COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 1, 1999 2:30 PM - - - BILL 990223 - Withdrawn at request of sponsor. BILL 990251 - Being held. BILL 990422 - Amending section of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Districts, by designating the south side of the 1400 block of Morris Street and 1421 West Passyunk Ave. as a new neighborhood business district. . . BILL 990494 - Held at request of sponsor. BILL 990533 - Amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales on Fifth Street. . . BILL 990565 - Amending Title 4 of Philadelphia Code by amending Section PM-308.0, entitled "Unsafe and Unfit Structures and Equipment," and Section PM-308.0, entitled "Imminently Dangerous Structures," by providing for the installation of a fence and other related measures after demolition of the dwelling. . . (Full text of all bills within transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X Bill 990565 Otis Haigler, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager, L&I Robert Solvibile, First Deputy Commissioner L&I Richard Feldgus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Services Director, L&I Paul Malvey, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Open Space Program, New Kensington CDC Ralph Winder, 38th Ward Leader, Democrat. . . 37 Terry Gillen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 South Street West Civic Association Bill 990422 Otis Haigler, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager, L&I Bill 990533 Otis Haigler, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager, L&I 3 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. The Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections is now in session. The first bill on our agenda today is Bill No. 990565, an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction Code," by amending Subcode PM (The Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code), by amending Section PM-308.0, entitled "Unsafe and Unfit Structures and Equipment," and Section 14 PM-308.0, entitled "Imminently Dangerous Structures," by providing for the installation of a fence and other related measures after demolition of the dwelling, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the reporter and proceed.
Yes. I'm Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of L&I. Today, Councilman Kenney and members of the committee, I am here to provide testimony on 4 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 Bill 990565, amending the property maintenance code, Sections PM 307 and Section PM 308 repairing, the installation of a fence and providing environmental treatment on residential demolition sites. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is strongly opposed to the enactment of this bill due to the fiscal constraints the bill places on the Department's operating budget. If enacted, the Department projects that it will have to expend $3,565,856 yearly to enforce the requirements to erect fencing on residential lots. This figure is based on an analysis of the costs associated with providing fencing and the total number of residential properties which were demolished by L&I during FY '99. The fiscal burdens of this bill on the Department's demolition budget will impact on our ability to demolish imminently dangerous and dangerous buildings by diverting funds away from those critical areas to enforce the requirements of this bill. Currently, our department has a budget of approximately $10 million for the demolition of imminently dangerous and dangerous 5 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 structures. This figure also includes providing stucco on the adjoining walls of the properties after the buildings have been demolished. We project that if this bill is enacted, the diversion of funds from our demolition budget will equate to 427 residential properties that have been classified as dangerous, which we would not be able to demolish due to this budget constraint. This will severely hamper our efforts to respond and abate conditions which constitute threats to public safety and health. As a recommendation, the Department is willing to assist in ways to possibly expedite the process for persons or groups to obtain vacant lots for either private or community development. This, in turn, will place the responsibility for maintenance of the lots in private hands and not add additional burdens to our limited resources to address immediate safety concerns. We respectfully request that consideration be given to withdrawing or tabling Bill No. 990565 at this time so that collectively, we might work together to address our common concerns regarding public safety and health. 6 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
Good afternoon. Thank God it's not morning any longer. We have some information that was requested --
I'm sorry. Robert Solvibile, First Deputy Commissioner, Licenses and Inspections. Councilman Nutter, I have some information you requested this morning -- not all of it. I have a list of the buildings demolished, I believe, since 6/30/88 and also --
'98. And also a list of the yearly expenditure and the amount of buildings demolished since 1989. 7 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
It's the amount of money expended from 1989 through '99 fiscal years for demolition and stuccoing of the buildings. And it breaks it down between residential and commercial, and so on and so forth.
Thank you very much. I'm sorry, is there more testimony?
I am Richard Feldgus, Administrative Services Director of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. As the person responsible for the Department's budget, I'd like to point out to you that when we say the words "opposed to this bill 21 because of the financial implications," if you look at the chart we've provided you, you can see that the average cost of demolition has risen dramatically over the past five years. We are now spending over $11,000 for an 8 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 average cost of demolition because of additional requirements placed on the Department and conditions that we have now found to exist in the city. To add this additional cost to that, we'll just further weaken our ability to demolish buildings. As you can see, in 1997 and '98, we did approximately 1500 demolitions. That was reduced to slightly over a thousand this past year. If we were to implement this bill, we would be dropping our number of demolitions to probably something in the vicinity of about 6 or 700. To give you some idea, right now, we typically get in approximately 20 to 25 new imminently dangerous buildings per week. So that if we reduce our capacity to anything less than where we are, we will be far below our ability to keep up with the existing imminently dangerous buildings, which means that for the sake of providing fencing, we will be leaving dangerous buildings standing, which pose a much more serious hazard to the community. So our position would be that the priority would have to be given to the demolition of buildings over fencing of buildings. 9 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
Can I ask you a question just relative to the jump in costs from '98 to '99. Why is there such a substantial jump?
We were working with the District Attorney and the Philadelphia Police Department, and we found that the fill being put in demolition sites wasn't up to standards for law, and we inventively came up with a better way of determining what was buried underground, which brought up the cost of doing business. And I might add that this cost that Richard Feldgus just talked about is still taking into account that we still try to do as many string demolitions as possible, which gives us a lower cost per unit. Like in Washington Square, we really-- in South Philadelphia, Jefferson Square -- Councilman corrected me. In Jefferson Square, we were able to string together a couple blocks at a time, and it really brought our unit costs down. And even with that, our costs are still going to be rising because of this environmental concern as to what's buried.
Why, then, did the 10 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 average cost of the commercial demos go down?
Demolition cost is -- commercial buildings, a lot of times, they're not even cellars involved with demolition of commercial buildings, they're on grade. And that always was heavy in transporting debris away from the site. It's -- whereas in row homes, mostly everything got buried and it was not as much cost to bring -- to go to dumps in row homes.
Is there also a problem related to -- or an additional cost related to the need to separate material now, as opposed to -- I know there's a time factor involved in the separation of material. Is there a cost --
I -- I -- Councilman, I think they always separated materials because a lot of demolition contractors live off of what they can junk -- the metals and the coppers. So I believe that was always in the --
No. They were doing that before it was law. 11 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess first for Mr. Feldgus. Do you have any information on the figures for how much it costs to clean a lot?
Yes, sir. We did it for somebody else today, so I'm pretty positive of that information.
And that's with the average amount of debris you find when doing dirty lots, Councilman. 12 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
Right. And do you have any information on how many lots you've cleaned more than once?
I think in your district, I know of one street. I think it begins with a P -- Pentrose or something? We've done it several times. We typically, with lots, find a repeat on the same lots. There's some lots that people just naturally take care of in the community without any effort or involvement from the City, and some that just get dumped on by the --
So tell me what the calculation is on the cost savings if you are able to put preventative measures in place, both from an environmentally-safe vegetation control measures as well as the general prevention of short dumping on these lots. What kind of money would you save if you did those kinds of things?
I couldn't answer that right now. I know with the environmentally treating the lots so vegetation doesn't grow, it 13 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 would have to be done yearly. It's not a -- you just can't do it once and forever and not have weeds grow. But I really do not have that --
Well, you might do it once, and subsequently, either when the next-door neighbor either acquires or decides to get involved in the lot, or the community group decides to get involved in the lot, they might pick that up at that point in time; isn't that possible?
One thing I should mention to you, Councilman, is that we have a problem with fenced lots in terms of cleaning them up because where we can use machinized equipment on a lot that's not fenced, with a fenced lot, we have to put people in there, and they have to go in by hand. And that means they're using hand sickles and things like that to cut down weeds and things of that nature.
So that it becomes a much more expensive process on a fenced lot. But moreover -- 14 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
Part of the goal here, Mr. Feldgus, though, is not necessarily to have you come back to the fenced lot if the lot was left in a decent condition after the demolition and after the stucco work. If you were to environmentally treat it and then put a fence on it, you do, at least in some neighborhoods, help to prevent the short dumping. You've had at least -- if Bob Solvibile's testimony is correct, you get about a year out of it. In the meantime, again, there is reason to believe that in some neighborhoods, either one of the next door neighbors in a middle-of-a-block demolition or the sole next-door neighbor or the community for the end-of-the-block lot would do something with that lot. What I'm trying to get to -- and I'm not saying that fences are the universal answer to every problem in every neighborhood -- is, we respond to the constituent complaint or just your own observation that a building is dangerous. And we take care of it, we demolish it. We then go to the stucco work for the adjoining neighbors, and then we leave. 15 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 And in my opinion at least, we have not completed the last part of the job, which is to leave that lot in a condition that it does not become a blight to the neighborhood, that we don't necessarily have to return to it, that we don't allow people to congregate, that we don't make the next-door neighbor now more unsafe than they were, short of the building falling down, that we then demolish, and you end up with short dumping and I just end up -- and other Councilmembers end up -- calling either L&I or the Managing Director's Office to come back time and time again to deal with that lot. Now, you must expend some additional dollars to have our people return to that lot year after year, after year, after year. And so I'd just like to see some figures on that.
Well, part of the problem we have, Councilman, is that when we go out and do a demolition of an imminently dangerous building, the right for us to do that -- remember that we're dealing with private property.
What we do first is, we 16 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 go out and make an inspection --
Yeah. We write a violation telling the owner that he has to fix the property.
The Home Rule Charter gives us the power that we have to abate that condition.
Okay? The only power we have is limited to the abating of the dangerous condition. Once the building is demolished, the vacant lot is no longer a dangerous condition. We can't order the owner to put up a fence, so we don't really legally have the right to put up a fence.
In some situations, Mr. Feldgus, and we've known each other for a long time and, I mean, we're not going to spend all day arguing. In some situations, the vacant lot is a danger to the neighborhood, certainly to the next-door neighbor. 17 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
And we would agree that on those situations, we could act. But I think that what this bill doesn't differentiate, I think that, you know, if that would be a middle ground that we could reach, Councilman, that would be fine.
Well, again, let me respectfully disagree with you. The provisions of the bill -- and I assume that you're reading it somewhat similar to other folks in the administration as a little bit of a group think thing going on here. The provides a level of discretion and judgment for the L&I commissioner to decide that a lot particular lot may not need to be fenced. I mean, I am not so irresponsible, nor do I think I know what's going on in every section of the City to say that every building that comes down, that every lot should have a fence on it. Every lot does not need to have a fence on it because, in some neighborhoods, people don't want a fence, or maybe they want it open for their garden or for their sitting area or for a play area or something like that. 18 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 But some element of planning, except for the -- you know, I've been called out to buildings, and the situation was so dangerous that we didn't have time to do anything other than get out of the way of the falling bricks, and the thing came down next day. But every building is not like that. And so, you know, in a slightly less than perfect world, we know we're going to demolish XYZ on North 60th Street. Let's talk to the next-door neighbors and tell them, We plan to take this building down sometime soon, do you have an interest in this lot? Or to the community organization, What would you like to see happen at this lot? Now, we're going to take building down in a month. We're going to do stucco on the adjoining neighbors' buildings. Do you want a city garden? You know, and I'm not saying that we're going to solve all of these problems, but we don't want to leave the thing unsafe. Now, do you have an interest in acquiring? Yes, no. Maybe you can pursue it pursue through a 1202-A program if that particular area or that ward is eligible for that kind of 19 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 program. But we are not going to leave you here naked, with a vacant lot next to your house. And if they say they don't want a fence, then fine, they don't want a fence, and you have the discretion to exercise. So I understand where, you know, the $3 million figure comes from. We did X-amount of demolition last year, we're going to put a fence on every one of them. Fences cost X-amount of dollars. The next thing you know, you're in the $3 million range, which, just off to the side, in a government with a $2.7 billion budget, $3 million is not a lot of money, but I understand that 3 million is 3 million. What you've not asked for is any assistance from the Council to increase your demolition budget because you're basically told to live with what you have, but that's another discussion for another day. I don't expect every lot to get a fence on it. What I'm asking for is some element of thinking outside the box that we continue to revolve in that says that some places need something different. So if you --
Well, we agree with you. 20 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 I think what we have to do is continue to refine this bill so that we can get that rather than have this bill adopted now in its present form. But we don't disagree with you. I mean, we've been living with this problem for many, many years, you're aware of that.
And we're very concerned about it, and we tried a whole number of things over the years, you know. We used to put gardens in for people, you know, and then we found out that what we were using created rat harborages, so we had to stop using that, you know.
We used to plant trees and we used to find that people broke the trees because, you know, you couldn't put in a mature 30-year-old tree; you put in a 5-year-old tree that has a trunk about that big, and kids break it lie that. So, you know --
I mean, you know, we've 21 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 been going through this for many, many years. I think -- and I agree with you -- that a lot of it depends on the individual circumstances --
-- that are in the community that we have to try to deal with.
But I think we should not deal with it as this piece of legislation, but try to work out programs to handle the individual problems.
I think -- also, Councilman, there's two areas that I've really been impressed with that have done with their vacant lots -- Point Breeze in South Philadelphia, west of Broad, and New Kensington CDC. Great, great.
I mean, in New Kensington, apparently, if you plant trees, they don't short dump on your lots anymore. And in Point Breeze, it was a long process where they have wedding gardens, I think, sitting gardens for 22 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 senior citizens, things for kids. So it really involves a plan that's well thought out and work with the community, and then the process of placing the lots.
And I think that to put you at ease, anything that we see is a danger while we're doing the demolition -- i.e., behind a railroad where there's an embankment -- that automatically gets a fence under our present policy. If there's a big drop or some reason to guard a person from walking over and falling down several feet, we would place a fence. Where in some cases -- not in all cases-- where people call us first, where the building itself acted as a fence wall, we will put a fence there to their protect back yard. So it's not just cut and dried that we don't do it; it's just that we don't routinely do it unless there's a, as you say, a dangerous condition.
Sure. Well, I don't want to drag this out and I know that there are some community people here to testify. But I 23 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 do want to say two last things. One, there are some areas in our city where maybe the community- based organizations are either not of the capacity and caliber of either a New Kensington CDC or a Point Breeze, or they're just not into that particular thing. In some areas, they're nonexistent. Part of my difficulty and frustration is, if I have a person, you know, maybe they're 70, 80 years old, just had a building come down next door to them, there is no community-based organization, they're not necessarily the green thumb of the block, when you're done and you've finished stuccoing that lady's wall, all they have is a vacant lot next to them where the kids and the trash and all the other stuff come to congregate. And I have to figure out what we are going to do for that person today. That's the one thing. Second, there are some community-based organizations here that are strong and do have capacity, and I think they want to share some of their experience in this whole process as well. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll 24 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 conclude any of my questions. And I think there are people here who want to testify.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically most of the things I wanted to talk about have been touched on. New Kensington was one of the areas I was going to speak to because it's in the northern end of my district and they've done a great job when it comes to demolition and planting trees. I'm certain that there are a few trees that get broken but the vast majority of the trees that I've seen that have been planted in lieu of the jersey barriers, that was one way in which L&I or the Streets Department attempted to prevent short dumping. With that, then, as you know, it created a canvas for graffiti and made, in some instances, the esthetics even worse than what was there prior to. And I do agree with Councilman Nutter that I think that maybe what we need to do is look at the cost benefits long-term. I think as a city 25 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 sometimes, we generally have a tendency to look at things short term but not look at the long-term benefits as what the costs are to continually go back to that same site, because I can remember having a similar conversation about two years ago during the budget hearings with the Streets Department Commissioner about how many times do the Streets Department employees have to go out to a particular lot or lots throughout the City and clean the same lot over and over again, and I think it's probably why we're here today. We talk about why don't they encapsulate it with some fencing or some trees. Maybe what we need to do is do some joint meeting or hearing between this committee and the Streets Department and bring all the people in who are doing this. I'm certain that some of the lots -- and let me -- when I ask you to explain to me, when L&I, you actually clean a lot after demolition a year later, after the building's been demolished, do L&I employees go out and clean?
But I assume, and if I'm not mistaken, the Streets Department also has resources to clean those lots up.
So you actually might be doing the same lots, so a lot that you may do twice, would be it be possible that they've done it?
But basically, Councilman, the way it works is that the primary responsibility for lots is L&I's 'cause it's private property and not the street. But where a lot is so badly short dumped on it, we can't handle it on our own --
-- we have a cooperative effort and we work together. But it is organized as to which ones get done.
One thing I should point out to you, when you talk about going back and 27 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 maintaining lots, the fencing that would be erected would also have to be maintained. A number of years ago -- this goes back to the early '80s -- the Council passed a bill, the Railway Fencing Act, and at that point, I was involved heavily in that and the railroads were involved heavily in it. And what we found over a period of time was that the fencing was being ripped down almost as quickly as it was being put up, and that there is a very serious maintenance problem that has to be considered in a lot of areas of the City. So that when, in fact, you put up fencing, you cannot just walk away from it and think that that's going to be the end of the problem; it will not be.
Well, my experience too is that a lot of these issues have to do with larger lots in more isolated areas. If you have a lot in the middle of rowhouse street, I mean, it's not impossible to have it stolen, but it's less likely that the front or the back of that lot's fencing is going to be dismantled and stolen. The lots that I've experienced theft of cyclone fencing have to do with larger, probably formerly 28 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 industrial parcels that are in an area that doesn't have anybody who can anything to call the police about it, as opposed to what I think Councilman Nutter's trying to address, and that is vibrant neighborhood and/or retail areas where there's traffic and people and somebody to call 911. I mean --
I think that any plan we put together, or any legislation that we -- like you mentioned having the group meet and a thing of Council meet. It would be a benefit to improving the community, but I think that if we don't rush with this one and come up with a better way of doing it, we'd all be better off. You're right, like with the big lots, we've found that the fence got stolen but then we came up with jersey barriers, and it worked somewhat.
They stopped short dumping anyway and short dump in the street, which makes it a Streets Department problem.
Thank you. I just wanted to follow up. And, again, I don't think 29 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 there's any universal solution to these problems because even if you do the trees, which I think is much more esthetically pleasing, and I think if you clean the neighborhood, it allows for your maintenance people to get in their with some heavier equipment that the fencing would not allow. The problem is, as Councilman Nutter pointed out, sometimes you have a single-family dwelling now that is exposed on all four sides so there's a question of security, and you don't want to leave those people exposed. So there's some cases where you would have to do maybe a combination of the two -- not maybe as extensive an amount of fencing, but a little bit at the back end of the property to close off what was formerly the alley.
Basically too, a lot of senior citizens, when you create an open space next to their lot, the kids start hanging around and then they become very concerned about that, too -- which creates another problem.
Commissioner, the area of short dumping, the subject of short dumping, the Police Department's sanitation division, I believe, is responsible for investigating short dumping?
Yes. We write violations against the lot, but the police sanitation division would investigate.
Could you just comment briefly on the process that we use in the City to investigate. Are people being -- I'm sure there are people being arrested for short dumping, but is the risk of being apprehended so small that contractors and people just short dump because they don't believe they're going to be arrested? Could you describe the investigative process?
Sure. I can speak to our contractors' demolition. They now know the law is what it is and that you can't short dump on top of or bury. A cooperative effort between the Philadelphia Police Department's industrial waste unit, I believe it's called, Lieutenant Nealy (ph.) is the person in charge of that unit, and the district attorney's office, we had a joint 31 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 investigation going on on our contractors and found several -- one contractor who is being brought to trial for violation of it, so the world of L&I contractors now knows this is the law. But would have to ask the Police Department about what they do on top of short dumping situations. I know when we call and they investigate, they do a good job.
So if, let's say, a contractor that's not one of yours, I mean that would be a disgrace if one of your own would short dump, and they deserve to be put in jail.
You never know, Councilman. You never know how dumb people are, you really don't.
Yeah. That would be that would be just hard to accept. But I'm talking about the small renovation contractor that's got a dump truck full of junk, dry wall, and he backs up --
And he backs up, are we -- and, again, you said to ask the Police Department, but are you satisfied that the Police 32 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 Department is doing enough to pursue and apprehend short dumpers?
I'm really not sure, other than my own personal involvement, and they've been effective for me. But I don't know about the City in general so I couldn't answer that question.
Just for your information, Councilman Rizzo, one thing the police did do at our request was to upgrade the radio priority call for short dumping to a vandalism in progress, which it was, and in effect, the short dumping is a vandalism in progress. So it doesn't get the same priority call as a man with a gun or a person screaming, but it did move up the ladder when the guy's backing the truck up and the lady looks out her window and sees it and calls 911. The priority has been increased to a vandalism in progress, short dumping in a particular location. So I think they've been little more successful because they're getting there quicker.
Thank you. Thank 33 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 you for that.
Any more questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? All right are you together? Are the three of you together? There's just one witness? Please come forward. Who else? Come on up. Bring them up so we'll have two and then two. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Councilman. My name is Paul Malvey. I'm the Director of the Open Space Program at New Kensington CDC. We wanted to testify about the bill 24 with mixed feelings. We need to fence in some lots. A lot of what I was going to say has 34 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 already been discussed out so far. But we've been very successful without fences, with organizing our neighbors to get together and clean these lots and keep them clean by assuming an ownership that is not real but that is assumed because they put their time and effort into cleaning. One of the things we're interested in is after the fact, where the fences would go up, how would we remove the fences after the case, and would L&I be able to go in then and maintain these lots once they're sealed off, and how would we get access to them? We're also concerned about the soil -- the environmentally friendly soil treatment. Is the soil to be sterilized? And if, then, someone were to come in from the community and want to work on this, would the soil have to be removed before a garden could be put in. Further, we have found that by cutting the weeds and keeping them trimmed or planting grass seed or keeping the rain water on the lot and not washing it into the sewers, if you clear off all the vegetation, you're surely going to wash that soil right down the sewer, and that 35 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 can't be very good for the environment. As I said, most of the things have been said. One of the other things we wanted to know was, if the fence were to be put up on lots, would an organization like ours be able to get money for trees instead of fences, if this is going to the rule of thumb that a fence has to go up. If we were to claim a particular lot, can that money be put into other uses or different types of things? That's all I have to say.
Thank you. Thank you first for your testimony, Mr. Malvey. Secondly, I think you may have heard some of the discussion about the notion that every lot doesn't have to have a fence on it. I mean, I certainly 36 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 believe that. I'm aware of your work, and there is some discretion for the L&I commissioner in those kinds of situations. We also did try to anticipate some of the issues that you've raised today in the bill in talking about the L&I department working cooperatively with other city and city-related agencies on any plans for the acquisition, disposition, and reuse of these vacant lots, including, but not limited to, community development housing, neighborhood gardening, landscaping, play areas, side yards, kind of, you know, a large array of different things. Again, that could be done with the lot. I mean, I'd be the first to say -- I mean, I don't want the City to just end up with a whole lot of lots with fences on them. I really want something to happen to them, but sometimes those things take time, and the time between the demolition, the stucco and all the people go away, and the day that something more positive happens at that lot, in the interim, often a lot of bad things happen. So I'm just trying to secure the place 37 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 in the anticipation with plans that something more beneficial to the neighborhood will happen.
But with others, we would like to have the discretion to work with them.
Ralph Winder, 38th Ward Leader Democrat and Chairperson of the Residents Coalition Community Organization. Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco, Nutter, Kenny, and Rizzo.
I'm here to speak in 38 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 support of this bill. And I'm in support of it because I know that, from living in my community, people are very frustrated, annoyed, and totally upset about the conditions of abandon housing and vacant lots that are strewn with trash and debris throughout many inner-city neighborhoods. And as I looked at the campaigns that recently took place throughout our city, almost every candidate spoke of a need to turn their attentions to the neighborhoods, to begin to spend funding and money in the neighborhoods, as opposed to the Center City area, which, I believe, has been marvelously improved. So now, as I begin to hear criticisms, monetary criticisms of what it would cost in order to do what I consider to be a very minimal effort at improving and revitalizing our neighborhoods, I'm a little surprised, because what it costs to improve Center City and some of the Avenue of the Arts kind of complexes are tenfold, twentyfold the cost of what it would take to put a fence around a vacant property after an abandoned property has been torn down. And so I think that, you know, it's a 39 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 great need for us to protect not only our communities from trash being thrown or by short dumpers throwing trash in our neighborhoods, but also the environmental issue that we speak about is important, because if we would safeguard young children from playing in areas where a building had just been torn down and they have poison ivy or some other foliage which could be either contagious or poisonous, then I think that we would begin to save our children and our communities from health injuries as well as possibly from suits. And there can be ways against us for leaving these lots open that have dangerous foliage or debris in them. So I'm saying that I think this bill 17 should be highly considered and supported by this Council. A number of years ago, back -- in fact, a lot of years ago, back in the '60s, I was a part of a community organization that went around and just would take abandoned lots and then began to turn them over and plant vegetation or flowers and put benches in there, and we were admonished by the City that these were not our property, that we could not just take the lots that were already 40 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 strewn with debris and trash, we could not just take destructive areas like this and turn them into what we considered to be constructive areas in our community. And so we made up our minds that we was going to continue to challenge that law, and we were going to continue to take these lots people, and the people in the Ridge Avenue and Cecil B. Moore area began to call these lots "victory lots," and they began to farm and plant -- and I'm getting to the point to say that eventually, we agreed to stop doing this, but only when the City began to discuss coming up with a urban gardening program, a vacant property review board, and all types of other things that sprung out of our efforts to actually do civil disobedience in order to improve the look of our community. Right now, I think that this is an needed thing, because an unfenced lot is a invitation for dumping and for putting trash, and that people are less likely to throw bags of trash over a fence as they are to just walk in and to dump. And so I'm 100 percent in support of this bill. I do think it should be discretional. 41 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 Everyone may not want it, and I think that that should be a consideration. But, in general, I think this will improve the look of our neighborhoods and start the ball rolling toward improvement and neighborhood revitalization and make people in the neighborhood feel as though once an abandoned building comes down, it's not just meant for that lot to sit there with stones and rocks for children to begin to pick up these rocks and throw them at each other or to vandalize or whatever, break a window.
We need these lots secured and we need them accessible to the people in the community so they can begin to plant gardens or make sitting areas or whatever the community decides to do in harmony with the City.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions? (No questions.)
Thank you. Please come forward. (Witness comes forward.) 42 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565
Okay. Hi. I'm Terry Gillen. I'm a longtime neighborhood activist, committee person, and a member of the South Street West Civic Association and the South of South Neighborhood Association. With me is Doug Norman, who will speak for himself. I have testimony which I'll be happy to give you and I won't repeat it, but I just want to make a few points. The first is that several years ago, our civic association -- Doug can talk more about this -- surveyed our neighbors. We are south of South Street, west of Broad, and asked what are the most important issues? And the number-one issue in our neighborhood was vacant lots. It was higher than education and it was higher than crime, much to our astonishment. It is a huge issue in my neighborhood. Since becoming ward leader, it is the number-one issue that my constituents ask for. We have a huge vacant lot problem, and we're in a fairly vibrant and growing neighborhood. Unlike some neighborhoods that have been discussed today, 43 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 our neighborhood is developing, and because it's adjacent to Center City, it has potential for having private and subsidized development going up in it. So it is a troubling issue for us, and I'll just talk about one block that I'm grappling with right now -- the 2200 block of Fitzwater Street. If you go down that block, it's a gorgeous block with gorgeous houses on it. Last year, L&I demolished a house in the middle of the block. We didn't ask them to, they just did it. I think the house could have been saved, but that's over and done with. And then they demolished the two houses on either side, I guess, just for good measure. And now what was before an intact block now has this huge, gaping hole in the middle of the street, and the neighbors are grappling with the trash problem and are asking, Can we get a fence so that we can do a community garden? And I have to explain to these people, all of whom pay taxes, why they cannot get a fence for their tax money. And I just can't testify strongly 44 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 enough in favor of this bill. We have got to do something for people in middle-class and working-class neighborhoods who want to know why can't get help for some of these blocks. So I just strongly want to urge members to support it. I am not unmindful of the cost issues; however, I think in a city that has just run for the sixth year in a row with significant budget surplus, the cost of this is money well worth spent. And as we are finding out, as we have now lost 100,000 people just during the time of this administration, 100,000 residents who have left this city in the last 10 years, if we don't pay for this now, then we will pay for it later, by people leaving the city. And I think it's money well spent, and I would urge you to approve this bill. Thank you.
I just had a sidebar with Councilman Kenney. In the event we do put a fence-- maybe the L&I people could answer this question -- that could be added to the lien against the property, the cost of the fence, some day we would recover that. Unlikely? I don't know, but I don't know but I guess it's something -- I see you shaking your head back there. Come on up to the table and identify yourself, please.
Richard Feldgus, Administrative Services Director, Department of Licenses and Inspections. One of the problems with putting up fences is one that I discussed before. We can't issue a violation against the property for a fence to put up a fence, so therefore, we can't lien the cost of that fence to the property. If we do it, we're doing it, the City's doing it, and it's an expense that the City's just going to absorb.
Don't you lien the property now for the cost of demolition?
We lien the property for 46 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 the cost of demolition because what we do is when we issue a violation notice for the owner of the property.
Let me go to the next step. As a result of this bill, if we're requiring part of the demolition process to be the fence, why wouldn't the entire cost of the demolition, including your requirement to put a fence up, be liened to the property as a demolition lien?
But that's where we have our problem, Councilman, because under the Charter, our powers are the issue of violation for an unsafe or dangerous condition. A vacant lot does not constitute an unsafe or dangerous condition. So, consequently, we can't order people to do that.
You've got to have like a railroad embankment or other conditions that --
But if you go out and cite a property for its imminently dangerous condition and the owner is not there or not alive 47 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 or not in the universe, doesn't have any interest, you have to go out and take your powers and know the building down.
At which time, you attempt to recoup the cost of that demolition by putting a lien on that property.
You're correct, Councilman, but we usually don't collect the money.
Correct, but at some point in time, because the demolition of the property is in a particular area -- and we went through this today with Council President Verna's district when we talked about the taking of vacant lots and other types of things, and also in Councilmember DiCicco's district, he's dealing with some of the properties there. It's not likely but there is a potential, I guess, a potential that we could collect some of that.
Well, again, I'm not arguing or using that as a point to not do it. I'm just saying that under the existing Philadelphia Home Rule Charter position, we would 48 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 not have the legal right to lien the property for the cost of the fence. We would lien it for the demolition, which would be far in excess of the cost of the value of the property anyhow. We're talking about a property that's --
Hold on for one second. Are you sharing with us today that either by way of the charter or more by way of the Philadelphia Code, that it is not in violation to have a vacant lot with no protection on it, for which you can then cite someone? Is that the problem?
The problem is that the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter is very specific in stating that L&I can only abate a problem where there's a dangerous condition that exists.
I understand that, and some of us take the position that a vacant lot is a dangerous condition. I mean, are you telling me one that day, you had a building next to you, the next day you don't have a building, you now have a vacant lot, which is open front and back, which allows people to now immediately access in a different 49 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 way your property, the trash, the debris, the drugs, the other illegal activity. Are you telling me that that is not dangerous to the next-door neighbor?
Under some absolute interpretation of the word "dangerous"?
I would have to say that vacant property in and of itself is not dangerous. We have had vacant property in the City of Philadelphia, we have a park that's all vacant property -- is that dangerous? I would say no, it's not.
Are you equating a park to a regular neighborhood situation where there's all kinds of activity going on on the street?
I'm saying that a vacant lot in and of itself is not dangerous.
Well, let me go back to the original question. Are you saying that there's also no provision in the code that requires an owner of a vacant lot to not only 50 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 maintain it in a clean and safe fashion, but also a secure fashion? Is that the problem?
The code does not require it to be secured. It is required that the property must be kept in a clean fashion. You can't have weeds on that property above a certain height. They have to cut down the grass and the weeds on that lot. But it's not a safety issue. It's a sanitation issue rather than a safety issue, which is different from what we have the power to go in and lien against. That's the differentiation. Where we have a dangerous building, the City has no choice but to act. Where we have a condition, for instance, where somebody doesn't have heat in a property, that's a health- threatening condition, and we must act. Those are the places where we have abatement powers, where we can act and then follow up with a lien against the property. Now, I would agree with you, and we all know the amount of money that we get back from demolishing properties in this city is minuscule, and I am not trying to put forth as an objection 51 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 to this bill whether or not the property's liened, I don't think it's meaningful. I think that if the City wants to expend the money and put up a fence, then we're just going to have to do it, and that's the end of it, I think we're going to put up the fence. We used to have a program in this city called the Vacant Land Utilization Program -- it was in the Recreation Department. That program went on for many years. I don't know if you're familiar with it or not. That program attempted to take vacant lots like the property that's just been discussed and convert it into some type of useful property, whether it would be a vest pocket park or a garden area or things of that nature. And then the Recreation Department used to do the things of putting up fences and landscaping and doing all those things. I think that one of the things we might want to talk about is revisiting that whole idea because, for a period of time, that was an ongoing problem. Now funding killed that in the '80s when the Goode administration did not have the funding to continue and we had to start cutting programs, 52 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 so that was eliminated. But I think that if, in fact, there's money to be spent, it should be looked at as trying to do that kind of a program, particularly in good viable areas.
Well, your recitation of the history is probably now telling me what I'm dealing with in the 200 block of North Wharton Street, where I'm spending $75,000 to refurbish what was probably one of these --
Yeah. There was a recreation thing, then there's nothing there now and so I'm redoing it.
So, okay, all right thank you. Maybe there are some code issues that we need to take a look at.
Thank you. Mr. Feldgus, there are a number of variations of vacant lots throughout the City. 53 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 There are areas where there are vast amounts of vacant land that are nowhere near residential communities. I want to speak to, for a moment, a vacant lot similar to the lot that Miss Gillen just spoke to, where you have residential properties either on either side of the vacant lot or you have a vacant lot at the corner of a block and you have an occupied house adjacent to it or around the corner from it. Either way, it's somewhat adjacent to it. I think earlier today in the information that was supplied to us, we're spending on average about $11,000 to $13,000 to demolish a typical single-family residential dwelling in the City of Philadelphia today. And I understand your statements as it relates to the Philadelphia Charter and the codes and what have you. Could we not incorporate in the contract for the demolition of a property the cost of the fence to be installed by the contractor or his or her subcontractor, meaning the demolition contractor, and include that in the cost of the 54 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 demolition? Realizing that we're not going to get -- in most cases, we're not going to recoup the demolition cost anyway, but for the extra thousand dollars, which is probably high for a 16-foot- across, 6-foot high fence, with a gate, I think we're spending -- when I say "we," I have a nonprofit and we do some of this -- somewhere in the vicinity of 3 to $600 per lot. Could we not figure a way in saying, where there's a vacant lot that is bordered or adjacent to an occupied house or houses, the saw tooth, the middle of the block, that we would go for the expense of installing a fence with a gate at that lot site, but incorporate it into the cost of the demolition, because if we're fortune enough to get a developer to come in or we find the owner, and all of a sudden, the owner decides to make him or herself whole with the City and pay for the demolition and pay up the back taxes, I don't think they're going to say, Well, I don't have to pay the extra 600, it wasn't included because in the Charter, you were not allowed to, or not permitted to put a fence on that site. And I don't mean to be sarcastic or funny but that's 55 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 really -- I don't think anybody's going to go down and extract that.
And that's in most cases, in most cases, and there are exceptions. Most of the cases we're talking about are the 16-foot sections of six-foot high fence.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. I can just tell you that over the years, what has happened with those kinds of situations -- and we have done it over the years -- we have actually incorporated into certain of our contracts where we know the community has felt strongly, and we feel there's a dangerous condition, you know, a problem condition, something like that, we have included fencing as part of the treatment. One of the things that typically happens -- and this happens all the time, whether or not we have a fence there or not. People will go to the Board of Revision of Taxes or the Tax Review Board, and they will protest our bills, and they have a legal right to do that. And 56 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 invariably, this type of activity will be thrown out. I mean, they're just going to sever that from the bill and say no, that's not -- that was not part of what had to be done, therefore, we're not going to charge it. Now, I will also tell you that invariably, that same Tax Review Board will cut the demolition cost in half regardless of how much we spend, whether it's legal or not, merely because somebody shows up, so we do have a problem with that board. You know, again, I don't think -- I think we have to look at this from a standpoint of recognizing that certain things, if the City's going to choose to do it, if this Council's going to choose to do it, we're not going to be able to collect money for it, and that's just going to be the end of it.
Okay, could I go back again. When you make a decision on demolition, it is primarily based on the condition of the property.
It is unsafe, and 57 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 therefore, it warrants demolition. Could we not, in the language of the contract or whatever it is that you decide on a form, to say that this property is imminently dangerous; therefore, we should demolish it, but we also need to make the condition of the property safe. And the interpretation for "safe" is to either -- I won't use the word "encapsulate" it but to fence it as part of the making it safe condition in the first place.
Well, that's what Deputy Commission Solvibile told you that we do now. When we come into -- we are limited to where we would be exposing a safety hazard. So, i.e., if the house bordered on a railroad right-of-way or something of that nature, and we took the house down, we're exposing a dangerous condition. The Charter limits us to what we can legally do as far as putting an abatement charge against the property.
So if the demolition, if we were to build a three-foot trench across the face of that property, we could then say that we're putting a fence in to make it 58 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 safe so that someone doesn't fall into a three-foot trench. I mean, if you're putting it at the back of the property -- and I understand what you're doing here, there's the back end of a property and there's a five-, ten-foot drop-off so to make it safe so that no one falls, we're going to put in a fence.
And we include those in the demolition contract, and we do erect fences and --
But fencing it off in between two occupied properties, residential properties, to make it safe for the people who live on either side, so that outside folks don't enter that lot and have access to their yard, that is not considered making it safe?
No, because you're taking a vacant lot, it's a piece of ground.
But we made it a vacant lot. We've made it -- we tore down an existing building and created the vacant lot. And I'm not saying we're wrong for doing that, but 59 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 that's what we did, we create the vacant lot.
Yeah, but typically what we've done is, we've taken a vacant and open building that people have been able to go through willy-nilly whenever they pleased anyhow and we haven't really changed the circumstance.
If we fence it, we've changed it because they're not going to be able to go through willy-nilly, as you say, because we've taken a condition of a vacant building that is either deteriorated or structurally unsafe, that people have been entering and using it for prostitution, for drugs, vagrants get in there, what have you. It's unsafe. We take the building down and now we leave it exposed for the prostitutes, the drug dealers, and everything else that was going on inside the building. The only thing is, we took the walls down so now they could do it outside. It's unsafe before, it's unsafe after.
It's like an outdoor patio for the drug dealers and the --
The difference is that what we had before was a building that could fall 60 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 on somebody and kill somebody. A vacant lot is not going to fall on somebody and kill somebody. That's the difference.
This discussion got started as a result of issue raised as to whether or not it was lienable and collectible, and that was how we got started with this But, secondly, your testimony is, we're not collecting that much on demolition liens anyway, so really, the whole issue is kind of moot other than the argument as to whether or not it's safe or unsafe as a vacant lot.
That is correct, and we would not try to submit that as an argument against this legislation.
Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Norman, please. Please identify yourself.
My name is Doug Norman. I'm the Executive Director of South to South Neighborhood Association. Our borders are South 61 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 Street to Washington Avenue and Broad Street to the river. And if I may comment on some of this discussion. First of all, I'd like to describe, as you gentlemen, as you Councilmen have, real-life scenarios with an 82-year-old woman living next door when an L&I comes in, takes the building, and she gets robbed because now her back is open to the world. This is a situation the City has created, and it's hard to explain to the 82-year-old woman who has just been robbed blind, who lives alone, by the way, that no one had any idea of protecting her, we simply tore the house down and left her open. And this happens all the time. This is not an isolated incident. Secondly, in terms of the argument that these properties, once a building comes down, is not unsafe or dangerous, is a bogus argument. I can take you to my neighborhood and show you hundreds of lots. For those of you that were at the hearings this morning and have these pictures and I would ask that you -- I do not have another copy of them, but if you could maybe put those pictures in this record. 62 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 When you have lots that have not been cleaned for ten years and you have a child living next door, you have drug dealing on the lot night and day, with five feet of trash, if that child goes next door and happens to touch that trash and gets sick, if this isn't a dangerous situation, I don't know what it is. These drug dealers have guns -- that's not a dangerous situation? We need to get them off the lots. And I feel very strongly about that. I just will not accept this argument, and I hope you don't either, that once the building comes down, this lot is now not unsafe or dangerous. It's ludicrous.
We need to -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Have you completed your testimony?
I would just say emphatically that I understand that you can't get the $3 million back, or it's very difficult. And we all know that we can't get some taxes back. In this economy and what's happening in Center City, 63 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 and I'm two blocks away from it and so are a lot of other people, and I'm not saying that other areas of the city aren't important. But if you get the $3 million back enough, I would say to you that it's worth the $3 million to keep people safe. And I feel very strongly about that.
Thank you very much. Just two comments. Number one, I think the issue of the recoupment of the money was made clear in the line of questioning that Councilman Nutter engaged in with Mr. Solvibile and Mr. Feldgus and Mr. Haigler initially, and that is, how many times do we clean the same lot? How many times does the Streets Department clean it in addition to L&I cleaning it? And what is the cumulative amount of money spent in a particular 16-by-50-foot lot? And how much would be saved if, in fact, the money spent at the end of demolition to secure an actually cleaned lot? And I think that's part of what the issue of what the expenditures are. Secondly, let me say for the record, in defense of Mr. Feldgus and Commissioner Solvibile 64 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 and Mr. Haigler, they're here representing the view of the Administration. They're doing their job. They would like to have more than $10 million a year to demolish all of the properties that need to be demolished and to treat all of the areas need to be treated to make our neighborhoods a better place. This administration, to its credit in some areas, and maybe not to its credit in some others, is extremely concerned about the issue of increasing expenditures outside of our current budget that we have and outside of the five-year plan. It's been a consistent theme for the past eight years and they've been successful in that regard some of the issues. In fairness to them, they're really doing their job as good soldiers, as orders have been given to them to maintain this five-year budget, which we really don't disagree with either. I think the issue is one that comes down to, are we spending more money than we have to in order to keep and maintain lots after demolition than we would have if we had put a fence up. So I think those are the issues that 65 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990565 we're wrestling with. I don't think any of them disagree with the need to secure and maintain decent neighborhoods, but we'll make a decision as a result of our deliberations on what to do. Proceed your testimony.
One more thing. The hidden costs that no one talks about, Councilman Kenney -- and you have been as eloquent on this as anybody -- is the cost of people leaving the City.
And no one ever puts that calculation into the cost of any of this stuff. And I really think -- I mean, as I struggle with this block on Fitzwater Street and start seeing people leave the block and leave the City because they say, You know what? It ain't worth it. I'm not getting my money's worth. So I would caution you not to be too focused on the number -- the cost of cleaning up the lot versus the cost of fencing, because it's that hidden cost of people leaving and taxpayers leaving that never gets calculated.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
For the record, Bills No. 990251 will be held. Bill No. 990223 will be withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. Bill No. 990494 will be held at the request of the sponsor. If there's no one else to testify on this bill, we will now move to Bill 990422, which is an ordinance amending Section 9-206 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Districts, by designating the south side of the 1400 block of Morris Street and 1421 West Passyunk Avenue as a new neighborhood business district within which sidewalk sales are subject to the provisions of Section 9-206, and by specifying the number and the location of permitted vendor sites within that district, all under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Haigler, please identify yourself 67 12/1/99 L&I - BILL 990533 for the record and proceed.
Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Councilman Kenney and members of the committee, we have no objections to the enactment of this ordinance.
Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Haigler? (No questions.)
None. We will now move to Bill No. 990533, which an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales on Fifth Street, from Godfrey Avenue to Olney Avenue, both sides. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Yes. Otis Haigler, Jr., Department of Licenses and Inspections, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Mr. Chairperson and members of the 68 12/1/99 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING committee, on this particular bill, we have no 3 objections to the enactment and the enforcement of this bill.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions on the part of committee? (No questions.)
That will conclude the public hearing of the Licenses and Inspections Committee. - - -
We will now convene a public meeting. And the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for the purpose of offering amendments to Bill No. 990565.
Mr. Chairman, I have a couple amendments. Two are technical in nature, and one is to try, in other best efforts, to retain some level of friendship with Mr. Feldgus and Mr. Haigler, that we put some limits 69 12/1/99 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING on the requirements of the department. Mr. Chairman, in Section PM-307.6, on of the bill, where the new language starts with the sentence: "When the Department proceeds to demolish any. . ." insert "residential or neighborhood commercial corridor." And then the sentence would continue with ". . . dwelling, whether by contract. . ." The second amendment would be in the later sentence, which starts with: "In addition, the Department shall work cooperatively with other City and City-related agencies on any plans for the acquisition, disposition and reuse of. . ." delete the word "these" and insert the word "any." And in the next sentence: "Pursuant to a written request from a City department, agency or official, the Commissioner shall have the discretion to determine whether a fence is unnecessary. . ." insert "for any vacant lot" and continue the sentence with " . . .based on the planned reuse of the vacant lot or other unique circumstances." The same amendments would be made in Section PM-308.4. Again, it's to read: "When the 70 12/1/99 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING Department proceeds to demolish any. . ." insert "residential or neighborhood commercial corridor." And continue the sentence with ". . . dwelling, whether by contract. . ." Later, in the same paragraph: "Acquisition, disposition and reuse of. . ." delete the word "these" and insert the word "any." And at the end: "The Commissioner shall have the discretion to determine whether a fence is unnecessary. . ." insert "for any vacant lot" and continue the sentence with ". . . based on a planned reuse of a vacant lot or other unique circumstances." Those are all of the amendments, Mr. Chairman, and I would move the adoption of these amendments at this time.
All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. The amendments, as offered by Councilman Nutter to Bill No. 990565 are accepted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember 71 12/1/99 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING Nutter for a motion on the amended bill.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990565, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so a to permit consideration in our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and second. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 990565, as amended, will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a further request for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 990422, with a rules suspension request, please.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990422 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our 72 12/1/99 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 990422 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 990533.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990533 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit consideration at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 990533 is reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension so as to permit first reading 73 12/1/99 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING at our next Council session. Again, Bill No. 990251 will be held, Bill No. 990494 will be held, and Bill No. 990223 will be withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. Thank you very much for your attendance. (Adjourned at 3:44 p.m.) - - - 74 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, December 1, 1999, 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 990422, 990533, 990565 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter