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.