m. - - - BILL 960064 - Real estate signs. BILL 990331 - Jefferson Sq. Redevelopment Area BILL 990673 - Health Care Advocate BILL 990678 - Fifth St. Special Controls District BILL 990719 - Appeals to Zoning Board of Adjust. BILL 990729 - Boxes for Dist. /Manayunk Spec. Controls District BILL 990761 - Zoning of Residential Districts BILL 990812 - Exemption from Real Estate Taxes on New Construction BILL 990817 - Special People in the Northeast Inc. ) PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN DARRYL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X Bill 990817 Donald Cramp, Chief Executive Officer . . Hospitals & Higher Ed. Facilities Authority David Lacino, Pres. & Chief Executive . . 5 Officer, Special People in the Northeast Mr. McGrail (no title given). . . . . 9 Bill 990847 Edgar Einhorn, Esquire. . . . . . Richard Lombardo, City Planning . . . . Bill 990064 Lindsay Johnston, President . . . . . Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors Ann Rubin, President-elect . . . . . Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors 11 Lenora Bersin, Center City Residents Assoc. 31 Judith Eden, Center City Residents Assoc.. . 33 12 Melanie Lamond, Realtor . . . . . . 42 13 Bill 990678 Richard Lombardo, City Planning . . . . 59 14 Brenda Frazier, Staff Attorney for C. Tasco 82 Marian Johnson, Councilwoman Tasco's Staff. 83 15 Richard Feder, Esquire, Law Department. . , Member of Bar . . 90 16 Bill 990719 17 Richard Lombardo, City Planning . . . . 61 Otis Haigler, L&I Regulatory Affairs Mgr. . 66 18 Gray Smith, South Street Neighborhood Assoc. 69 Stanley Krakower, Counsel to Civic Groups . 72 19 Richard Feder, Esquire, Law Department. . 76 Bill 990729 Otis Haigler, L&I Regulatory Affairs Mgr. . 92 Al Taubenberger, President. . . . . 94 Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Michael Klauder, General Manger . . . . 94 Country Club Restaurant Bill 990848 Councilman Darryl L. Clarke . . . . . 99 Reverend William King, Calvary United Church 105 Captain Dorsey, 23rd District . . . . 114 Gladys Mead, 29th St. ) Bill 990844 Thomas Chapman, City Planning . . . . 130 Stanley Krakower, Counsel to Civic Groups . 132 Gray Smith, South Street Neighborhood Assoc. 133 Richard Feder, Esquire, Law Department. . 134 Bill 990331 Noel Eisenstat, Redevelopment Authority . . 157 Jeremy Newburg, Jefferson Square CDC. . . 170 Peggy Brookens, St. John's Leadership Team. 177 Mary Black, St. John's Leadership Team. . 181 Irv Ackelsberg, Community Legal Services. . 182 Kevin Price, Jefferson Square CDC . . . 197 Bill 990673 John Domzalski, Health Department . . . 199 Yvonne Tisdale, Phila. Unemployment Project 208 Citizens for Consumer Justice Witness . . 212 J. Stein, Counsel, Community Legal Services 216 Kevin Wigglesworth, DVHC . . . . . 219 Bernard Johnson, Health Family. . . . 238 Bill 990812 Michael Nadol, Dir. of Finance . . . 247 David Glancy, Revision of Taxes . . . 254 Steven Kline, Kline Company . . . . 266 Ben Edison, Developer . . . . . . 273 Bills 990760, 990761 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission 276 Patrick O'Neil, City's Environmental Counsel 303 Robert McAlane, Namico . . . . . . 317 Kay Smith, Manayunk Neighborhood Council . 319 Dan Netison, Developer . . . . . . 322 Ed Weiner, Citizen . . . . . . . 324 Virginia Restemeyer, Citizen . . . . 328 Peter Kelson, Dranoff Properties . . . 332 Michael Sklaroff, Cotton Street Landing, Ltd. 334 Stanley Krakower, Manayunk Neighborhood . 345 Council, Friends of Manayunk Canal, Sierra Club Kathy Tomaski, Manayunk Neighborhood Council 368 Sarah A. Willig, PhD. . . . .
. ) Wendy Lathrop, Land Surveyor and Planner . 400 Ernest Cohen, Engineer . . . . . . 438 Dorothy Berner, Riverkeeper . . . . 442 5 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask that the clerk to read the title of Bill No. 990817.
An ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the area served by Special People in the Northeast, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, for the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia to participate in the financing of certain projects for Special People in the Northeast, Incorporated.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, good morning. How nice it is to see you all again.
My name is Donald Cramp. I serve as chief executive officer of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority. May I proceed with my testimony? 6 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718
Thank you very much. I wish to make a very brief introductory statement in support of the proposed bill before you this morning. On May 10, 1999 a representative for Special People in the Northeast attended the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia's Board of Directors meeting seeking the Authority's assistance in a financing. The Special People in the Northeast's application was accepted by the Authority Board. A public Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, the TEFRA hearing, on behalf of the Special People in the Northeast, was held on September 10, 1999 in our boardroom, in accordance with the published newspaper advertisement. Today, we are very pleased together of assisting the Special People of the Northeast, Inc. and the many people associated with this outstanding organization. In closing, I would like to express deep appreciation at this time of the year for the Rules Committee to convene and to consider this 7 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718 bill. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Would someone describe for the record SPIN and what services they offer, please.
Yes. My name is David Lacino (ph.), and I'm the president and chief executive officer of Special People in the Northeast, Incorporated. It is a nonprofit corporation, a subcontractor to the City of Philadelphia. And our mission is to support individuals with mental disability from infancy through senescence. The organization is almost 30 years old. It serves some 1600 people annually, and it has an array of services, starting with infant stimulation, day care, preschool services, employment opportunities, actual handicapped employment, and residential programs, as well as wraparound therapeutic services for families in the home and people residing in their natural family setting. The agency serves all of Philadelphia, but the major focus of its service is from Olney 8 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718 north, to the Bucks County line, and out to the River and the Montgomery line. Is there any other information you would need?
Now, this bill would authorize improvements to SPIN facilities?
That's correct. It's a $5.6 million tax-exempt financing. Roughly $1.1 million would be financing for two new commercial sites on Drummond Road, which are needed to support the therapeutic staff, the training initiatives of the agency, and the support personnel for the adult services, the residential programs. Almost $3.8 million of the money is refinancing all of the commercial debt in the agency, which is the result of two other commercial properties and home in which the residents live. And, finally, there is a $700,000 piece. We are cooperating with the City of Philadelphia for this year's expansion, and six new homes will be identified, and those homes will 9 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718 require another ordinance and coming back before City Council. They have not yet been identified yet. But the financing is all a part of that package, and that's what the money will be used for.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much, and thank you for all the wonderful work that you do.
Mr. Chairman and members, if you see fit to vote this out, I would appreciate a suspension of the rules.
The next bill 11 being called for consideration is Bill No. 12 990847. Will the clerk please read the title of that bill.
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area beginning at a point on Penn Street 140 feet northeast Christopher Columbus Boulevard and extending 624 feet along said Penn Street, then extending to the Delaware River.
Yes. I'm Edgar Einhorn, 11 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 and I represent the purchasers of this property, which also is known as Piers 35, 36,37 -- Piers 36 through 39 north.
I'm sorry. I'm incorrect. It's Piers 36, 37, 38, and 39 north.
This property is approximately nine and a half acres and was occupied by the former Riverfront Theater. My clients have it under an agreement of sale and will be going to closing in January. Their intent is that they would like to develop the property for residential purposes. There are no definite plans now, but their intent is to put up single-family dwellings along the river's edge portion and in the center to put a mid-rise structure of apartments approximately ten, twelve stories. They also would like to have some commercial uses, mainly to facilitate the people living there -- like a commissary, dry cleaner, 12 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 some offices, restaurants, things like that. And that is their intent at this point, purely to develop it for residential purposes.
Thank you. Do we have anyone from City Planning present?
Madam Chair, I could find all of the City Planning people 'cause they're in my office right now.
I know that City Planning met on this last Thursday, and Mr. Chapman advised me that they had approved it.
Well, I would like someone from City Planning to testify for the record.
Are there any 13 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 questions of Mr. Einhorn from the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Could you give me an idea -- maybe I didn't hear your testimony, but how many residential units are planned for this location?
Right now, the intent is to put up about 80 single-family dwellings.
What they would be would be similar what are on Pier 3 and Pier 5, mainly six-story buildings, with two-level single-family on each level, so you would have three levels of single-family in these six-story buildings.
Are all the structures multifamily? Are there any single-family structures?
I have a conceptual plan 14 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 that's been drawn. City Planning has this mounted for you. There's a conceptual plan that's been drawn that shows the location of the six-story single-family structures and an approximate idea of where they would put the mid-rise structure.
Okay. Are you a part of the group that's doing the work or the --
Yes. They own several pieces of property in the City. They own the One East Penn Square building.
I'm sorry. They currently have control, site control, over this parcel now?
Yes. And we have a letter that I presented to Councilman DiCicco consenting by the present owners, the Tabises (ph.), the rezoning of this bill.
Oh, this is the Tabis property? 15 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847
Okay, fine. What is your client's timeframe on construction?
It depends on financing. I would assume they would probably like to do something next year.
Their intent is to move ahead with it as soon as possible. As I said, they've already been meeting with an architect to get some ideas conceptual ideas of what to do with it, and actual groundbreaking all would depend on how they get their financing lined up.
Fine, thank you. I think this kind of project is -- I've had discussions with Councilmember DiCicco about this, and these are tremendous projects which continue to extend the Center City waterfront into -- probably more north than south because of the commercial and industrial nature of the southern port, but the extending of the northern waterfront district with residential properties is a 16 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 tremendous --
Absolutely, and this is the first time something's going north of Spring Garden, and I think it would be a great impetus to the whole area if we can get this going.
Thank you, Mr. Einhorn. Mr. Lombardo, we are now considering Bill No. 990847.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission, here today to speak on Bill 990847. I'll try to brief 'cause I know you have a very extensive day. But this is bill is a bill to rezone approximately 9.4 acres of former the Riverfront Dinner Theater from G2 industrial C3 commercial. You'll remember back a number of years ago when the Planning Commission did a number of plans for the riverfronts, both the lower Schuykill and upper Schuykill, central and lower Delaware. In the central and the edges of the 17 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 north and the edges of the south, the Commission recommended that ultimately those piers would no 4 longer be needed for industrial or port-related business; it should be rezoned to C3 commercial. A number years ago, we did the south end. We did where Walmart and Home Depot is, all the way down to Snyder Avenue; we rezoned all that C3 commercial. This bill would rezone the area north of Poplar Street to C3 commercial. If we had had time at the end of the administration, we would have probably recommended these -- a larger bill that also would have encompassed other property along the riverfront, which -- what it does now is, it sort of jumped up from Dave and Busters up several blocks to this site, but still the stuff in between, including the incinerator, is still zoned industrial. We would have recommended the whole riverfront in that area to be zoned to C3 commercial. We believe that that is a district that would allow mixed-use development, similar to what is proposed here. And for the record, we would recommend, as of the Commission meeting of December 2, 1999, 18 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 that Bill 990847 be approved.
Thank you. And, Mr. Lombardo, I assume that there have been community meetings regarding this change?
I believe there was a meeting held with Northern Liberties, and our community planners tell us that they are -- I wouldn't say they supported it, but they had no 11 objection to this. I think they actually are supportive of this proposal; they have no 13 objection.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
The next bill 22 to be considered is Bill No. 990064. Will the clerk please read the title of that bill.
An ordinance amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled ""Regulation 19 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by amending Chapter 9-600, entitled "Service Businesses," and by amending Section 9-608, entitled "Real-Estate Signs," by amending the terms and conditions pursuant to the time period real-estate signs may remain upon premises containing single or multifamily dwellings and by deleting Subsection (2), relating to prohibited signs, all under certain terms and conditions.
Do we have anyone to testify on Bill 26? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself, and proceed with your testimony. (Lindsay Johnston comes forward.)
I'm Lindsay Johnston. I am the president of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. Would you like me to go ahead and make the statement?
Please proceed, mm-hmm. 20 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
As you know, this is not my first time in front of this august body. Without getting into too much history, I would like to reiterate that we have made every effort to meet with Members of Council to discuss these issues. The Members of the Center City Residents Association, who are opposed to our moving forward with this bill, have no-showed us at meetings and have also stood you up at meetings, claiming a certain inconvenience. We believe that our issues and their issues are like comparing apples and oranges. We are still, however, willing to meet with them and discuss the issues that they have regarding their Bill 51, I believe, which they want certain restrictions on the length of signs up in Center City, etc. What I would really like to discuss today is the fact that, as we have given you, we've provided you briefs in the past, and now we have something from the City Solicitor that 21 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 states, again, that clearly, any law prohibiting these signs is unconstitutional. And so what we ask again is that you pass this legislation, you allow the signage, and that you don't force us to institute a lawsuit against the City that the City cannot win.
Thank you. Please identify with the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Ann Rubin, I'm President-elect of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors and Chair of the Legislative Committee, and I have been involved with working with Council on this for about four or five years now. We initially came to Council to talk about this. It was brought before Council, it never got out of committee. We then sought legal counsel, and our legal counsel explored this extensively and advised us that we should move forward with a suit against the City, that it was unconstitutional, and that we could win this for sure; that it has been proven in other cities, which I can cite if you want, we've supplied all 22 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 this to you. We chose, rather than going through that route, which we felt would cost the taxpayers unneeded money, to come back to Council with that information, and ask for this to go around again, and here we are. The issues that have been brought up by the Center City area have been old issues that we have been trying to work with them on signage. It is separate and apart from the issue of whether we can place a "sold," the word "sold" on the signs that already exists. Constitutionally, it our right, it is the right of the citizens to be able to advertise that. If they want to talk about size of signs, if they want to talk about length of time, we're happy to work with Council and with the residents and work on something that's right and good for everybody. We have tried to set up meetings, under the advice of Council. The meetings have been scheduled, the people that are opposing this bill, for wrong reasons, have chosen not to show up, have not returned calls. It is a struggle. We are prepared to move forward with a lawsuit in the year 2000 and win this. We would 23 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 prefer that Council just lift the ban and move this forward in the simplest and easiest way for everybody. And that is what we are stressing for the last time in front of Council, because our stand is that we have the constitutional right to do this. Your City Solicitors have supported that. We'd like to work together with you and move this forward now -- or see you in court.
Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, members of the Realty community for being here. As you see on Bill No. 26, it says that Mr. Kenney introduced this by request. And at the time, and I still believe at the time then and I still believe now, that the request that was being made was a reasonable request for an industry that does a lot of good work in Philadelphia, and that is an important part of our economic life blood here in the City of Philadelphia. They are the people who kind of put their best foot forward to 24 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 promote the city, to have people move into the city, to make sure that neighborhoods remain stable. And one of the things that they have discovered, as a result of their experiences, is that the stability of neighborhoods relative to a 1970s ban on sold signs, which originally was intended to stop the block-busting practices of a few unscrupulous Realtors and land speculators was, in fact, having the reverse effect of destabilizing neighborhoods because community people who lived in the community would see sale sign after sale sign, without any understanding or knowledge of what the end result of that effort sale was, whether someone had bought that property or whether someone was moving into the property, or if it was going to remain vacant. I believed at the time, and I believe now, that the simple placement of a sold strip across the existing sales sign, which would remain -- in my experience, those signs remain on the property until the day of settlement. The day of settlement comes, the people move in, the sign comes down. There's no reason to keep a sold 25 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 sign, sales sign, or any other sign on a property after the property's been settled and the new neighbors have moved in. As a result of concerns expressed by the Center Residents Association, which, I believe, are legitimate concerns about the issues of the size of signs, the types of signs that protrude from buildings, the length of times that for-rental signs stay up, and the whole panoply of issues relative to signage in Center City, I believe were realistic and reasonable issues that were raised by these community groups. In that regard, we tried on many occasions to set up meetings and to deal with these issues together. We wanted to try to give relief to the industry, the real-estate industry, on the sold sign ban issue, but at the same time wanted to resolve those issues of size and length of time and all those other issues that were plaguing Center City and the residents and their concerns. For some reason or another -- and I can't figure out to this day why -- we were not able to get that effort completed. Where we sit here today is with a bill 26 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 that's been worked on for, come February 8th, for four long years, with all of the efforts that have been undertaken to try to resolve everybody's problem. I don't think it's fair to this particular industry, considering the fact that what they're asking for is not intrusive. They're not asking to expand their ability to place signs anywhere, they're not asking for the ability to make the signs bigger or put them out in the public right-of-way; what they're asking to do is to remove a ban that will allow people in the neighborhood to understand that houses are being turned over, that people are coming into the neighborhood, that the neighborhood's remaining vibrant, and that's all they have asked for. Now, as a result of my request of the City Solicitor's Office, we find today, and we will ask that the letter from Stephie Franklin-Suber be placed into the record on her opinion that the ban on sold signs, period, is unconstitutional. And it's very clear in her lengthy opinion that it is unconstitutional. (Copy of City Solicitor's opinion letter not provided to stenographer). 27 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 I don't know what the result of this bill is going to be today; I would like to see it get out of committee.
If it gets out, it gets out; if it does, it doesn't. But what I would suggest to you is that if it doesn't get out of committee, is to utilize the opinion of the City Solicitor to start to do it anyway, and if the City then cites you for that, then you have at least some request for remedy from the courts, which I think you'll be successful in. I want to compliment the real-estate industry on their fortitude and patience and their continuing desire to talk to people about these issues. And, you know, I've gotten some information back from various sources in Council that there are now new members of Council who may be close to it, people that weren't involved in any of the discussions but now have an opinion that they're opposed to certain elements of the bill or the fact that it affects their district. And I don't know where we're going to go by the end of this particular hearing, but I want to compliment you and commend you and thank you for the effort that you've made to get reasonable 28 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 redress and attention of this legislative body to an issue affecting your industry. Again, I don't know what the end of it's going to be, but I do think you have the legal footing now to proceed with getting what you wanted in the first place without our help, if that is the case, but I just wanted to thank you for your continued patience. And, hopefully, it will work out, but if not, then I expect to see sold signs in neighborhoods letting people know that properties are changing hands, people are moving in, and the city is not a constant flight of residents out to the suburbs. So I thank you for your time.
Councilman Kenney, I appreciate your comments and thank you for your advocacy of our position. To reiterate -- and I'm not trying to school anyone here, but there is an oath of office that says that you will uphold the Constitution, and this -- as cited by this opinion, the failure to pass this bill is almost a dereliction of duty in that why would they force us -- why would City Council force us into civil disobedience when it's 29 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 clearly stated that forbidding sold signs is unconstitutional. There are a host of court cases and decisions stating that. So it would seem that Council would want to just go ahead and that, We have no right to stop this, we can't stop this, we'll approve this.
Well, in addition, my desire, in addition to removing the sold sign ban and giving you some relief, was to address the serious problems that face Center City and other areas of the city. When it comes to the size of signs and the length of time, I mean, I was willing to allow neighborhood groups to write a specific bill that we would all agree on, to say that this is going to be the end of these large A-frame protruding signs from walls, things that are really esthetically ugly, and we're going to miss this opportunity, at least at this point in time, to do any of that, based on lack of cooperation.
And for the record, there was a bill written that addressed the concerns of the Center City residents, that we said we were 30 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 happy with. And when we said we were happy with it, all of a sudden, the Center City residents weren't happy with that bill anymore. So I want you to know that -- make it clear that this is not the only place that we have tried to address this issue. We have, over the past four years, been more than willing to sit down and talk about it and to agree to what we thought they wanted until we agreed. And, also, I'd like to ask, for the record, you all have copies of petitions. We have a very large Realtor community that cannot afford to take the time off, unfortunately, to come down here every time there's a hearing, but we have asked and in a very short time circulated petitions, and I would like to make sure that that gets on the record, that you know that there's a large population that does support what our efforts are. (Copy of petition not provided to stenographer.)
And last but not least, I would like to mention that, for instance, the University City Community Council has unanimously passed a resolution favoring this bill. 31 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 We bring issues in front of the Council that are not only Realtor-driven issues, but we are a consumer advocacy group, and the issues that we bring in front of you and look for your help with help, we believe, not only help our industry but also help the citizens of Philadelphia.
Well, I certainly think you've done your done best, so we'll see what happens.
Thank you. I believe earlier I saw a member or two from the Center City Residents Association. If they're in the room and would care to testify, please approach the witness table. (Center City Resident Association representatives come forward.)
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm Lenora Bersin (ph.), President of Center City Residents Associates, and 32 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Judith Eden, who is the Co-chair of our Zoning Committee. I've never heard us accused of not being present before, but we're here today. We understand that there is a --
Excuse me. Would you pull the microphone closer to you, please.
We understand this is a complex issue. We also understand that Councilman Kenney and other Councilmen have moved to try to be fair to everyone, and we understand and hope that it will happen that there will be an amended version to the bill that will say that no person shall erect or place a sold sign upon any premise containing a single or multifamily dwelling in the area bounded by Market and South, the Schuylkill River, and Delaware River, at least half of which is our territory. And we just wanted to come up to thank Council for their concerns, to say that we are always willing to talk to people, and we're here today to support the amendment and support your efforts. 33 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
May we have a copy, please? (Copy of amendment not provided to stenographer.) Miss Eden, did you want to testify?
I don't think that it's necessary. We did understand that the amendment that the president of CCRA just referred to was to be introduced today.
Okay. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Could you repeat your statement, again, please. You said you didn't understand or you did understand?
The Center City Residents Association and, for that matter, the Society Hill Civic Association, were told that an amendment would be offered to the bill before you today that would exclude Center City, from the Schuykill to Delaware Rivers, from Market to South Street. 34 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 And we came here today prepared to testify in favor of that amendment. We've not yet actually heard any of you place the amendment in the record.
And if that amendment were adopted as part of this bill, then would the Center City Residents Association support the bill, as amended?
We would. Yes, sir, yes, sir. 'Cause everybody has different needs.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Eden, could you give me the boundaries of the Center City Residents Association?
Our boundaries are Broad to the Schuylkill River, Market to South.
In the amendment, the amendment calls for the boundaries to go from Market Street to South, from the Schuykill to 35 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Delaware River. That's the east side of Broad Street --
Excuse me. Which is the district that I represent. And to the best of my knowledge, although I have been inundated with lots of mail concerning this issue, I don't recall anyone from either Society Hill Civic Association, (unintelligible) West Civic Association, Queen Village, or any of the other areas that would come under this amendment opposing the bill or asking for this amendment.
Could you -- I'd like to know how you got to these boundaries.
We were told that Councilman Kenney had prepared this amendment and was introducing it.
The Chair 36 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There has been and there is discussion relative to the submission of this amendment in an effort to try to come to some unanimity amongst the Council as it relates to the passage of this bill. I haven't gotten anything official, but as a result of this being circulated around Council, there have been one or two other Councilmembers that have now indicated that they may want to have their districts opted out of the bill, so we could potentially wind up with a bill where we have Councilmembers taking their districts out so that the bill is of little, if any, value. Now, you know, I would still intend and hope to introduce the amendment, but if it does create a circumstance where District Council Councilmembers are now excising their districts from the bill, the bill in effect of no importance or no use, and that's why I'm suggesting at some point that if that happens, that the Realty Association take the City Solicitor's opinion and start doing it anyway and see if City then cites 37 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 them, and then I think they have some opportunity for relief. I think the sad part, again, as I said earlier, is that without the ability to discuss and to negotiate, you know, we could have come to a conclusion at this point in time and hopefully make everybody as happy as possible. So, I mean -- and secondly, the amendments themselves are usually submitted at the meeting level, not the hearing level. So the discussion of the amendment is on the record now. And if it's offered, it will be offered in the meeting, if the bill moves at all, because there's some -- there's some concern as to the ability to move the bill in toto relative to some Councilmembers' now concern over their districts not being excluded, so I mean, it's getting a little muddier as we go along.
Well, on the basis of our belief that this amendment would be offered, we did not intend to testify against the bill in toto, but we are, of course, prepared to do that now, if you wish.
Well, my 38 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 understanding is that if the amendment goes in, you're for it; if it doesn't, you're against it.
Right. And we're certainly hoping that there will be a future opportunity to address the issue of real-estate signs in a more generic way.
Well, it's been our hope too, and we have not been invited to any meetings but one in several years, and that was in less that hours' notice in October. So I would 15 assume that a lot of miscommunication has been 16 occurring. 17
We shouldn't argue about 18 it. We're ready to come, we want to come, and we 19 want to talk about it. 20
Thank you 22 very much. 23 Are there any questions from any 24 members of the committee? (No questions.) 39 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill 26? Please approach the witness table and again identify yourself for record, please.
Ann Rubin, President-elect, GPAR, Chair of the legislative committee. I'd just like to say that when we understood that there was opposition from groups about the ban on the sold signs, we discussed with Councilman Kenney amending that area of the city with the idea that before we came back here, we were going to sit down to discuss with them what the issues were and how we could work with them. And that never happened. And our feeling is as strong as it was before, and even stronger now that we've come back from the City Solicitor's Office, that this ban should be lifted across the city and that no areas should be excluded. And in the concerns that they have about signage, we are ready, willing, and able to sit down and work those issues out, which are separate from this.
The Chair 40 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I'm just trying to understand some of the discussion. You heard the testimony from the Center City residents, that they've only been invited to one meeting that was a couple years ago and that they were only given hours' notice. 9
Councilman Cohen, that is 10 inaccurate. We actually had met with them a 11 couple of years ago over this -- I'm saying "a 12 couple," but I would really need to check our 13 records for exact dates because I don't want to 14 quote dates, but we did meet to discuss the issues 15 at one point. 16 And there was a bill -- I believe it 17 was, at the time, Councilman Fernandez introduced 18 the bill based on their concerns and the meeting 19 that came out of that. When the bill came up, 20 again, they were opposed to it at that point. We 21 were very confused. 22 After the last round when this came to 23 the Rules Committee a month and a half ago or so, 24 we tried to set up a meeting in more than 24 hours' notice. In fact, we tried on several 41 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 occasions, and one, if not more, of those efforts was through Councilman Kenney's office to get the meeting together. They were going to get back to us, we'll call you back to confirm. We never got calls back. Times were set, then they had to be cancelled. So I'm not sure where the miscommunication is, but we're very clear that many, many efforts over several years, and in particular over the last month and a half, were made to meet with the groups that were concerned with this bill.
And their last position was that we would have to agree to disagree, but that they would not meet with us. So we have made every effort to --
It was the Center City Residents Association. 42 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Councilman Cohen, I am going to let someone --
'Cause I've never found community groups to be unfriendly to meetings. It seems to me that generally, the complaint against community groups is they want too many meetings. And I don't like to see aspersions, you know, on groups, which I think are not rightfully made.
And so that this is not hearsay, I'd like to introduce Melanie Lamond (ph.), a fellow Realtor from Urban Realtors in University City, who has had conversations and who can give you firsthand information.
I spoke to Lenore Bersin -- it was probably around Halloween -- on the phone, and she said that we would just have to agree to disagree on that this, that their organization had taken its stand two years ago and that she wasn't interested in anecdotal evidence or any other arguments that I might make that this bill was good for the benefit of the City and the City's residents. She said that they taken their position and they didn't plan to change it. 43 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
It sounded to me this morning that that's not the position currently, whatever it may have been at that time. I think the parties are ready, I think we ought to try to move. Whether it's now or at the beginning of the new session, we ought to try to get a consensual agreement; that would be my position.
It's clear to me at this point, whatever the history may have been -- and I'm not familiar with that, not having been involved in any way at all on that issue -- I think maybe we are at a point where we can get agreement, and that's always the best way to achieve a result.
Councilman Cohen, we are absolutely willing to work on an agreement on the signage issue; that issue is separate and apart from the ban on the sold signs, it always has been. They tried to tie it to this. To work things out, we were agreeable to continue, but we are no longer agreeable. They are two separate issues. 44 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 What we are asking for is our constitutional right to change the words that exist on our sings from "for sale" to "sold," to "sale pending," to "under agreement," to "under contract," to indicate that these properties are moving, that the communities are vital, and we are not changing the signage in any way by doing that other than changing a word. The issues that the Center City Residents Association have are about length of time that the signs are up, about the size of the signs, about location. It is separate and apart from this issue, and we are more than willing to discuss that with them and to come to terms that are agreeable and work.
Sounds to me as if the willingness to talk and refusal to talk have shifted sides. I have to tell you, I did not see the City Solicitor's opinion until this morning. I'm not sure that I agree with it at all. I have not had time to completely read it. I saw the conclusion. It is contrary to the opinion I've always had. I'm ready to reconsider my opinion 45 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 after I read the City Solicitor's opinion and have had an opportunity to study it. I don't understand, if that's the City Solicitor's opinion, why that opinion has not been rendered a long, long time ago. But I would like an opportunity to study it. So I cannot accept at this time the City Solicitor's opinion as being the last word on the law. It may be, but it may also not be. I'm just urging all of the parties to try to, at this point, come to an agreement. Apparently, people are now ready, from both sides, to talk. And I don't think there ought to be any difficulty with arriving at that kind of an agreement. So I'm just suggesting that we take a little extra time and move ahead. And I think we're probably going to get a consensual agreement, particularly if the City Solicitor's opinion appears to be one that Councilmembers can accept.
I agree with you. I'm not sure why it's here in front of you now, but just for the record, when we first brought this up, we 46 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 did come with the opinion of our legal counsel, based on their research, that it was unconstitutional and that we had a right to move on that. And that information was provided to Council and to the committee at that time. There has been many discussions, both in a forum like this and in your individual offices, about these matters, and we appreciate your open-door policy and always being willing to listen to us. But I can't reiterate enough that the issues of the signage that are the concerns of the residents groups have nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
Well, you're welcome to question that, but the issues that I understand they have are about the size of signs, about the locations of signs, about the length of time that signs are up. And none of those things are what we are discussing when we discuss the ban on sold signs. When we discuss the ban on sold signs, 47 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 we're talking about the ability to change a word on a sign to indicate to the community that the neighborhoods are vital and moving forward. And both our private counsel and the City Solicitor's Office have agreed, based on their research, that we have a the Constitutional right to that. I can cite cities where they have gone to court and won, and that's where we're at with this. And to continue to tie these two together is fruitless.
Sir, I'm sorry I didn't bring my props today, but basically, if you can imagine that this were an 18-by-24-inch residential sale sign, and across the top of it, it said "sale," all we're talking about is taking a little tag that says "sold" and sticking it on top of the sale sign. In residential real estate, the sold sign is not permitted. In commercial real estate, the sold sign has always been permitted. In residential real estate, a sign cannot exceed an 18-by-24 or an 18-by-36-inch size. In commercial 48 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 real estate, a size can be larger. The issues that the Center City Residents Association has are with commercial real-estate signs, protruding signs, V signs, the length that they're up, the certain rental signs that seem to be up in perpetuity. Nothing to do with putting a sold-sign sticker on a residential sales sign. And to reiterate what Ann has said, the City Solicitor's opinion is based on (unintelligible) vs. Willingboro, New Jersey, and certain other cases that we have provided briefs, and she's basically reviewed these briefs and said, It's here. This went all the way to the Supreme Court, it's unconstitutional. You do not have a leg to stand on. And that is why we are so adamant in our position here. The Center City Residents Association, I have a hard time with them today acting like they're ready to talk because, I guarantee you, we have called them every day, and they have not been willing to talk. They have dis-ed us, and we are tired of their attitude, and we're frankly tired of their attitude in stopping you from moving 49 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 forward. What we need is progress here.
Well, I'm suggesting that the way to get progress is, now that the parties are indicating -- all parties are apparently are indicating that they're prepared to sit and talk and discuss, and I'm not --
They're saying that to you that they're willing to talk; they're saying to us that they're not.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to identify yourself so that the stenographer knows who's speaking.
I'm sorry. Melanie Lamont reiterate. I'd also like to reiterate that the Realtors are not here in the largest part for the Realtors; we're here because the City of Philadelphia has lost, depending on what report you read, anywhere from 8 to 12 percent of its population in the last 10 years. We can't afford to lose -- we as a city, not we as Realtors, can't afford to lose our population. 50 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Putting up the sold signs proves to people that the city is viable. That proves to the newcomer who drives around the city and drives into the suburban counties that the suburban counties are not the only places where people are buying. As it is now, if they go around Philadelphia, they'll see those sold signs on commercial properties, so they won't realize that sold signs are illegal on residential properties. And they will go into in the neighborhoods -- they'll go into South Philadelphia or West Philadelphia or Mt. Airy, Chestnut Hill, they'll go into any of those places and they'll never see a sold sign in a neighborhood. And they'll make the assumption that this is not a healthy place to invest their money, and they'll go to the suburbs. We can't afford that to happen anymore. It's for that reason that the Board of Realtors has been working on this for so many years. We can't afford to take more time to talk and keep losing more population while we're doing this. We need to get sold signs on properties as soon as possible to be able to prove the viability 51 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 of our city. And we're willing to do that for the city for free; it wouldn't cost you anything to have us put out positive PR.
Well, it seems to me that no matter what the history has been, precisely at the time that the other side is willing to talk, you're saying No, we don't want to talk now.
No, excuse me. We're not saying that we don't want to talk. We are saying that we absolutely do want to talk, but the issues that are there to discuss are separate from the sold sign. And I'd like to just piggyback on one point that Melanie made that I think needs to be made. The consumers, the public as a whole out there have no clue that there's a ban on sold signs. All of the surrounding communities of Philadelphia, all of the townships and municipalities are permitted to put sold signs on their signs when a property goes under agreement people. And people in Philadelphia that go out of the city borders see that. And when my clientele's property goes 52 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 under agreement, the first thing they usually ask me is, Well, why haven't you put a sold sign up yet? And then I explain to them that I'm not allowed to by law. And they say, Well, then how will people know that this is a good block to live on? And so I think Council needs to understand that we are very well-educated on this because this is what we do for a living, but the public doesn't. And Melanie's right, when people drives through the city, it looks like everything is for sale and nothing's moving, but when they go out of into the suburban communities, it looks like everything's selling. And the reality is, the City is doing well in real estate right now but we have no way of showing that. So I ask that you put this to a vote today, and we can either move forward together on the ban on sold signs, or we will move forward with our attorneys in court.
And I would like to thank Council for listening to our position and make a vote.
Could I ask a 53 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 question of the witnesses? What is your position, if this amendment is adopted; do you support the bill? I was told that there was an understanding that --
-- if an amendment was introduced, there was going to be no problem with bill because there was going to be an amendment introduced that everybody had agreed to. I have no idea what that amendment was or who had agreed to it.
So I'm surprised by the extent of this debate and the fact that there still seems to be disagreement.
We will agree to it and we will continue to attempt to have dialogue with the Center City Residents Association to move forward and resolve their issues.
And as the Legislative Chair for the Committee and from the Board, I'd like to say that we will agree to it with no other 54 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 amendments coming on board, and with the understanding that we want to meet with the Center City Residents Association to discuss their signage issues and come to resolve once and for all on this.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, as it relates to the amendment to Bill No. 960064, I would like the record to reflect that I'm requesting that we remove from the amendment the east side of Broad Street to the Delaware River, from South Street to Market Street, from that amendment. (Copy of amendment not provided to stenographer.)
The amendment would read, "No person shall erect or place a sold sign upon any premises containing a single or multifamily dwelling in the area bounded by Market and South, Broad Street west to the Schuylkill 55 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 River."
Could I ask if the Center City residents -- do they have a representative still here? Would that amendment be acceptable -- just to your organization?
I would just like to address that question. The area that I am deleting from the amendment is the area that is in my district, the west side is in Councilmember Clarke's district. And the Center City Residents Association represents the area west of Broad, so their area would still be included in the amendment.
All right. I just want to make sure the Center City residents understand that. Would you come forward for a moment just for the record, so. . .
That answers the needs of the Center City Residents Association.
I'm sorry, Miss Bersin, you're going to have to identify 56 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 yourself.
Lenora Bersin, President of Center City Residents Association. We believe that that amendment satisfies our problems. We came to speak of our problems, and we do not wish to speak for other people's views. We've, of course, heard from Realtors in our area too, and they support us in that small area. And that's what we want to talk about. We'd be glad to talk whenever about the other problems, which we think are problematic in size and other issues, and I think that perhaps there's more agreement on that.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam Chair. I'm glad that some people agreed on getting their area out of this bill. I would ask for an amendment to be added to this amendment, taking my entire district out of this bill. 57 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 I do not want sold signs in my district. I thought it was working really well for the last how many years. People would like to do away with sales signs if they could, but they realize that's not possible.