fact tax delinquent, then the next step is to have the applicant come in to our office -- and we do that in groups -- to review the abatement agreement and the guidelines of the program to make sure that they understand, and if in fact they do understand how the program operates and what their limitations are until they actually own the lot -- and we do that in a briefing session at OHCD.
Then the application -- once the abatement agreement is signed, the vacant lot is sent over to the Law Department for certification for sheriff's sale, and then it goes on the list for sheriff's sale.
Now, what's going on with the lot during all of that period of time and is it -- I mean, in our worst nightmare, does all that stuff out there and all that and they're just kind of sitting there looking at it, what are they 68 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 doing?
Councilman, because the acquisition and disposition systems of the City -- currently, you know, the sheriff's sale process takes anywhere from nine to twelve months to do.
This program was designed to allow people to enter onto this property within four to six weeks of applying for the program.
What we do is, we encourage people to do keep the lot clean and maintain the lot within the code.
I thought you said something earlier about how they couldn't do anything with it until they own it.
What people do when they 69 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 submit an abatement is they also submit an abatement plan, that they're proposing to use this lot for purpose once the City's successful in acquiring it --
In the interim, what we're asking them to do keep is to maintain the lot, keep it clean, keep the weeds cut down. A lot of people do install fences. We can't say that they can do that but for their own whatever, they decide to install a fence to keep the lot from becoming trash-strewn again.
Right. That's like, don't ask me permission for something I can't grant you but I can't do anything about it if you do?
Councilman, if I can, when we had the original discussion, we were told that that person can place a fence up because 70 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 that was an abatement of a nuisance. They could not place any furniture or any other permanent -- any other permanent activity on that lot, but we were told that they could put a fence up, similar to what we in the City have done over the years in some instances where we demolish a property or there was a community organization and we had put a fence up on privately owned property to keep the property clean. So to think that, you know, we --
And that was after -- and I'm just telling you what I was told. In that activity, meaning the fence, in addition to the cleaning of the lot was supposed to be placed as a lien towards the ultimate purchase of that lot by the City of Philadelphia.
We can't advise residents to violate the City code. As a matter of fact, in signing the abatement agreement, what they're agreeing to do is to maintain the lot within compliance of City codes.
Yeah, but they are 71 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 an agent of the City. And what we attempted to do under this legislation was to allow this individual to have similar powers of the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which is why we have designated that person as the agent of the City, and Licenses and Inspections, from my understanding, has the authority to place a fence around a vacant lot to help abate a nuisance.
Well, they definitely do now, Councilman, as we all know.
Again, we can't advise people that they should move forward in that manner. The fact of the matter is that --
-- if the person is an agent for the City and subsequently given the powers of Licenses and Inspections for that particular lot?
We've been advised by the Law Department. 72 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Mr. Haigler, do you know anything about that? I mean, this is the first that I'm hearing of this, 'cause I was told when we did the bill that it was the purpose of making that person an agent for the City, to give them the authority to put a fence around a vacant lot so they can continue to abate the nuisance. And that information was forwarded to the people who applied. And I do not believe that the average person, if they thought they had no way of securing the lot, would apply for this program.
So far, we've had a briefing session for applicants who have signed abatement 15 agreements. We reviewed the program with them, 16 explained to them what the limitations are, but 17 people have chosen to take whatever steps they can 18 to secure the lot after they've cleaned it. And 19 what we've asked them to do is to maintain any 20 receipts for any amounts over $500 that they spend 21 to maintain the lot. 22 I am implementing the program as has 23 been dictated by the Law Department and the 24 Administration, and I've been told that in order for 25 someone to erect a fence on a vacant lot that they 73 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 have to have a permit from L&I and they can only obtain a permit if they're the owner of the lot. So if there's something else that we should be doing --
Well, the fact that people -- that applicants are placing fences on a vacant lot should tell you that you probably need to come up with a strategy to allow them to do that legally, which I always believed they had the wherewithal to do.
And we are attempting to do that. So far, out of the 778 applications that we've received since December, we've processed 236 applications. That -- we've almost met our 250 application goal in a pilot phase. Now that we've gone through 236 applicants, we've identified new problems and new obstacles in the program. We have an intergovernmental coordinating group that meets on a regular basis, including the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Law Department, and as these issues and concerns are being raised, we're trying to address them.
Who from the Law Department told you you couldn't put a fence up? 'Cause this is the first I'm hearing of that. 74 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
No, who from the -- you said the Law Department told you --
So what is the purpose of that person being an agent for the City? I mean, what's different than what they're doing currently? Right now if a person has a vacant lot next to the their property and they're interested in keeping it clean, they do that now without this particular program or bill. So if they can't place the fence, what's the purpose of them being an agent for the City if they can't do that?
Well, this program allows them to go -- they are going onto the property currently. This program allows them to go onto even privately owned property. And once they do --
Are you saying the people are not going on the vacant lot next to them now and cleaning it off?
So, I mean, what's different? If we're not going to allow that person to secure the lot, what's the point of having this program?
I heard your comment that the Law Department said that they would need a permit. Has anyone asked the question, could the permit be waived under these circumstances? I mean, the object here is to encourage people do something, which, in effect, reduces the cost to the City from cleaning the lot. So I think it would make sense from a perspective of cost to waive the fee for the permit.
Or if the person is an agent on behalf of L&I, and if L&I has the wherewithal to put a fence up on a lot, why should that person -- 76 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
No, but I'm saying, it hasn't always been the practice -- or it has been the practice for a number of years where L&I, when they abated a property, they would eventually fence it. Why wouldn't we afford the --
No, that wasn't -- I don't think that was the entire practice. I know we just recently had a bill by our distinguished Councilman over there, Councilman Nutter, that that --
Is that to suggest that the rest of us aren't distinguished or -- (Laughter.) (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
There are 17 distinguished members of City Council at least.
Councilman Nutter had introduced a bill a while back that dealt with fences, and in that bill particularly -- we hashed over that bill for a while before it was finally passed.
But it was not our practice -- to answer your question, it was not our practice to automatically put fences on lots unless there was some sort of dangerous condition of the lot. That was part of our testimony when we had the fence bill.
Well, I understand that, but I thought the Councilman's question goes directly to the point of -- I mean, we are asking people to participate in a process with us over some period of time. I think it -- I mean, at some level, it just becomes somewhat demoralizing as you participate in this that -- I mean, you virtually cannot do anything. I mean, if we're hearing the testimony correctly, and there seems to be some dispute about it, I mean, securing the lot, I think, has got to be the primary objective of what it is that we're trying to accomplish while the process and the system kind of works its way through.
I mean, if we can't at least offer that to folks then -- I mean, yes, they're going to get a lot at the end of the day. If they, you know, survive the process, if they live 78 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 long enough or whatever, but how many times will they have had to clean up that particular lot from this upcoming Friday when -- and I know your testimony says you've shut down the application thing because you're overwhelmed, but for your 236 that are in, I mean, we know for a fact that they've got at least a year relationship with us before they own anything. And the question is, how many do you think that they're going to have to clean up in some places, how many times are they going to have to clean up that lot before they ever own it? They're expending their time, which has a certain value to it, they're buying bags at the grocery store or Home Depot or wherever they're buying it from, they took out two, you know, couches and a refrigerator, and two weeks from now, the same crap is there, versus putting up a fence, and at least if you're going to get some trash, they're going to be maybe somebody throwing a bag over the six-foot high fence. I mean, you just deal with that. Why can't they put a fence up?
Councilman, if I could just briefly explain, I mean, this is designed to be a 79 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 side yard program.
Right. Most side yards in many neighborhoods have fences attached to them.
Councilman, I apologize. I know I'm jumping in on your question.
I guess given, I guess, the various people I guess that we've talked to about this program, the notion was given to me that it is much more difficult for someone to throw trash or to or to illegally dump on these small lots if it looks like that adjacent homeowner or that abutting homeowner is taking care of a property. So that if 80 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 a vacant lot is being maintained over a period of time, it is much more unlikely that people would throw trash or people would dump trash on those lots.
To specifically address your concern, I can bring that back to the working group and we can have the Law Department look into that for you.
When we were going through the L&I should put a fence on every vacant lot and we went through all of that and we then gave the Commissioner discretion, I mean, you know, half a dozen of my constituents came in. We had a building come down on North 60th Street sometime last year, where the lady wanted a fence on it. She started maintaining it on her own. The City said, you know, we're going to do it, we're going to do it, we're going to do it, 81 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 we're going to do it. After a couch and refrigerator showed up, she went and put one up herself, and it cost her $600. Now, it looked like it was being maintained, I mean, according to your testimony. Yeah, someone noticed the lot, it looks like a very nice place for a couch and a refrigerator and they put it there. What are you supposed to do? I mean, I don't know how she got it out of there, but if the fence were there, she wouldn't have had that problem.
Councilman Nutter, I mean, in implementing the program, I would like to be able to say to people who sign abatement agreements that once you've corrected all of the code violations, you are free to install a fence, but I cannot advise people to do that. What we can do is, we can take into consideration the fact that Council has suggested in this hearing that as an agent of the City, that person has the authorization to act as the City in fencing the lot. And we can talk --
That was the original testimony. 82 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
We can talk to the Law Department and get a legal opinion on that. We have been trying to address this issue.
The fact of the matter is that people put up fences anyway, and unless a disgruntled neighbor -- L&I does not go around and inspect doesn't inspect for improperly installed fences.
We don't have the manpower. So unless a disgruntled neighbor calls and complains, nothing happens.
Well, I understand that. I mean, we are not in any big dispute here.
'Cause I think we're all trying to get to the same place. But now my question is, what is it either in this agreement or about this agreement that allows the City to even give this person the 83 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 authority to go on this property in the first place if it's nothing less than what the Councilman was talking about, which is we are, you know, at a minor level, almost deputizing somebody into the Department of Licenses and Inspections as this, quote/unquote, agent of the City. If they are in fact an agent of the City, then at some level, they should be able to do some of the things that the City is authorized to do. If we're going to ask them or authorize them or give them the permission or wish them well in their life to clean up this particular place, which we know they're going to do on more than one occasion, we should at least give them the leeway to take other steps. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Let's just go back to the original bill. Under 1202-A, we not only authorized people to enter into the building, we authorized people to rehab a house before they owned it. So now you're telling me that they can't put up a fence on a vacant lot under the same bill?
Councilman, I do understand 84 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 your concerns. And I guess as I testified earlier, when we came, I guess, on board to implement this program, we took the bill as it was written and we implemented that original --
The bill authorized an individual to enter into a house to rehab the house --
-- before it was owned by the applicant. So now how can you now say that they can't enter into a lot and put up a simple fence on it? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
. . . if you're going by the letter of the language original bill.
Councilman, I'm not saying that it cannot happen. I'm not saying that we cannot give them permission currently.
Well, currently, the law does not allow it as it is written. We can bring that concern back. 85 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
What law allows you to give that permission to even go on that property? How does the City have the authority to give somebody else, even the next-door neighbor, who's a nice person, the authority to go on a property next door that they don't own? What is in that agreement that allows that?
The original ordinance gives the permission and the abatement agreement will basically --
Well, then according to what Councilman Clarke said, how is it that we can give someone the authority to go into a structure, an existing building --
-- and make repairs, expend money on a property that they don't own in a two- or three-story structure, but somehow now you've got a ground-level vacant lot, no building existing, you know that we probable tore it down, you know it probably has L&I liens against the demolition, you know it's got back taxes that are 86 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 due, and you're saying that you could put new windows, new floors, a new heater, and rehab a house, but you can't put a fence on a lot? I mean, you understand that there are tremendous differences between what you could do under is 1202-A -- good, bad or indifferent, whether you use it or not, but if it was a past law and is still on the books, whether we use it or not, it is still the law. If you had all of that authority under that scenario and you created a vacant lot program under the same scenario, I don't understand how you can fix up a house but you can't do anything to a lot. I mean, that's where we're left here.
Under the portion of the program that deals with vacant structures and putting in windows and putting in basic systems, what the abater is doing is bringing the property up to code.
And in the lot portion of the program, we're asking them to bring it up to code by cleaning it and making sure it's not weed-strewn. We share your concerns. We would like to be able to tell people that once you've cleaned 87 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the lot, the best way to maintain the lot is to erect a fence, and what we need to do -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Doesn't a portion of the code say that for vacant lots, you cannot leave them in an unsafe condition?
No, what we want to do is, we want to go back to the Law Department, we want to present this to the Law Department and get them to give us a legal opinion. We agree, we think that that would make the program even better. What we've been doing is implementing the program within the parameters of the ordinance, but we will go back to the Law Department and ask them to look at this issue and to include that information in the abatement agreement.
I understand. I don't have any issue with you guys. I mean, you have your part to do, people are going -- if I have anybody that's in the 236 folks, which I guess technically I don't because none of my areas 88 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 were eligible and, I mean, maybe after this, they will, but if any of them are in that first 236, they're going to either ask or expect certain things, and I quite honestly need to be able to tell them what the story is.
And it would help us tremendously if had that option to offer to people.
All right, that's that issue. Now, what happens to the tax lien sale properties? Let's say the property's in the tax lien sale portfolio, I've got an application in, I want to make it the most beautiful place on the block; are any distinctions made between those properties?
Currently under the program guidelines, those properties are not eligible for this program.
So even if they're in an eligible area, and most areas of the City will be eligible more than likely after today, tax lien sale properties are not eligible. 89 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Because the City does not -- does no longer own the lien to that property.
Gotcha. Our new word of the week, we'll have a new pipeline. The pipeline of 250 lots that you expect to do, how will that affect the current system or program that has no name, but it's the kind of standard operating procedure. I have the lady at 312 North 60th Street. The property came down last year, she wanted to acquire the lot next door, the City pushed the property to sheriff's sale, the City was successful, transferred the property through VPRC, and she either is or shortly will be the owner of a wonderful vacant lot next to her. I mean, that system has no name to it; it's just what we do and how we function and operate. How will this program and its 250 parcels moving through in the course of the year, what will that do to what the rest of us have normally done, which is also a sheriff's sale-based 90 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 program and a VPRC transfer? I mean, do these now get priority? do they all go in together? What happens?
Well, that is the -- what you described was the Gift Property Program, and the intent, I guess, and the hope of the Administration is that we simply collapse the two programs together.
Then let me go back to the phrase you used earlier. I mean, there's a capacity issue. How many parcels can be processed in the course of a year, whether it's gift property, small vacant lot, or any of the other programs that I might not know about?
When I polled the different members of the working group, they stated that the additional 250 would include the regular -- the properties that they process on a regular basis through other programs. So this would be in addition to processing their other --
And they don't have any concerns about their capacity to take care of all of this; is that your testimony?
My understanding was that 91 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 they can do the additional 250 without any capacity issues.
Okay. I think this is my last question, Mr. Chairman. In the first section of 309.0, which talks about the emergency nuisance abatement area, it reads: "Any ward or part of a ward of the City determined by City Council to contain such a great number of abandoned properties constituting unsafe structures or unfit dwellings as described in Section PM-307.0 that traditional abatement methods have been unsuccessful and that resulting neighborhood blight and deterioration are so widespread and unchecked that an emergency exists." Can you give me some perspective -- hey, Hugh, do you have that supplement? Can you give me some perspective on the City's ability -- if we include now virtually all of the City in the new vacant lot program, is there any particular concern that this definition results in virtually all of the City being considered, for anyone's purposes, that almost all of the City has resulting neighborhood blight and deterioration so widespread and unchecked that an emergency exists. 92 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 Is that of any concern to you as it relates to this particular program?
As it relates to this particular program, it was not our intention to expand the wards that dealt with vacant structures.
We can offer to this committee, I guess, today for your consideration simply limiting the additional wards of -- for acquisitions of vacant lots or abatement of vacant lots.
That wasn't my question about acquisition or non-acquisition. My question related to when the program was originally created -- and I wasn't here for that -- it was created because there were certain conditions and certain places and people wanted certain wards as a part of that, and there was a criteria, if not a definition, that you had to meet to be a part of the program. The discussion earlier -- and if we do some other amendments that we were talking about, it appears that we will have virtually, you know, 90 percent of the City will be eligible for the vacant lot program. We're talking about not 93 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 expanding those components of the vacant property program, 1202-A, which doesn't basically exist anymore, but there was a definition or a criteria that you had to meet to be eligible. The question is, now that almost all of the rest of the City will be included under that particular definition, is there any public policy concern that you might have related to the expanded definition of this pervasive unchecked blight and emergency crisis condition existing virtually throughout the City? Or would you like to do anything with that particular definition or criteria?
I don't think I'm prepared to respond to that, so I would have to --
Yes. At this time, Councilman, I'm not prepared to respond to that question.
Well, in the course of the amendments, maybe we'll take a look at that. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councilman. Is there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Okay, we're going to move on to the next bill. Hughie, read 010269.
An ordinance amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by requiring any establishment that sells alcoholic beverages for consumption on or off the premises to install, maintain and use electronic equipment that scans identification cards and displays the age of person as indicated on the card, all under certain terms and conditions.
Any witnesses on this bill? Mr. Haigler? Sean Carr, Ray Swardlow, Lt. McAllister and whoever's here, please come up. (Witnesses come forward.)
All right, 95 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 gentlemen. Councilman DiCicco?
Thank you. I'd just like to make a very brief statement.
I just want to first thank these gentlemen for waiting here this morning. I know it's been a long time. But the initial reason behind this bill 16 was as a result of the Mardi Gras fiasco on South Street, a number of problems that arise in my district either on South Street or on the Delaware Avenue club scene corridor. Oftentimes a lot of problems that we encounter are from young people who are entering liquor establishments with false identification. And as a result of a meeting that took place after the Mardis Gras issue at Senator Fumo's office, there were a number of people there, 96 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 including the State Police, Philadelphia Police Department, LCE agents, and others who -- and we spoke about some of the things that we might be able to do to improve the manner by which licensed liquor establishments could do a better job in identifying the individuals who are entering their premises. And one of the ideas we came up with was a machine. I think City Council saw it a couple of months ago. But the gentleman who donated one of the machines to the South Street police detail, Ray, is here to talk about what the benefits of this machine are to liquor establishments. And I also wants everyone to recognize that those folks that I've talked to, most of the people I've talked to in the liquor establishment business in this city, have realized that the machine can actually be of a cost benefit to them. If for some reason an individual is using false identification and every attempt is made to identify whether that person is in fact of the age that would allow them to enter the establishment, sometimes they still kind of get through because -- and I don't know if Ray bought any, but some of the IDs are so good that no one, under the best 97 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 circumstances, would not be able to identify the person or recognize that the identification has been altered, except for this machine and machines like this. If a liquor establishment, as an example, were cited for serving someone under the age, at a minimum, it would cost them about $1,000 to be represented in a court of law. So this could actually help not only in the area of liquor but maybe in the area of sale of cigarettes to minors and a whole host of other things that we try to make sure that people who are entering these establishments and making purposes are, in fact, of the age. So I'm not looking to rush this bill 17 through any time soon. I would like to get it done. If we can't get it down before this session ends, I'm certainly willing to look at what we can do in the fall, but I would want to get something done by the end of this calendar year. So we have these gentlemen here, they will identify themselves obviously and testify as to what their position is and what comments they have as it relates to this machine, or machines like it. 98 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 Thank you.
Thank you. My name is Ray Swardlow. I'm a licensee in Philadelphia. I'm in Councilwoman Krajewski's district.
I own the Amazing and Fabulous Six Pack Store at Tyson and the Boulevard.
You will also be happy to know there are a lot of licensees along Frankford Avenue who also use these machines. I live in Councilman DiCicco's district as well. I started using these machines about a year and a half ago. And the most important things that you folks have to know is that it's got a chilling effect to a lot of the children -- and I call "children" because they're under age -- who come into my establishment. And what they do is, they don't use what you would call fake IDs; what they do is they alter the existing IDs. And if look 99 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 at the back of any IDs, it's got that magnetic strip, which has been proven to work because there have been credit cards that have been out for many, many years that use a magnetic strip. Now, the State of Pennsylvania encodes all of the information that's on the front of the license on that magnetic strip. And what this machine does is, it reads the magnetic strip. It doesn't care what these children do to the front of the licenses. I know that there's licensees all over the City that have seen altered licenses. In University City, they use laser beams because they have access to them at school. They use bleach, they'll use White Out. There's also places just over the bridge in Pennsauken that will sell you an overlay that has the holographs. You can buy this stuff on the Internet. Kids pay about $50 for these things. And what I found was, when I first got the machine and I would swipe their IDs and I would show them on the screen that that they were 18, 19, 20 years old, I would confiscate their license. They would then go out to the parking lot of my 100 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 store, and if there's other cars pulling up, I would hear them tell other kids, If you have a fake ID, don't go in. When I first got the machine, I think the first couple weeks, I got about two dozen to 30 actual IDs. Once the word got out, we got less and less, fewer and fewer, until now I see an altered ID maybe once every two months, because the word's out there. I'm also on the board of directors of the License Beverage Association of Philadelphia. We endorse it. I'm also an associate member of the organization of distributors, All Beverages Distributors Association, and they also endorse it. What questions do you have?
And I don't want to stick a bubble in this. Councilman DiCicco is much older than I. So I have his ID but I put my picture on it and I go and say I'm Frank DiCicco, he's 21 and I'm 19. Could you tell by -- this will come up 22 Frank DiCicco and say that Frank DiCicco is 23. 23
Right. Number one, it's not worth all of that effort because once you take off the overlay, change the picture -- 101 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269
Well, you could feel it, sure, sure. If you look at the licenses in the State of New Jersey, they almost look homemade because they're laminated and you can see the picture, you can feel the bump. But in Pennsylvania, if you look at it, there is a hologram on there that shows Pennsylvania and all the different counties, and on the back of it, it shows three keystones.
So once I try to alter Councilman DiCicco's license to put my picture on it, 'cause that's the only way I can do it, I want to look like me but I want to be him -- and he always says that anyhow.
Right. Well, if Councilman DiCicco would walk in, the first thing we would do is, we would look at the license, and if you look at the machine, there's a little sticker on the front of it that says to please check the 102 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 person's appearance first. Right there -- not on the top one, on the edge, the other edge.
All right, check picture. And you ask for a backup ID too. If I'm --
You could ask for a backup ID, ask them how tall. I mean, if a kid comes in and he's 6-foot-3 and it says that he's five-foot-9 --
Yeah, that would be me and DiCicco, he's 4-foot-9 and I'm --
The technology's out there. There are a number of machines. Some of the high-volume state stores have a machine called the "Minor Checker." What the Minor Checker does is, it holds a database of about 2500 names and it has a printer and it prints out what's called "a declaration of age card." And according to the Liquor Control Board, there's only two definitive 103 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 defenses. One of them is a declaration of age card, and one of them is a copy of the person's ID with their signature. The LCB, when they've been in my place, have told me that we should make copies of anybody that's out of state. We also have books that show what each -- the characteristic of each state's ID and what to look for there. There's a RAMP program (Responsible alcohol Management Program) which most licensees take. I have taken that two times, and I will take it again and continue to take it. Nothing is as accurate as something that reads the electronic tape. And a kid can swear up and down that he's 21, but if you show him on that screen that he's or 19 or 18, you've got him. 18
But that would have been fun because you see these people and they look 21 104 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 and the ID says 21, and you swipe the machine and it says that they're or 17. 4
Yeah, I would have 5 liked for them to see one of the licenses because 6 with the naked eye, you can never, never tell it's 7 been altered. They alter the age. Everything else 8 basically stays the same. And in the area where the 9 date of birth is, they've altered that and it's 10 impossible to detect. 11
Right. Another thing 12 that you have to consider too is that there's 13 legislation from Leda Cohen of Montgomery County 14 that wants to give a tax break for people that use 15 these to card people that are buying cigarettes. 16 Wawa food markets is using these machines in the 17 State of Maryland because they sell beer down 18 there. Mike Stack's office is contemplating legislation as well to give liquor licensees a tax break.
Do I? Yes. It reads the 105 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 magnetic strip; that's all it does.
Now, if you had a non-driver's license, it still reads the magnetic strip?
Like I said, the most important thing is that it's got a chilling effect and the word gets out in the neighborhood. And if your place, your bar, your distributor has one of these, they won't go to you, they'll go to someone else.
Okay, thank you. Next witness. LT. CARR: Hello. My name's Sean Carr. I'm a lieutenant with the Philadelphia Police Department. I'm currently the commanding officer of the Citywide Vice Enforcement Unit. 106 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 Last year, Commissioner Timoney requested -- well, ordered us to look into nuisance bars, as a result of all the crime that's been happening central to nuisance bar locations. One of the major problems that we found is underage drinking -- I don't think that's a secret to anyone here. We're also looking into not just the clubs and the bars but also the distributors and anyplace that serves alcohol. The major problem, as we see it, there's well over 2,000 licensed establishments in the City of Philadelphia, and 254 of those establishments are in the 6th District alone, which is, as you know, from Poplar and Lombard Street, Broad Street, down to the River. The Delaware Avenue nightclub strip and South Street and Manayunk Main Street has been major attractions to young drinkers. The clubs are what's currently in. And what we're finding is those clubs have more or less tapped out their adult market and now they're actively marketing to teens. LCE has regulations that are supposed to separate the teens from the of-age drinkers. One of the problems that we're finding out is the systems used by the bars and clubs are ineffective. They'll 107 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 put a wristband similar to a hospital wristband on the people who are of age. What's happening is that the people of age are either selling those wristbands to impress someone of the opposite sex or the same sex that's under age and give them the opportunity of slipping off the wristbands and letting the underage drinkers put the wristbands on. This type of ID validation would limit that particular problem. I don't mean to suggest that this type of ID validation is an end-all cure-all for underage drinking. As was pointed out, it won't work for one of our neighboring states, New Jersey, also Delaware because they use a bar code system as opposed to the magnetic strip system. But this is Pennsylvania and we do use the magnetic strip system, and it would be very effective for Pennsylvania people. And it also would be effective for the bar owner or the tavern owner or the club owner because they can quickly identify Pennsylvania drivers or Pennsylvania identification, allowing those people to go in, possibly in a separate room, filling up their club with residents of this state before taking the time to visually check and figure 108 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 out whether -- you know, really scrutinize the out-of-state licenses. So it is good. What we're finding out -- one of the reasons why the Philadelphia Police Department is trying to curb the underage drinking -- last year, the major problem was that these bars were attracting aggravated assaults, shootings, things and like that, and with the Philadelphia Police Department working with the bar owners and all, we have curbed our problem to some degree. However, it's still unacceptable, we still have a far way to go. The other problem that we've discovered in the last year is, again, the older drinkers taking advantage of the teenagers. They're throwing teenagers into an adult environment with sexual predators that are taking advantage of their age. For instance, in November, a beat officer on Delaware Avenue saw lights lit on a boat that normally didn't have lights lit on it, and he went over to check the boat to see if there was anything wrong with it. He found two 15-year-old girls unconscious who were doing the club scene who met up with a 29-year-old man, and the 29-year-old man 109 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 talked them into the boat and he was about to take sexual advantage of them when the police officer happened to see it, and he was arrested. That's one story that I can tell you that was verified by the 6th District that shows the difference in the age group.
This type of checking is a win situation for everybody. It's a win for preventing the underage drinkers from getting into the place, it's a win for the underage drinkers because they won't be taken advantage of by more experienced adult people who will be trying to pick them up while they are under the influence of alcohol or putting them in a position where they might get a spiked drink or with the new club drugs that are in effect. It's also a win for the owners of the bars or of the clubs because it gives them an accurate way of checking and is pretty much fail-safe way if they can show -- some of these record everybody they check. They can show a good-faith effort of checking everybody who comes into the place. We're also having a problem with college campus drinking. Quite frankly, that's probably more a problem with distributors than it is with the 110 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 bars and clubs selling kegs to underage drinkers who will bring them back to the party. Now, currently the way we're handling that is when we get wind of that type of party, we go and we treat it as an illegal, unlicensed liquor establishment, a speakeasy, and we arrest them for that. This would be an additional charge that we could put onto them also for not checking IDs of people coming in even though they shouldn't be serving and selling beer without a license. But by the same token, it will give us a little more leverage with the underage drinkers and the serving of underage people. So basically from the police standpoint, this is not a bad idea. To give you an idea of what the police department has been doing, there are police officers, believe it or not, under age. We have 19 a very short window of opportunity when they 20 graduate the police academy, and I have been having 21 those officers detailed into the Citywide Vice Unit. Now, in six nights during the last two months, we were able to get out and send an underage police officer into bars and we've made nine arrests for underage service. So basically, that's a pretty 111 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 good percentage, particularly since we can only process one or two of those arrests a night -- one right now because it's new to us, it's something we're just trying. But we're finding that it likely that we're able to process two of them. Our officers that are underage and have been going in have not been being seriously challenged. The officer's instructed and has a backup senior officer in place to show that there is no argument. If they ask for identification, the officer doesn't challenge that and then he walks out, he says, "I don't have the identification" and walks out, and still, he's getting served. So this underage drinking and the service of people who are not of legal drinking age is a serious problem. I should tell you, in the 26th District last year, Club Maui was the leading place for assaults in the 26th District, and it was primarily assaults with people in the club, underage drinkers coming out and causing problems and either getting into fights with bouncers or with other people. And please keep in mind too, all of us remember when we had teenage dances. Try to picture 112 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 in one strip -- I'll give you Delaware Avenue as an example -- having Cardinal Dougherty, having Dobbins, having Germantown High, having Central Northeast High all in one small strip and exiting at the same time. You can imagine what volatility there would be with teenagers and things like that, especially from different backgrounds and different areas of the City, when everything empties out onto one area such as Delaware Avenue with all of these underage people. And then you have the addition of alcohol. You can see why there's a problem. I mean, that's a recipe for disaster. Any questions I can answer?
I get to ask that one. Any questions for this witness? They pay me big money for that, Lieutenant. (No questions.)
No questions? The next witness. Sir? LT. CLEMENS: My name is Michael Clemens. I'm a lieutenant with the Pennsylvania State Police. I'm also the Eastern Section 24 Commander for the Bureau of Liquor Control enforcement, and in that role, I oversee three 113 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 offices, one located in Wilkesbarre, one located in Allentown, and one located in Philly. The Philly office works very closely with the Philadelphia citywide vice. They do a lot of details together, and they've formed a task force where they actually work on Thursdays and Friday nights together to address underage drinking problems and nuisance bars. Each of the -- there are nine officers that the State Police run throughout the State. Each of the officers use the ID check. Now, I must say this, I have to qualify this. The State Police has a policy of not endorsing or not stating a position towards any of these devices, or whether or not a municipality should use it or anything dealing with local ordinances. But we've used them and they've been effective. And that's all I have.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Lieutenant. And again thank you, all of you for your patience in staying here all this time this morning. Realizing that the State Police do not 114 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 take a position to endorse devices, but in your experience, do you find these to be effective? LT. CLEMENS: They work.
Yes. LT. CARR: As a result of working with the State Police, my unit has just purchased -- that's one of the ones that we've just purchased because we have found them very effective. It makes the police officer's job faster to doing checking. By the same token, it will make the bar owner's position of checking things move faster, easier, and it gets word gets out that we are checking IDs and if you have a phony ID, chances are you're not going to go in. Remember that the underage drinker doesn't realize that this is just reading the magnetic strip. The underage drinker is seeing people getting caught with phony IDs and then word just get out that, you know, you're not going to get in with a phony ID.
Now the jig's up, Lieutenant, because they're going to all get, you 115 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269 know, the notes from this testimony 'cause I'm sure every underage drinker is aware of what City Council's doing and they're going to look for a way to alter the magnetic strip. A question to the bar owner. Liability-wise, this has to help you. I mean, if somebody comes through here and somehow gets through this, and I'm sure there will be a way to get through this and they'll come out with something new in five or six months or two years, but your --
To give you a sense of what the technology is, there's basically three. There's the standard bar code that you see in the market or any consumable that you buy. There's something called the two dimensional bar code which looks like a bar code but it's sort of squiggly. And then there's the magnetic strip. In order to copy a bar code and a two-dimensional bar code, what you need is a very sophisticated piece of equipment called "a copier," and you can copy it. In order to be able to copy a magnetic strip or produce a magnetic strip, you need a pretty fancy piece of equipment, and not many kids are going to have access to that equipment. 116 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010269
But my question is, liability-wise, this helps you. I mean, if you serve someone and they turn out to be instead of 5 21 but you swiped 'em and you did all you could do, 6 that -- 7
You have to understand 12 that during Fat Tuesday, Lt. John Walker of the 13 Bainbridge substation had called Card Con Technology 14 in California, and they had wanted to use a unit, 15 and I lent one to the police. And Lt. Walker had an 16 officer standing outside of Fat Tuesday's carding 17 everyone; Fat Tuesday's had no violations. The way 18 I see it, most of the violations that happened down 19 there on South Street were people selling cans out 20 of the trunks of their cars. I also know that working that day in the Northeast and asking kids where they were going, they all told me they were going to South Street. They were all 21, but they all bought beer and brought it down to South Street with 'em. So John 117 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010274 Walker is doing a heck of a job. And as Councilman DiCicco had stated before, he's donated several of these machines to the police on South Street. The Tower Theater, the TLA and Electric Factory are using these pieces of equipment.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we're going to move on to Bill No. 010274. Mr. Allen, could you read that.
Bill No. 010274, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Building Code, entitled "The Building and Construction Occupancy Code," by amending Section 19 B-3302.0, entitled "Construction Documents and Special Permits," by adding provisions for the dumping of waste materials, all under certain terms and conditions.
Any witnesses? Mr. Haigler from the Administration and Mr. Maner (ph.) of Juniata Park fame, I think, the younger 118 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010274 brother of Eddie Maner, the illustrious Philadelphia policeman. You're not saying nothing, Mr. Maner. (Witnesses come forward.)
How you doing? Who goes first? Mr. Haigler, go ahead.
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee on L&I. 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 010274, which, if enacted, will amend Chapter 14 33 of the building code to require persons responsible for waste generated as part of a demolition permit activity to submit documents to the Department attesting to proper waste disposal. After careful review of the proposed bill, along with amendments which were drafted by the Law Department at the request of the sponsor, the Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 010274. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time. And I have a copy of the amendments if 119 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010274 you would prefer that I read them into the record.
The proposed amendments to Bill No. 010274. Under Section B-3302, Construction Documents and Special Permits. Section B-3302.1, Temporary Construction. Before any construction operation is started, construction documents shall be filed with the code official showing the design and construction of all sidewalks, sheds, temporary vehicle passageways, trestles, foot bridges, guard fences, (delete the word "and") other similar devices required in the operation and any location where waste materials will be -- delete the word "dump" and insert the word "disposed." Section B-3302.5, delete that entire section. Section B-3313.0, Removal of Waste Material. B-3313.1, under "General," materials shall not be dropped by gravity or thrown outside the exterior walls of a building during demolition or erection unless in -- delete the big W for wood and insert a small W for wood -- or metal shoots. Delete the phrase "shall be provided," and continue 120 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010274 with "specifically designed for the removal of such material." Where the removal of any material will cause an excessive amount of dust, such material shall be wet down to prevent the creation of a nuisance. Insert the entire phrase within seven days of disposal of any waste material created found amassed or collected in connection with any demolition activity for which a permit is required under this code, the person responsible for the matter shall submit proof to the Department of the name and address of the location where such materials were disposed. The cost of disposal and documentation from the party authorized to accept the waste materials for disposal, including the signature of the representative of such party. Insert Section B-3313.2, Definition. Waste material shall mean any garbage, combustible waste, or noncombustible waste as those terms are defined in Section 9-604 of the Philadelphia Code, and any other material of any kind collected and removed for the purpose of disposal. End of amendments.
I have a question. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 121 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010274 Mr. Haigler, are there any regulations when a building is being -- if a building is in the process, the facade of the building is in the process of being cleaned by either way of sandblasting or liquid materials, do we require any sort of material to be placed over the facade of the building of the scaffolding to hold down the air pollutants that may --
That falls under the responsibility of the Department of Air Management. That's not a requirement of the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
The reason I ask that is I understand this is about waste disposal, but it also talks about the removal of materials by way of a shoot, which will reduce the amount of dust, I assume, that could obviously get into the atmosphere.
And I think the same argument could be made for dust and particles that could wind up in the atmosphere as a result of sandblasting and facade cleaning. And if it's Air Management, obviously I'll bring it with up with 122 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010274 them. I don't want to mix the two, but it's similar in a sense 'cause you're trying to hold the dust down.
All right. And because it's going through a shoot, it's also dust that could be by way of the sandblasting or other process that may be in place to remove the grime from buildings. So you're not familiar with that, right?
No. That's an Air Management requirement; that's not something that we enforce.
Any other question for this witness? (No further questions.)
Okay, seeing none, 123 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 000657 you witnesses are excused. No more questions. We're going to go -- this concludes the public hearing of Licenses and Inspections. But before we do that, we want to go back. Mr. Haigler has answers for Councilman Ortiz's question on 000657, the posters.
In reference to the temporary signs, I think there was a question as to whether or not that issue was enforced. I have made a phone call during our recess to our Business Compliance Unit, and I've been informed by them that emphatically, we do enforce that section related to the removal of signs. It's primarily done upon complaint. We don't have inspectors roaming the City to look for political posters, but if we do get a complaint, we will enforce on that complaint. So I have been told and I've been by the supervisor that we do in fact enforce that. And we have received complaints, even recent complaints, to do that.
But you don't know what the results of those enforcement actions have been, right?
I can't tell you specific 124 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 locations. Don't know if they maintain a record of specific locations on that. I can't tell you that. But normally, from what I've been told by the supervisor, once the campaign has been made aware that we have been informed about a violation of the code, they generally send somebody out to take the signs down.
Okay, any questions for him on this? (No further questions.)
All right. We're going to go back over to Bill No. 010369, and Councilman Nutter's going to read some amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how I ended up with this.
As determined by Mr. Haigler from L&I. All right, there are two sets of 125 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 amendments, as I can best figure it out. There was a single sheet handed out earlier that was amending the bill before these other amendments came through. They were tagged as 39 and 58. So why don't -- All right, what we're going to do is, the Administration has sent over, which is in the exact copy of the actual bill, it says "proposed amendment to Bill No. 010369." We're going to do those amendments first and then come back and get the amendments that I think Councilman Mariano had or a couple other Councilmembers had because of some mistakes that were in the original bill. Mr. Haigler is very confused. The other amendments were dealing with the fact that in the present bill, there was something mentioned called the 80th Ward for number 39, which does not exist, and some other correction in number 58. It will be clear when you get your single sheet. Mr. Chairman, the amendments are -- in the bill before us, there is a listing under Property Maintenance, Section 309.2, is a listing of wards in numerical order, going down to number 31, which makes reference to the 5th Ward. The bill was 126 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 adding in items number 32 through 60. At the break between 31 and 32, the following language is being inserted: "Property Maintenance Section 309.2.1, additional emergency nuisance abatement areas. In addition to the foregoing wards, with respect to vacant lots only, the following areas shall also constitute emergency nuisance abatement areas: " The numbering from 32 in the original bill to 60, those are all being renumbered 1 through 29 and will remain the same in terms of the actual ward designations, with the exception that there is an additional amendment to what is now -- what was number 39 and is now number 8, making reference to the -- I'm sorry, making reference to the 3rd, the 8th, the 9th and 13th through 17th divisions of the, presently reads, 80th Ward. Delete that and insert "18th Ward." And on what was number 38, which is now number 27, it should read 1st through -- delete 7th, insert the 8th, and continuing, reading 12th, 15th, 20th, and 22nd through 35th divisions of the 45th Ward. That is in item 27. Hold on for one second. 127 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 Mr. Chairman, this would be all of the amendments to Bill 010369 that are at least in my possession.
Councilman Clarke has something to say on Bill No. 010369.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the Law Department and members of the Administration, we've gotten information as it relates to what an applicant can and cannot do under the Vacant Lot Abatement Program, and I'd ask whomever from the Administration can come on the record to talk about what that individual will be allowed to do.
I've been informed that the Law Department has issued a statement, a ruling that on a case-by-case basis -- and I believe this 128 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 is in conjunction with the Councilman's bill that he had passed -- that L&I at its discretion can require a fence to be placed on a lot.
Authorize, authorize, authorize. Can authorize a fence to be placed on the lot to abate the dangerous condition.
Councilman, again, because of your expertise in this particular area, I mean, what is L&I's role in this particular program versus -- I mean, the bulk of the testimony really was OHCD testimony and Administration. Who is in charge here, who's running this operation?
The program is being run out of the Office of Housing and Community Development. However, in accordance with the ordinance, L&I must go out -- a representative -- an inspector must go out and inspect the lot and make sure that it does constitute a public nuisance and is eligible to participate in this program.
In addition to which at this point in time, it was our understanding that Licenses and Inspections is the only agency that has 129 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the authority to enter onto a private property.
And, therefore, it was felt that the applicant would be an agent for Licenses and Inspections.
Because they would be the only authorized department that could enter a --
The actually abatement agreement is signed by the commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
Okay, so the question arises -- let's say that a person's going through the whole process, they're cleaning the thing, maintaining the lot, they've filled out all of their paperwork and the like. At what point -- if they say, you know, I'd like to put a fence around this particular lot, I continue to get abuse of this lot, whether it's paper wrappers or bags or any of the other stuff that people do, who are they 130 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 asking or who will they ask permission for the allowance to put a fence around this lot and who has the authority to say yes or no?
When applicants are asked to come to execute their abatement agreements, we can include that as one of the items on the agenda with respect to briefing the applicants. We can tell them now at this point that they may be allowed to put on -- to erect a fence on the property but that they have to seek special permission. That permission can come -- they can -- I can draft a form when they execute the abatement agreement if they are interested in putting up a fence or seeking permission to put up a fence. We can have them fill out a particular form and then I can --
I understand that, but who's going to decide whether they get that authority or not?
It will be an administrative judgement by L&I on a case-by-case basis.
Okay, that's good language. Now, in the previous matter that Mr. Haigler was talking about, the language that we 131 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 agreed on said that the Commissioner shall have the discretion to determine whether a fence or other protective device is necessary based on a planned reuse of the vacant lot by an abutting or nearby property owner, community development corporation, etc., or upon the written request of a City department, agency, or official. My question is to address the issue as raised by Councilman Clarke based on the understanding of the original intention of the program, as well as any other statements, promises, or commitments that were made in recent times, is whether or not the Department is comfortable or the Administration representatives are comfortable as it relates to the distinction that we have now made about these particular wards and the vacant lot program, whether or not language that is similar to that can be amended into the bill or should be amended into the bill to make it crystal-clear that there is at least either the opportunity and a procedure through which a person could go to get a vacant lot or, 'cause I see all the heads shaking back there, what is the assurance that the Councilman gets a comfortable level or any of us get 132 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 a comfortable level that a person is going to be able to do something other than the record that's being established here today?
I can't speak to that. I'd have to take that back to the Commissioner and discuss this with the Commissioner. I can't speak to that.
Well, I understand that, but you already agreed to that language in a totally different circumstance. I mean, this is a law signed by the Mayor.
Well, Councilman, as far as I'm concerned, people are authorized to put up a fence as we speak and as I was told early on in the process and I've been told that for the last three years, and this is the first time I'm hearing now today that people now don't have the authority to place a fence up. If anybody else requires some language in a bill, so be it, but everybody that I have talked to who have come into my office to get an application, I have told them what I had told from Day One, that they were authorized to put a fence up to secure the lot as a part of the abatement agreement. 133 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Councilman, I mean, I'll make my position very clear. I'm not necessarily pushing for the language. I only wanted to put forward the language as an example of something that we have done in the past. If you have a comfort level based on the statements or what's been laid out in terms on how the folks plan to administer the program, now they're talking about a new form or something like that, which will tell the person what their opportunity is, you know, I'm comfortable if you're comfortable but --
I'm comfortable because I believe that they're authorized to do it now.
All right. Everybody's comfortable? Okay, fine. We will now have the distinguished vice chair of the committee continue with our proceedings.
Are you comfortable? Is everybody comfortable? 134 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
All right, I guess we can proceed. Mr. Clerk, are we ready to proceed on the. . . This concludes our public hearing. 135 6/12/01 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING - - -
We will now go into the public meeting. I will now call for a motion on the amendments to Bill No. 010269.
Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendments as read into the record in the public hearing. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor? Can I move the amended bill, Bill No. 14 010369 as amended? I call for a motion. (Duly seconded.)
That bill will be reported out with a favorable vote. Can I call for a motion on the amendments to Bill No. 010274, as read into the record.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 010369 -- 136 6/12/01 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING
Call for a motion on the bill as amended, Bill No. 010369.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 010369, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
I like the bill. I just don't like the exclusionary aspects of it. That's why I'm voting against it.
Let the record be reflected that Councilman Ortiz has voted against the bill.
Because it is not a citywide bill and until it reflects the entire city, I would have to vote no, although I think the purpose of the bill is fine.
I call for a motion on the amendments to Bill No. 010274.
Call for a vote on 137 6/12/01 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING the amendments to Bill No. 010274.
I make a motion to amend Bill No. 010274. (Duly seconded.)
I now call for a motion on Bill No. 010274, as amended.
I make a motion for Bill No. 010274, as amended. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor? Bill No. 010274 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation program. Now I make a motion for Bill No. 010269.
Mr. Chairman, I move for the adoption of Bill No. 010269. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor of Bill 21 010269 be reported out with a favorable recommendation?
I call for a motion 138 6/12/01 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING on Bill No. 000657.
I make that motion that 000657 be voted out with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Let's try it again. All in favor? Opposed? Let the record reflect that the numbers are 4 to 3 in favor of reporting the bill out of committee. This concludes the public meeting of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. Is everybody comfortable? (Laughter.)
Thank you very much. (Adjourned 12:57 p.m.) 139 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 Tuesday, June 12, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BILL NO.'S 000657, 010269, 010274, 010369 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter