Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members of Council having voted in the affirmative, this bill passes. The Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 020490.
An ordinance amending Section 19-1301 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Real Estate Taxes," by providing that real estate taxes imposed under that section shall be based upon the assessed value of real estate as returned by the Board of Revision of Taxes in 2001, thereby freezing such real estate taxes at the level imposed for taxes years 2002, under certain terms and conditions. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
Thank you. This bill having been on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak on this bill.
Madam Chair, today I'm calling on a vote for Bills 020490 and 020491, more commonly referred to as the freeze bills because I believe that the City Council must act to ensure thousands of our homeowners that they will not have to pay these outraging, unwise, and totally counterproductive property real estate taxes this year. I, like many of you, have received countless letters and phone calls from angry homeowners who want to know what this City Council will do to stop these increases. Some homeowners have asked me if they should hire an attorney to represent them on their appeal. Others have spent their quality time compiling detailed research on 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE how similar properties on their block received shockingly disparate increases. All of these homeowners hope that they can somehow lessen the blow of their property tax increases by showing the blatant inequities in our property tax system. But these homeowners also realize that they will probably have to pay higher increases unless City Council directly acts on their behalf. We should stand by them and fight to stop these increases so that true reform can be realized. In the meantime, I believe that a freeze gives our homeowners the temporary but necessary relief that they deserve. A freeze is not a long-term solution. Rather, it is simply a first step in a long process towards real property tax reform. " We should take our time to develop a long-term solution by stepping back and looking at the entire landscape. Yet our efforts to develop a long-term solution should not preclude my freeze 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE legislation. I believe that we should freeze and then reform. While we undergo this necessary debate over what long-term solution, we in the short-term assure our constituents that they do not have to pay these outrages increases. We know from our public hearing and the many community meetings that were held throughout this City attended by thousands of homeowners across this City that the property tax system is broken and that these recent increases are unfair. Obviously, something is dreadfully wrong with the process. No one should receive a property tax bill in one year that doubles and even triples what he or she paid the year before. It was pointed out during the hearings by Mr. Glancey of the BRT that many of the properties that were now being reassessed had to be reassessed because they haven't been for the last 10 years. As further evidence as to why this system is flawed, I present to you some of the envelopes -- and you will see four extra bags on that cart. But these are envelopes that were 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE returned to my office after I spent almost $30,000 to mail the constituents in the 1st Councilmatic District an appeal form who have received increases this year. The BRT gave me the addresses of the homeowners on a disk. They get their disk, according to the testimony from Mr. Glancey, from the Department of Records. It's kind of like he said on a cartridge. I always think of Gimbels and Wanamakers and Litt Brothers, those of you in the audience remember, they had that air tube and they would put the cylinder inside there and you'd hear this "shoop, boom," and it would go up someplace. I always wondered what would happen to that cylinder if it got stuck from the ground floor to the personnel department or the crediting department. They have a similar situation, I think, in terms of notification to our homeowners. It's the same list that the BRT uses to send out notices to homeowners who are getting property tax increases. Does this mean that the people don't know that they received increases or not? Some of these envelopes represent vacant lots and abandoned buildings, while others have the wrong owner or address.
In fact, one of these returned envelopes 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE was addressed to me for a property that I sold 10 years ago. The BRT was kind enough to send me that notice that the property taxes were being increased for that address. Again, they get their information from the Department of Records. I believe that these returned envelopes prove beyond any doubt that we need to reform this system. The BRT, the Revenue Department, and the Department of Records should know where their property tax notices are being billed. Our City homeowners should be confident that the information is accurate and fair. It is obvious by all of these envelopes and our supporting evidence that it is not. And again, I point out to you these envelopes only represent the envelopes that were sent in the 1st Councilmatic District. They represent around 3,000 returned envelopes, which is about 10 percent of the 31,000 notices that I sent out at my expense. So I would have to assume that the other nine districts have similar return issues as well. So I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for a freeze. We must stop these unconscionable increases until we find a fair and more equitable way of taxing properties in this 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE City. We owe it to our homeowners to freeze and then reform this broken property tax system. On September the 12th when I introduced these two bills, within a day or two, Mr. Keel who is the PR person for the Mayor, suggested that these bills were stupid and absurd. I remember the Dooms Day sayers earlier this year who suggested that if we went forward with the wage tax decreases that libraries, rec centers would be closing, police and fire personnel all over the City would be laid off. I say to Mr. Keel, we would be stupid if we didn't do something about this bill and pass the freeze bill now. Thank you, Madam President. )
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I actually believe in and am in agreement with a substantial amount of what my colleague has just indicated. I believe that to a large degree the system is broken, but I'm concerned about a premature action by this Council just because of that fact. The reality is we have 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE called for, meaning the full Council, with very eloquent speeches as recently as two weeks ago about we as a Council sitting down together and trying to figure out where we need to go. As a result of that, you showed leadership and you called, I believe, two meetings to discuss this very important issue. My understanding based on those meetings is that we didn't have all the appropriate information to ensure that we will make the most prudent decision. I have before me a letter from the School District of Philadelphia that indicates that there could be some potential problems associated with any freeze or any reduction in revenue to allow the operation and the debt service on any particular bonds that the School District may float. While I agree with my colleague that we should, in fact, do something, I am extremely concerned about doing that today at this particular time. Therefore, I'm asking my colleague to hold the bill, continue the discussion. I understand that there have been several meetings yesterday by Members of this Council with the Administration. I understand that 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE there is apparently some discussion about having a meeting with the School District to talk about this very important issue. And as a result of that, I'm asking for my colleague to hold that bill so we can continue the discussions. In the discussion that we had in your office, Madam President, the other day, it's my understand based on information that we got from the BRT that the appeal process for the condominium and the industrial buildings will be delayed for another two weeks. The appeal process will be extended into the end of November. I think it's also prudent for us to wait until that process takes place so we will know what the financial implications will be on the City and the School District. I'll just ask my colleague to hold these bills so we can continue these discussions. I don't think that if these bills are held -- and I understand his concern about the issue. It's very important. I have been handling a substantial amount of individuals in my district, particularly in the lower part -(Microphone off.)
The 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE Councilman's microphone is not on. (Pause.)
Councilman, why don't we try without the mike. (Pause.)
Thank you, Madam President. As I was saying, Madam President, it is clear to me that we at least as a Council we are making progress in this very important discussion. I think it is premature to vote on this particular bill at this particular time. As recent as last night, I attended a community meeting in a part of my district. One of the ladies in the meeting said, "Do not freeze the taxes because my taxes go down this year." Now, I understand that's probably not obviously the overwhelming majority of the individuals in the City of Philadelphia. I think it is premature, particularly given what we all agreed to based on the discussions over the last two weeks as recent as yesterday. I understand as a part of that discussion, Madam President, you want to reach out 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE to pertinent parties on this very important issue. And my understanding -- I'm not clear because I haven't gotten any feedback. Madam President, as a result of that, I'm asking again my colleague to hold the bills. And I understand because I went to several meetings in which I was screamed and hollered at for two and a half hours. And at the end of meeting they apologized and said they had to holler at somebody. I understand. But I'm asking my colleague to hold the bills at this particular time and continue the discussion. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. I have no indication as to who wants to be recognized because my Mike may be working, but I don't see anything on the screen.
Could one of them 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE issue a legal opinion as to whether the potential passage of either of these bills would, in fact, freeze property tax assessments?
Councilman Goode, the City Solicitor has issued an opinion on this.
This is the Solicitor's opinion. Does the City Council agree with that opinion?
That is the City Solicitor's job, not the job of our technical staff.
Why do we employ technical staff that are lawyers if we don't have independent counsel?
I thought that the City Solicitor is our Chief Counsel.
Chief Counsel. But 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE we do have legal counsel employed by the Councilpeople. I would like them to give an opinion on whether successful passage of either of these bills would actually, in fact, freeze property tax assessments.
The opinion of the City Solicitor is the opinion of the City Solicitor. City Council legislates. It passes and it goes through to the Mayor and the Mayor signs it, notwithstanding whether the City Solicitor says that it's legal or illegal. The City Solicitor is not the final determinant. A judge is the final determinant of whether something is legal or not and constitutional. We use a City Solicitor as a frame of 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE reference. This Council has passed legislation over the opinion of many City Solicitors. We had legislation on gun control legislation that the City Solicitor at that time said we did not have the power to do it. We took it all the way up to the Supreme Court because the Mayor signed it, the majority of Council agreed with it. Sometimes we pass legislation that runs counter to the advice of the City Solicitor because the City Solicitor, after all, represents, for most of all, the Administration. So the City Solicitor is a frame of reference but not an opinion that will disallow us or just say to us that we cannot legislate. A City Solicitor is not the judge nor the jury, not the Supreme Court.
Point of information, Madam President. I was not even referencing the City Solicitor's opinion. I was asking whether, not if we think we're voting on legal bills but whether we think we're voting on illegal bills. What is the opinion of the lawyers on this Council, the lawyers on Council staff as to whether we're actually voting on illegal bills. If we know they're illegal, if it's the opinion of people that we're voting on 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE illegal bills, then why are we doing it?
Let me just answer that, if I may. I believe this is almost a duplication of a bill that was passed in 1980 or '81. I think by the time it got to court, it was '81. But I believe at that time the City Solicitor, in fact, rendered a decision that he felt that it was illegal and that's how we got to court. The Council voted on the bill. It was passed. The Mayor vetoed and we went to court. And the same thing can happen here. It could become the decision of a court whether we were acting in a legal or illegal manner.
And what was the Court's decision? Was the Court's decision the bill was legal or illegal?
That was a settlement. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
As one of the survivors of 1980, let me report on exactly what happened. At that point Mayor Street was then a new 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE Councilman coming in. I was a Councilman who had had a previous term of office in the late '60s and early '70s. And together, then Councilman Street and I engineered the following: The same kind of increase was proposed. We were both -- and Councilmembers were as concerned as Councilman Clarke and Councilman DiCicco have indicated their concerns. And I think all of us in Council are very much concerned by these increases. We didn't know what would happen. And as a matter of fact, nobody knows how to make a property tax fair. Nobody anywhere in the country has ever established a fair property tax situation. That's the reason why in almost every state in the United States there are this kind of dispute raging. In fact, in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial contest, the question of fairness of property taxes are being raised. But the then Councilman Street and I got together and said, somehow we've got to find out is there any way of getting a legal decision. And we decided on what I think has been wrongly called a freeze. We probably also called it a freeze, but it's not really a freeze. We're looking for a way 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE to hold up the action on the increase, one way or the other. And the way Councilman Street and I argued at that time, with Councilman Street probably louder and more effective than I was, but we both argued to Mayor Green that if you can get the Board of Revision of Taxes to hold up the effective date, not send out the letters demanding payment by a given date, but set a moratorium, we can try to work this thing out. Mayor Green, like now Mayor Street -- maybe this happens to all people who become mayors -- said, "No, I want you to hold up, but I'm not going to stop the Board of Revision of Taxes from doing anything. " At that point, Council felt, as many of us feel now, there's no other way we can get any time to test this in court. Many of us sincerely believe -- I'm an attorney for many years. I believe that what's happening is by all legal standards unfair, unjust, violates every concept I know of due process and will not be upheld by the Court. Now, that's my belief. That was the belief then of Councilman Street, too, but we didn't know what the courts would do, but we said at least let's 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE go somewhere where we can get a fair decision. So we decided on this proposal. It's called a freeze. What it really is is a request for delay. Then Mayor Green then vetoed the bill and then City Council filed a suit in court. The judge said to the parties, to the attorneys for the parties, "This is simple. " Well, we got together. The effect that time, there was no legal decision by the judge because the parties decided not to litigate for the next 10 years because the City would have starved to death by that time and all of us would have starved to death also in Council because we couldn't get paid if the City had no money coming in. The two parties got together and worked out an agreement whereby the increase that the Board of Revision of Taxes had proposed was stretched out over a six-year period of time. And everybody seemed to feel that was fair because nobody was ganged up to an impossible amount on the increase. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE We all know the City needs money. Nobody wants to fight a fair tax scheme, but nobody wants to be in a position where our older people in the City are frightened to death as to where they're going to be living after they find themselves unable to pay the taxes and the City forecloses. Poor people are concerned. Women with kids are concerned. Poor people in Philadelphia have real problems. But even rich people, even rich people have some rights. )
But if rich people bought homes in Philadelphia based upon the notions of the last 30 years a certain property had a very low rate, it obviously is unfair once we nab them as a purchaser to turn around overnight and, you know, increase by 100, 200, 300 percent the taxes. There's got to be an element of fairness and due process. People have to know in advance basically what their tax liabilities are reasonably going to be. That's why, I think, all of us can get together. I think Councilman DiCicco makes a 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE number of fine points. I think Councilman Clarke did. But the only way we know is to get into court because the Mayor will do nothing. The Board of Revision of Taxes says it's powerless to grant this moratorium. All we're seeking is time. It will be too late to do anything if we don't act now. And that's the reason why I think Councilman DiCicco is wise in presenting the bills today to give us the time to work out a fair system. Now, I hope that answers Councilman Goode's question because it wasn't a legal opinion filed; the parties agreed on a fair proposal.
Councilman, could you repeat that rich part again for me?
Rich people, I said, deserve fair treatment. Everybody does. That's what the United States is. And a lot of rich people are being hurt, but the ones that are really being hurt -- rich people get hurt in the pocketbook. The poor people, the working people often get hurt by being forced out of their homes. That may not happen to rich people, but I don't think we want the streets of Philadelphia repopulated by new homeless contingent of people who can't afford to pay 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE unconscionable taxes. The real problem with the property tax is simple: It increases your taxes but, unless you own the property and are renting it out to somebody else, it doesn't increase your income. That's the reason there is so much opposition throughout the country to property taxes. Think of people living on a Social Security income of $200 a month and think of a 10 percent increase. Even $100 a year kills those people. They have no means of increasing their income. So everybody's agreed property taxes are unfair. We try to work out the best possible compromise. But at this point, we need time. One other thing, Madam President, if I may. I know the Administration now, as then back in 1980, said it is an innocent bystander, it had nothing whatever to do with the increase by the Board of Revision of Taxes. Well, you know, I wasn't born yesterday; just look at me. (Laughter.)
The year I was born was 1914. And even then, no Board of Revision of 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE Taxes ever raised the assessment rate without full consultation with the Mayor. And the reason is simple. A Mayor meets with the agency. Sure, the Mayor doesn't make those appointments, but the budget of the Board of Revision of taxes depends upon how the Mayor makes his recommendation to the City Council to vote on the budget. So that the Mayor has great influence, and no one -- Mayor Green said the same thing that Mayor Street is saying now: "Oh, I didn't know there was even going to be this increase, but I need it." And that's what Mayor Street is saying. And we understand that. That's what mayors always have to say.
Point of order, Madam President. I accept Councilman Cohen's legal opinion.
I'm done at this point, yes. I think this is the only fair proposal to get the time. All we want is the people not be frightened to death that they're going to get 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE evicted from their homes. I think a government -- the first element of any government is to be fair. And what happened this time was plainly not fair. And it wasn't fair no matter whether you were rich or whether you were poor, but the poor face the real dangers of adding to the homeless group. And so anything we can do to ensure there will be enough time and people won't be threatened with foreclosures of the homes, won't be threatened with penalties for not paying taxes, that's important to do. And I think these bills achieve that purpose. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I will hold my remarks until we pull up Bill 020491.
The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I first want to congratulate and thank Councilman DiCicco for all his hard work in this effort. I think he gave a 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE tremendous speech which really explained to all of us here and to the public at home what he is trying to do. This bill, as he said, is not a solution to this problem. It is a vehicle for us to get into court. It is a vehicle for us to continue holding our own feet and the feet of the Administration to the fire in an effort to get a resolution. If, in fact, we -- and I'd agree with Councilman Clarke. I think we need to talk. I think we need to negotiate with the Administration, but let us not lose sight of the fact that these bills are going out in December or early January. And it's going to be very difficult, if not possible, to effect a solution or a resolution to this problem if, in fact, our citizens have received a final bill for them to pay. It's going to be very difficult to explain to our constituents and homeowners when they get these tax bills that represents the large assessment increase or the result of the large assessment increase, it will be nearly impossible for us to explain to them that we're doing something to try to resolve this very serious problem. I think we should pursue 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE consideration of the 4 percent solution, the 10 percent solution, the deferral. We should talk to and speak with and negotiate with the Administration. If we do not have these bills as a vehicle to get into court where the real solution most probably will come, then we're going to have a situation of total confusion and chaos. And, you know, and I'll be fair and honest with you right up front here. You know, everyone here is running for election next time. And if we're not going to have a way to resolve these people's problems fairly and the chaos ensues from the tax bills going out, you're not going to have many open ears to listen to what we have to say about how we're going to fix the problems that these taxpayers and citizens are facing. So while I agree with both Councilman Clarke and Councilman DiCicco that we need to continue to negotiate with the Administration, unless we have another vehicle, another venue, wherein to have this discussion in a court of the law to effect a consent decree, to effect a resolution or a settlement to this issue, those bills will be out the barn door in December and I 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE think woe to us all. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Councilman O'Neill, did you want to be recognized?
Who else wants to be recognized? Councilman DiCicco.
Do you mind yielding, Councilman DiCicco, to Councilman Cohen? Councilman Cohen.
Thank you. Only a judge at this point has the power to stop the bill from going out. He is the only one. Any judge to whom this case will be referred to in court would have the power to issue an injunction. Most likely he would say to the Board, "If I grant you this power to stop it, will you stop it?" And they would say yes to a judge, and then they would be home free and clear. Only a judge at this table can do anything. That's the essential reason for going to 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE court. At some point, judges do do useful things.
Thank you, Madam President. I was going to make comments that have already been made by my colleague Councilman Kenney. I agree with the comments of my colleague Councilman Kenney and those were some of remarks I was prepared to make, that the clock is ticking. I also would also agree with friend and colleague Councilmember Clarke. I am not saying that these are the absolute bills. I fully understand that the impact on the budget of both the City and the School District if we had a permanent freeze on the recent reassessments. I'm only asking that we step back. I think that Bill 020490 and 020491 keep the pressure on all of us in Council and the Administration to do something and do it quickly. In less than 33 days, the tax bill will be getting mailed out to the homeowners. And if I have it correctly, Council is not in session next Thursday. And I believe we will not be in session the Thursday which is Thanksgiving. So by my 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE calculations, I think we will only be in session two Thursdays in the month of November. We don't have all that much time. Let's keep the pressure on. Again, the only comments I've ever heard were from Mr. Keel. That is not the kind of dialog I wanted to create when I introduced these bills. I would ask for a roll call. I'm calling up the vote now for a final vote. Thank you.
Councilman, while we're waiting, Councilman Cohen, did you have your hand up also?
At this time, the Chair now recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I need some clarification, not only on the bills, but 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE also on what happened yesterday. In your recent statements today -- and maybe I misheard you. I thought you said we agreed to do a freeze. And at no point in time during that discussion did I hear anybody agreeing on a freeze.
I misheard you. I thought earlier in your discussion you said that we agreed -
Are you talking about my comments in the Caucus Room?
No, ma'am. Today. When you were last speaking earlier on the particular bill, I thought you said -
No, no. I think I was addressing a question that Councilman Goode had about whether or not our attorneys looked at the legality of this. And I said they had not. We had received a letter from the City Solicitor saying that all of the bills that we introduced was 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE illegal. And I referred back to 1980 when the identical bill that we're considering now was listed and it went to court. I did not say anything about a freeze.
I misheard you. Madam President, I need to ask, what was the purpose of yesterday's meetings -- or, actually, the day before, with respect to discussing the tax bills on the table?
The day before yesterday we did, in fact, call Members of Council in with our technical staff to go over the memorandum that was issued the week before to ascertain if anyone had any questions or they needed some clarification on what each bill would do.
It was not to get a sense of where we may go with respect to these bills either supporting -
Nobody really indicated in which direction they wanted to go. At the conclusion of that meeting, I think we said that we would talk to both the Mayor and to Mr. Vallas. I indicated in the Caucus Room earlier -- and I don't know whether you were present at the time -10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE that I did, in fact, meet with the Mayor yesterday. He expressed concern over these bills. He said that he would certainly talk to the sponsors of the bills and would certainly be willing and interested in talking to Members of City Council. I indicated that I would call Mr. Vallas. I did call Mr. Vallas that very day. I received a call from him late yesterday afternoon. He told me that by 9:30 today he would send a letter. The letter was submitted to me this morning. I made copies for every Member of Council. It has been submitted. And that's where we are, Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Madam President, I have some questions. Maybe I shouldn't be asking you these questions, but I need some clarity on the process. What's the understanding of when the tax bills will come out for this particular assessment? And maybe Councilman DiCicco actually can answer that question.
I think we were told yesterday that the bills would probably go out in December because in order for people to be 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE able to get a discount, I think they would have to be received 30 days prior to the actual payment date.
How many sessions of Council do we have before the end of this year?
I'd have to check the calendar. Five, not counting this one.
Councilman, you had indicated that you're talking about a temporary freeze, Councilman DiCicco. Talk to me about the mechanics of the bill.
Temporary could be a day. Temporary could be a month. It could be longer. What I want is for these bills to keep the pressure on all of us and the Administration to do what the Administration has said they will be doing, is talk to the sponsors of all of these bills to work out a solution that is fair and equitable. We can do this in a relatively short period of time, I believe, in my opinion, to come up with a bill that meets with the approval of majority of City Council, not unlike what we were able to do with the wage tax bills. There was a lot of dissention on the wage 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE tax bill initially, earlier this year. We worked through a process. We got full support. In the end, we passed a bill, a meaningful bill that was the right thing to do for the citizens of this City. I believe if we don't do these freezes -- it's been 35 or 40 days since I introduced this bill. Nothing really has happened except for a lot of bills being introduced. We need to work hard over the next few weeks to come up with a bill that is appropriate and fair and responsible.
So you're telling me that this freeze could be in place five years, it could be five weeks?
Well, I don't think it will be five years because I fully intend to go to the courts if we don't get any action and I'll file a class action suit on behalf of the citizens. And I said that from Day One.
Councilman, I'm talking about a legislative process. You're asking Members to vote on the bill that has no time line with respect to the freeze. You're telling me that there's no time line so this freeze could be five years, it could be -10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
If the bill passes today, the Mayor has a certain amount of days to either sign the bill, veto the bill, or let it pass. Then, in between -- from now to then, we need to sit down and work hard about what it is we want in terms of a permanent solution to the reassessment problems in the City. Is it a percentage that we will guarantee that it won't be higher of on an annual basis? There's a whole host of things that are on our plate.
You can't put that in bill. You can't really put that in the bill because then it becomes another bill.
Councilman, you can put a time line in a bill. What I'm asking -
With all due respect, and I know that this is a serious issue and we need lot of discussion, but we had, I believe, 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE two or three public hearings on these bills. All the questions on mechanics and what was in the bills was the opportunity to ask that then. We're on final passage. Again, with all due respect, I'm not trying to be rude, but we're here at the final time to vote on this thing. All these questions could have been asked at the hearings. There could have been amendments offered at the hearings, but they weren't. And I don't think it's appropriate, in my opinion, to be going through another public hearing on a bill that's on final passage. Thank you.
Councilman, thank you for your opinion. Councilman DiCicco, I'm still trying to get clarity. You're asking us to vote for a bill today that has no time line. I just simply need to get a clear understanding if the Mayor let's the bill pass and the Mayor takes no action, there's no negotiations between the Administration, the BRT, then there will be potentially a permanent freeze. There could be a freeze a year. I mean, there's no time line on this freeze. I know we have done bills in the past that indicate certain time lines with respect to the implementation of the bill or the 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE termination of the bill and we ask for annual votes on the bill. I'm just trying to get clarity on the bill. It's just kind of ambiguous in terms of what this bill actually will do beyond simply imposing a freeze, particularly with respect to the time line.
Again, the only way I can explain it, not being an attorney, is that it gives us -- it puts the pressure on us to do some meaningful legislation in terms of property tax assessments to fix the broken system. What it says, in my opinion, is that if we don't do something, if we don't do something, what do we have? A bunch of bills that are sitting out there that are going nowhere. The people in this City, the citizens and the homeowners in the City want something to happen and they want it to happen quickly. This is a temporary bill that puts the pressure and keeps the pressure on all of us to do the job that we've been elected to do, and that's to figure out a better way in which we assess properties -- one of the things, in which we assess properties in the City. If there was a time of 30 days, what happens on the 31st day if we haven't 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE done anything. Do we do another 30 days? I don't think that's the appropriate approach because we can at times get a little bit lax because of other things that we have to do. We all have a very full agenda. And if we don't keep the pressure on ourselves, nothing will happen.
So you're saying that this a temporary freeze. Is that language in the bill?
I don't know if -it doesn't say temporary. It doesn't say temporary, it doesn't say that, no. In my statement it does. Madam President, with all due respect, I've asked for the roll call on two occasions. I'd like to move forward.
Councilman, if you want this to be a temporary freeze, why don't you simply amend the bill to include that language?
Temporary for how long? It's an open-ended statement. Temporary is 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE open-ended. We know we have a job to do. Let's get on the ball and start doing it and stop worrying about what the language says as far as 30 days, 60 days, a year. Let's get moving.
And I know you do. No disrespect to you, but there is a bill in front of us. As Councilman Kenney said, we've had hearings, we've had debate. Now today we're debating the bill.
Well, Councilman, I believe that that's my prerogative as a Councilperson to ask a question on a particular bill. I'm simply asking -
The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz for a point of order.
The issue comes down to -- if you want the time line, look at what happened before. Look at 1981 and what happened during that period of time. Councilman O'Neill was here, Councilman Cohen was here. The issue is that -- Councilwoman Krajewski and Verna. You've got to 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE be able to create a case in controversy. Now, the time line depends on what happens once the bill gets to the Mayor's Office if this bill passes and he vetoes or signs it or doesn't sign it but doesn't implement it, then there can be a controversy created that we can go to court to force a settlement of the issue and have a judge admit and issue an opinion that says whether this bill is legal or not legal or unconstitutional or constitutional. That's the time line.
Councilman, I was not here in 1980, particularly in this capacity. History sometimes does not repeat itself. I'm not sure who the particular judge was at that time. That particular judge probably will not hear this particular case if, in fact, we proceed. So to suggest that what happened in 1980 will happen in 2002, I think, is extremely optimistic. I'm just simply saying that if there is a temporary nature of a bill, personally, I'd like to have that reflected in the language. I'm just concerned that temporary can sometimes become permanent, and that language isn't in the bill. And, Councilman, I've heard you 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE indicated several occasions, Councilman DiCicco, that you talked about a temporary freeze. All I'm simply saying is that if that language were in the bill, then I'm more than comfortable to support that.
Councilman, if there's one thing that we agree on, I think, in this Council is that the system is broken and it is inequitable and that poor people and working class people really bear the burden, the greater burden of property tax increase in assessment. And as Councilman Cohen said, the only alternative they have -- because they cannot afford all of those increases. The only alternative they have is either to pay, not eat, or just leave the home. The issue is whether we are going to begin taking steps to fix a system that we all agree is broken. Taking some steps.
Councilman, with all due respect, I do believe the majority of the households, based on the graph given us, did receive increases under 15 percent. So to suggest somehow that the majority of the individuals who received increases in households were above and beyond the 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE 15, 20 percent is just not accurate.
I think the burden of property tax increases and reassessments in the City fall to a greater degree on the working class and working poor of the City. The rich and those individuals in Chestnut Hill in the City, they have huge increases but they usually can come up with the money. And sometimes, as Jim Kenney says, they vote by leaving the City. The issue is that we have to begin realistically taking some steps to fix the system. That's all.
Madam President, I move for the question. I move the question.
But my point was 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE before we made the motion, but I didn't get recognized. I have a point of information.
You were having trouble with your microphone so -
No, I wasn't having trouble with my microphone. They're having trouble with the main microphone. This one works when I push the button, but we can't get recognized.
My point of information is we are not all on Finance Committee. And I know we're all allowed to come to the Finance Committee, but other of us that are district councilpeople have a lot of things to do. No shot at the at-large Councilpeople. It's a busy time now. We all want to do this right. So we're going to be given the choice to either vote for a bill that may or may not be legal or -
Councilman DiCicco 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE has a good point.
Don't we have transcripts of these hearings? Aren't the transcripts available to every Member of City Council?
It is, Councilman. And I asked for them but I didn't get them yet, Councilman.
Councilman, you've got to get out of here? You got a meeting for your other job?
I'm still under my point of information, Madam President. I guess Halloween started a little early. You thought all the ghouls and goblins were going to be out tonight, but they're obviously out a little early. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE All we want is a civil place to be able to do our business. We come in here, and we don't know what's running. It's like a surprise. Its a comedy act. It's a show. And my colleague Councilman Clarke just wants information. Then we get someone saying, "Well, he wasn't at Finance Committee." We can't all make it to Finance, Councilman.
And it may or may not be a great bill. But what I'm getting here by the three outstanding attorneys are different opinions. I didn't have the luxury to go to law school. We just want to do this and do it right, because as you mentioned, we are how many months out of election? That's another point, too. Why don't we just table this. I make a motion we table it. What's two weeks going to kill? Did I hear a second for the tabling?
Point of order. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
My motion to table was seconded. I think that overrides a point of order. (The stenographer did not hear a second on the motion. Microphones were malfunctioning.)
There had been another motion on the floor that was seconded.
I'll try to be there, Councilman. But, you know, some of us have other things to do. We're not sending out mail or doing television commercials.
Thank you, Madam President. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE (Conversation not on microphone.)
We will have order please. We will have order. Councilmembers, please. Councilman Nutter.
I withdraw the point of order, Madam President. Thank you.
Thank you. There was a motion and second to call for a roll call vote. The Clerk will please call the roll. We're voting on the bill that we've been talking about all morning.
I made a motion to table it, Madam President, and it was seconded.
But there had been a motion before yours that was already moved and seconded. We're calling for a vote on Councilman DiCicco question to move the vote that was seconded. All in favor will signify by saying aye.
Yes. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
Madam President, don't we have to vote first on his motion to table?
The question has priority. It was moved and seconded. We now have a vote coming up. (Conversation off the microphone.)
I'm sorry. Councilman O'Neill, I can't hear you.
Madam President, this is not something that would be the first time today. The motion to table has always taken precedent over all other motions on the floor, and it is not subject to debate. If we didn't follow that, which I believe is in our rules and in Mason's Manual, it would be the first time ever that it's not occurred that way. I just wanted to point that out.
Councilman DiCicco made a motion to call for a vote on the bill that was seconded. We will vote on that motion. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE That has priority on the rules which are just handed to me over a motion to table. So all of those in favor of the bill before us to be considered for a vote will please say aye.
The question. It's not for a vote on the bill. It's a vote on the question.
Madam President, as I am first to vote, I'm asking for a clarification. Is it the President's decision that a vote to table, as has been precedent as long I've been here and before, is it now the rule that a vote to table no longer takes precedence? Are we changing the rules under which we have operated for as I can remember, since 30 years?
I have our two attorneys here, Councilwoman. A motion was made by Councilman DiCicco to move for a vote on the previous question. It was seconded. And it's my 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE understanding from the attorneys who have the rules before us that this would take precedence. So the question remains, all those in favor -- and if you're voting yes, it's for the bill to be called for consideration. If you're voting no, then the bill will not be called for consideration.
If we are voting -- on the motion before us, if we vote yes, it would be for a roll call vote on the bill itself. If we vote no, then the bill will not be called up. And there could be another motion involved. (Pause.)
One moment, Madam President. Madam President, would you clarify again? We're not voting on the bill, you're saying. We're voting -
We're not voting on the bill. We're voting on the motion that 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE was made by Councilman DiCicco.
I will accept the Chair's ruling that after some 30 years on Council, the motion to table is meaningless. Let me just state for the record that if we establish these new precedences -
The motion to table can certainly be made after this vote, Councilwoman. There was a motion that was seconded, and I think that -- I am told by the attorneys it takes precedence.
So what bill is on the table? What is on the floor, again, Madam? I can't hear five people. Madam President, what are we voting on now, what motion?
And I will withdraw my motion to table on the Councilman calling up his bill. You understand that? We're not voting on his 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE bill. We're just voting to call up his bill. So I withdraw that motion to table because I think I can't do that.
Madam President, if everyone could be a little bit quiet, maybe we can get through this. Originally, when you were doing the Calendar and it came to Bill 020490, you were calling for a vote. I asked to speak on the vote. It stands, as far I'm concerned, that I'm calling for a vote on Bill 020490. I only asked to speak on it. When you were calling the --- you were about to call the roll call for a vote on the bill. I then asked to speak on the bill. So I don't know why we need to go through a roll call to find out if people want to have the right to vote on the bill. 10/31/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE Initially that was what the intent was. You were calling the Calendar, bills off the Calendar for a vote.
Councilman DiCicco, can you please approach the Bench? (Pause.)
The motion was made to stop the debate. As I said, the motion was made to stop the debate. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, are we voting on stopping debate? Is that what the motion on the floor is that -- there was a motion that was made and seconded that we should stop debate on the bill, is that what we are now voting on?