Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. Any other questions for this panel? (No response.)
Not seeing 148 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 any, thank you, Mr. Solvibile, and your associates for testimony.
My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. As was alluded to in the testimony of Deputy Commissioner Verdi, there was a friendly amendment that was being offered by the Department to address issues that were brought up earlier about penalties. Under the provisions of the new ordinance, if it were to be enacted, there were no penalty provisions placed in the ordinance. We looked at that and we found that there should be under Section 9-602 of The Philadelphia Code relating to Outdoor Advertising, which was recently amended and enacted back in June of this year. The penalty provisions were increased to $2,000, and 149 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 we feel that this is serious enough that the penalty should be similar, that would more or less, if enacted, it would give more teeth to the enforcement of this particular ordinance. So we're offering an amendment to link this section of the Code to Section 9-602, and the amendment will be a new Subsection (b) under 628 to indicate that the violations of this section, the penalties for violation of this section will be similar to as was in 9-602, and the abatement provisions also would be transferred to this section of the Code to allow for the abatement of sign issues.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. I didn't mean to overlook you, but I sure appreciate your comments on the amendment. Do any members of this Committee have a question for Mr. Haigler or any of the two witnesses? (No response.) 150 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865
Thank you so much for your testimony this afternoon. COMMISSIONER SOLVIBILE: Thank you for having us.
The next panel will be made of Mr. George Kauker -- Commissioner Solvibile, it is requested that you or a representative of L&I stick around for the rest of the proceedings or for this panel.
Just in case any questions need to be raised. COMMISSIONER SOLVIBILE: Mr. Haigler.
Thank you. Also, Leslie Gerstein, Mark Rahdert. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. Good morning, members of City Council and the Committee -- or good afternoon. I am George Kauker, President of the Philadelphia division of Clear Channel 151 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 Outdoor Advertising. Clear Channel is the largest billboard company in the City of Philadelphia. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Joint Committees today to discuss Clear Channel's practices with respect to the placement of alcoholic beverages and messages on its billboards and to present Clear Channel's views regarding the impact that the provisions of Bill No. 13 050865 would have on the dissemination of these messages in the outdoor medium in the City of Philadelphia. At present, the outdoor advertising industry operates within two sets of restrictions regarding the dissemination of alcoholic beverage advertising. The first restriction is imposed by state statute. As you may be aware, Title 47, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Statutes contains a specific provision governing the placement of outdoor advertising of 152 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 alcoholic beverage products within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Subsection 4-498(3) of that statute makes it unlawful for any person to place a print advertisement of alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of any church, school or public playground. While the state statute established a baseline restriction, all Clear Channel advertising for alcoholic beverages in Philadelphia complies with the far more restrictive industry standard that excludes all alcoholic beverage advertising within a radius of 500 feet of all schools, places of worship and public playgrounds. I want to emphasize that the 500-foot standard is not just a voluntary restriction that can be selectively disregarded at whim. That is because every alcoholic beverage company incorporates this restriction as a mandatory term in its outdoor advertising contracts. 153 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 Those contract provisions implement specific prohibitions established by the Beer Institute and the Distilled Spirits Council. As a result, the failure of a billboard company to comply with the 500-foot exclusionary zone would constitute a material breach of contract and subject a non-compliant outdoor advertising company to damages and other contractual penalties. Alcohol beverage advertisers audit Clear Channel to ensure that the 500 feet restriction is being complied with. I can tell this Committee without reservation that Clear Channel complies scrupulously with the 500-foot exclusionary zone requirement. Frankly, speaking about the exclusionary zone in terms of an abstract 500-foot spacing measurement does not clearly convey the meaningful impact of this regulation, so I will explain the restriction in practical terms. First, to be clear, the 154 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 500-foot restriction is applied radially. Therefore, in reality, the 500-foot spacing restriction results in a circular exclusionary zone of at least nine acres extending out from the perimeter of every church, school and public playground within the City of Philadelphia. In Clear Channel's view, the current nine-acre exclusionary zone strikes a balance that substantially reduces the exposure of underage minors to alcoholic beverage messages, while preserving the equally important communication of information about these lawful products to adult consumers. The 1,000-foot spacing restriction proposed in Bill No. 050865 would have a very different impact on outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages in the City of Philadelphia. In practical terms, the imposition of a 1,000-foot spacing requirement would establish a 36-square-acre exclusionary zone around the multitude of schools, 155 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 public playgrounds, recreation centers, childcare centers and libraries that are located throughout the City.
I can state unequivocally that a 36-acre exclusionary zone would constitute a de facto ban on the dissemination of all alcoholic beverage messages in the outdoor advertising medium within the City of Philadelphia. In fact, the impact of a 1,000-foot spacing requirement would be so profound that even if the exclusionary zone was only drawn around a more narrow category of schools and playgrounds, 90 to 95 percent of Clear Channel's billboard locations would still fall within that prohibited area. Indeed, my conclusions are consistent with the detailed studies of other urban environments that were the focus of the United Stated Supreme Court decision in Lorillard versus Reilly, a case in which the court invalidated a directly analogous 1,000-foot outdoor advertising restriction on tobacco 156 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 products. Bill No. 050865 is based on the sponsor's understandable concern about underage drinking. However, the 1,000-foot spacing remedy proposed in Bill No. 050865 would effectively ban the dissemination of all messages regarding alcoholic beverages in the outdoor medium in Philadelphia. For these reasons, Clear Channel urges that the Joint Committees issue an unfavorable report on Bill No. 050865 with the recommendation that it not be enacted into law.
Members of Council, thank you for inviting us to be here today. My name is Mark Rahdert. I'm a Professor of Law at Temple University School of Law. I am here on behalf of Free Speech LLC, which is an LLC that was organized by three major outdoor advertising firms, Clear Channel, Steen and Viacom. 157 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 I've prepared a summary of my testimony, which I've previously handed in so that you can all have a copy of it, and my focus is entirely on the proposed ordinance, Bill No. 050865. And the question that I was asked to examine was the question of whether this bill, as drafted, would be constitutional, and it is my opinion that it would not, and I'm here to basically explain that position. The Supreme Court has recognized for over 30 years that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and for a very long time, they have followed a test known as the Central Hudson test after the case that established it to determine the constitutionality of restrictions on commercial speech. That test has four parts, all of which must be satisfied. The first is that the speech itself must be a non-misleading speech about a lawful activity. The second is 158 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 that the government must be pursuing a substantial interest. The third is that the regulation must directly advance that substantial interest, and the last is that the regulation should be not more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest. There's no question that advertising about alcoholic beverages to adults is a lawful activity and that it is not misleading. There's also probably no question that the state, the government, has a substantial interest in trying to protect potential underage drinkers from exposure to those kinds of advertisements that would encourage them to drink. But there are questions about the remaining part of the test. That test was applied in Lorillard Tobacco Company versus Reilly to a similar sort of 1,000-foot outdoor advertising restriction on tobacco products, and in the Lorillard case, which was decided in 2001, the Supreme 159 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 Court struck down that advertising. It did so on the grounds that the ordinance 4 failed the Central Hudson test, and the courts focused specifically on the fourth part of that test, the part that requires that the law be not more extensive than is necessary. The court emphasized in that case that this 1,000-foot restriction on outdoor advertising had what it characterized as a uniformly broad sweep that had a substantial reach, that covered a substantial area, particularly in metropolitan communities. That amounted to effectively a complete ban on outdoor alcoholic -- I'm sorry; in that case, tobacco product advertising. It was applicable to all forms and messages, and there was no 21 consideration of non-speech alternatives that wouldn't restrict speech but would advance the government's interest in another way. The Court in that case 160 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 concluded that for those reasons, the fourth step of the Central Hudson test was not satisfied and that the law did not sweep no more broadly than was necessary to achieve its objectives. That case is on all fours with proposed Ordinance 050865. They are virtually identical in terms one covering tobacco products, the other covering alcoholic beverage advertising, but in other respects, virtually identical. And it's clear, I think, because of that close similarity that this ordinance, as drafted right now, would be unconstitutional. Since Lorillard was decided by the Supreme Court, there have been a couple of other cases in the federal courts dealing with similar sorts of geographical restrictions specifically on alcoholic beverage advertising, and in every case, the courts have struck down the ordinance or law that purported to restrict the advertising.
161 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 There was reference earlier this morning to situations in, I believe, Baltimore and San Diego. I should point out that those cases preceded the Court's decision in Lorillard. If those matters were to come up again, those restrictions would also, in my opinion, be struck down for the same reasons. So that's not precedent on which it would be safe to rely. So just to basically sum up, it seems to me that the problem with this ordinance as it's currently drafted is, at a minimum, that it has a uniformly broad sweep and extensive geographical reach that amounts to an effective ban on alcoholic beverage advertising. There's an absence of what the Court in Lorillard referred to as a careful calculation of the speech interest involved. There's an application to all forms of advertising regardless of its potential appeal to different audiences, and there's a lack 162 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 of consideration of non-speech restrictive alternatives. All of that adds up to demonstrate the lack of a narrow tailoring that would violate the fourth prong of the Central Hudson test.
Thank you for your testimony. Ma'am, can you please proceed? Please state your name.
My name is Leslie Gerstein and I'm General Counsel to Steen Outdoor Advertising. I'm just here to state that we are in support of the positions of both Clear Channel and the legal argument raised or analysis put forth by Professor Rahdert. The only other question I have for the Committee is whether or not the City is willing to abide by the same standards that they're imposing on outdoor advertisers, such as are they willing to take down the beer and alcohol signs from the stadiums from where 163 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 children are in massive quantities at Phillies games and Eagles games? Are they willing to do that in other public forum where there is advertising and not just focus on the outdoor advertising community? And I think that that is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Council, as well as by the City.
Thank you, Ms. Gerstein, for your testimony. At this time, I recognize Councilman Goode for questioning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for Clear Channel. Mr. Kauker, in your testimony, you reference several times state law. When was that state law enacted?
And how long 164 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 has Clear Channel been in the outdoor advertising business?
Well, our company and its predecessors have existed for over 100 years.
Are you familiar with the period of time in which this state law was enacted and whether your company or whether your predecessors supported or opposed it?
Well, you seem to come here talking about a state statute. I'm assuming that you researched it, the history around it and your company's full position on it. Did you not?
No, I didn't. It's an existing statute and that's the part that I researched.
You used it as part of an argument for what you wanted to say anyway? 165 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865
Okay. Thank you. To Mr. Rahdert, in your view, are you familiar with the state statute and whether it is constitutional?
The question is whether the state statute is constitutional?
I don't believe -- I'm not aware of any legal test for that state statute. Its restriction has a similar problem in being a geographical restriction of considerable extent. So it would have to be examined under the Lorillard standards in the same way.
But you did not examine the state statute in terms of its constitutionality?
No. My focus was on the bill that is before you. I did not consider constitutionality of the 166 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 statute.
Thank you. Do any of the three of you live in Philadelphia?
Oh, that's hilarious. Which Councilmanic District do you live in within Philadelphia?
Could I just state one thing regarding the state statute? I did do some research into the state statute regarding the 300 feet provision. There has been one section of that statute that has been declared unconstitutional, and that provision has 167 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 to do with limiting advertisements or paying for advertisements at college newspapers, and college and higher education not being allowed to be paid for the advertisement. The rest of the statute has not been challenged.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Counselor, just so you are aware, and I'm sure you are, that both of the stadiums are not City facilities any longer, but just to make you feel comfortable, we do own the Philadelphia International Airport, and you may be aware that there's restrictions for advertising of alcohol and tobacco at the airport. You're aware of that?
Professor, the question that I had, the point that 168 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 you made earlier -- I think you may have addressed that issue, so I'm going to hold going back over that. I think I'm satisfied with the answer, because you addressed it with Councilman Goode. I'm satisfied with the response that you made. That will satisfy my need. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. Any other questions from this panel? Councilman Clarke.
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Acting Chair. Good afternoon. Let me go back to some language. Now, you may have referenced the language. You talked about the legal standard, commercial speeches protected by the First Amendment, federal courts have concluded that advertising be regulated if the ordinance satisfies all 169 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 of these three criteria.
We have three, but I'll probably accept your four. The first one --
The first one is about the speech itself. That might be why that focused on the three that have to do with the government regulations.
If you adopt that, then the point is moot. We can't regulate any content, which I disagree with. The asserted government interest addressed by the law or regulation is substantial, I think that we've proven that based on the government's witnesses today, not to mention the witnesses from the community and the advocacy groups. Two, the law or regulation directly advances the asserted government interest, I think we've proven that based on the government's witnesses today, 170 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 because they clearly indicated that it is their charge to protect youth, particularly as it relates around substance abuse and the problems associated with alcohol. Three, the law or regulation employs a means that is narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objection. Now, I think that points to the issue with respect to the broad scope of this particular bill. Currently in the City of Philadelphia, we have a billboard regulation that is 660 feet for any billboards around the aforementioned types of locations; i.e., schools, recreation centers. Would you agree that if this bill were amended -- and I know you're not going to agree, but I'm going to ask you the question. Would you agree that if this bill were amended to incorporate the 660-foot current provision, that it would fit within the narrowly tailored area 171 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 that would support our need to have such a regulation?
Well, I think it would come closer, and one of the concerns that the Court had about a thousand foot restriction is the extent of the ban in metropolitan areas. But it would ultimately be a fact question about how much of the advertising space for this kind of billboard advertising would be left after that ban were enforced and whether that would be sufficient to meet the Court's standards for narrow tailoring. Some of the justices in the Lorillard case, however, also raised other issues. For example, as Mr. Kauker said, I think, this provision would apply radially. It's my understanding that it would apply in every single direction. So what if, for example, it would remove a billboard that was positioned so that people could see it on Interstate 95, one of the elevated sections of 95 where 172 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 there happened to be a school or daycare center or something somewhere within a thousand feet below it. It wouldn't necessarily be seen by the children going to that and yet it would still be restricted by the ordinance. So there --
I'm dealing with the current provision that prohibits billboards within the 660 feet, a provision that is law. My question to you --
Well, it could still be constitutionally challenged by someone even though it's currently law. I thought you were asking me to reflect on what its constitutionality would be if it were so challenged. I think there are additional issues, is what I'm trying to say.
You spoke of the broad nature of the bill. What I'm saying is that we currently have a provision that prohibits certain signage within 660 feet, certain billboards, and 173 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 I'm saying that that's currently law. So if this particular bill, that it adopted a provision for all signage and billboards in this narrowly defined 660-foot perimeter, that I think that that could pass constitutional muster. We've already established a 660-foot perimeter based on prior testimony as it related to the need to have such prohibitions on billboards.
Well, let me respond two ways. One is, I still think 660 feet still presents a potential issue under Lorillard.
Under the Lorillard decision. There is, however, another issue and, that is, if I'm understanding you correctly, you have a provision that applies to all billboards, no matter what their content. Part of the problem here is that you're singling out a particular kind of content, a particular message, 174 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 and you're saying that message in particular cannot be presented even though other messages can. In some respects under the First Amendment, it is safer to have a rule that, for whatever reasons, aesthetic reasons or city planning reasons, says we just don't want billboards of a certain size in certain locations. And that sort of standard, again, depending upon its ultimate impact on speech in the community, can sometimes more easily meet constitutional requirements.
So is it your understanding that there are no 18 current prohibitions on any advertisement of either tobacco or alcohol anywhere in the nation?
Oh, absolutely not. That's not my position at all. There are --
Well, that's what you just said. You said we 175 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 should not be able to prohibit certain specific types of content.
I was trying to draw a distinction between a rule that says no billboards in a particular neighborhood. Many communities have that.
But you said we were looking at content on that billboard.
Well, this particular ordinance is about alcoholic beverage advertising. That's about specific content.
Correct. And what I'm saying is that throughout this country, there is legislation that has passed constitutional muster that talks about specific content. Would you agree?
I am not aware since the Lorillard decision of any case that has upheld a restriction on alcoholic beverage advertising, a 176 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 geographical restriction on alcohol advertising --
No. You said that we should not be able to specifically outline a particular type of content. I'm asking you, any content whatsoever? You can't say, Well, in one hand, you can't do alcohol, but in the other hand, you can specifically detail a particular type of use other than alcohol.
Any message 177 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 that --
Any message that you would try to outlaw in a particular area would raise the same constitutional question. It would be subject to the Central Hudson test, and you would have to show that there was a substantial interest in regulating that content --
-- that it was directly advanced by the restriction and that it did not sweep more broadly than necessary.
Well, my position is that this ordinance does not meet that final test, the fourth test, and I think that's clear under the Lorillard decision.
Okay. 178 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 That's fine. We can agree to disagree.
I'm confused for a second. Isn't television still banned? And I know I just saw an alcohol commercial for hard liquor on television. Why wouldn't your position apply to the ban for alcoholic advertising on television?
Well, first of all, you have to be very careful to distinguish between voluntary and required, and maybe Mr. Kauker can speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that the alcoholic beverage industry has adopted many voluntary restrictions on advertising in a variety of different media. Those would not be a matter of legal analysis, because they had been voluntarily adopted.
So what 179 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 we're seeing now, I mentioned to one of my colleagues I saw an ad for liquor or whatever on television, that those organizations, those companies have decided to go away, like SEPTA has, from their voluntary agreement not to advertise on television?
I'm not aware -- I understand that it's a voluntary ban, but I don't know.
Councilman Clarke, you had a follow-up question. Then we'll move to Councilman Goode.
Just a quick point of information. What is Free Speech LLC and what's the association with Temple 180 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 University?
It has no 4 association with Temple University. They asked me to assist them. I'm being compensated for that and I'm providing assistance.
My association is that I was asked to consult for them, which I'm doing.
That's a summary 181 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 of my testimony and it identifies my position at Temple University.
But is it formal testimony that you submitted for the record?
But the testimony is from Mark Rahdert, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law, but you were paid by Free Speech to offer an opinion?
You don't think we would see it as a conflict? (Applause.)
You were not fully disclosing. You are now fully 182 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 disclosing that you're being compensated.
What you did in your written testimony was present it as a Temple University Professor, someone who is associated with a state funding institution here commenting on state law, testifying as someone from an association with a state institution located within a Council District that has the highest proliferation of this type of advertising. Do you think your employer will see it as a conflict of interest?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. From Clear Channel, I just want to get some clarity on your earlier reference. You said that Clear Channel 183 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 is adhering to a 500-foot provision. What provision is that?
It is an industry standard that's on OAAA, Outdoor Advertising Association of America, standard. It's also the standard of the beer industry and the Distilled Spirits Council.
I just want to be clear, because some people -- there was a certain law provision as it related to advertisement in the City of Philadelphia, 660, and when you say 500, I just wanted to get some clarity that it's understood that you're not adhering to any City provision, any City statute at all, that's just an internal policy 184 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 decision for you.
Thank you so much for your testimony this afternoon. Our next panel will be composed of Mr. Chris Wally, Priscilla Bennett, Tyrone Williams and Greg -- forgive me if I'm mispronouncing your last name, Greg Spearman. Please come forward. If there's anyone else that is here to testify, join the panel that has come to the witness table, please. Please proceed with your 185 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 testimony. Please state your name.
Good afternoon. My name is Tyrone Williams. I'm the community liaison of the Strawberry Mansion Neighborhood Action Center.
Can you speak closer to the microphone, please. Thank you.
I said good afternoon. My name is Tyrone Williams. I'm the community liaison of the Strawberry Mansion Action Center. I represent well over 230,000 residents of the Strawberry Mansion area. We have a boundary area that starts from Sedgley Avenue at 25th over to Lehigh, over to 34th and Lehigh, down to 33rd and Oxford. So I represent many of the residents who live around the stop-and-go's and sees these advertisements. I was listening to the testimony, and I must commend Tracy and Bonita and many of those who came 186 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 forward. I must commend them on their testimony, their research and their hard work. I need to say that the Strawberry Mansion Neighborhood Action Center hears many complaints daily on the stop-and-go's and the quality of life in the Strawberry Mansion area. I must also say that I'm troubled that the numbers that I heard in the Councilmanic Districts with the advertisement of malt liquor and the sex and the exploitation that is going on in our communities. I also work with many of the block captains in the Strawberry Mansion area who look for our office to offer some leadership. I'm going to go on record to say that we will offer that leadership and we will work with the block captains to keep them informed not only of Act 39 but of this bill, 050865. I heard standards being put out there by Clear Channel and the Professor, and I'm here to talk about the standard 187 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 of living in the Strawberry Mansion community, the right that the residents have to have a good standard of living, because they have the right, and it seems to me like that's being not recognized, that's being pushed aside for whatever means, whether it's financial gain or exploitation of a community. I will go back to my office and speak with the people I need to speak with so that I can inform the residents and the block captains to be prepared to get behind those who are in support of this bill and other bills like it that can enhance the quality of life in our communities. The residents in Strawberry Mansion and the City of Philadelphia deserve it. Thank you. (Applause.)
My name is 188 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 Vernard Johnson. I'm with the Southeast Pennsylvania Network for the Public's Health, Education and Welfare, and we're located at 1930 South 25th Street, Philadelphia. And I apologize for getting my name on the list late, but I thought it was done yesterday. But I offer my apologies. We're here to support Tracy Gordon in her effort to have these billboards removed. I was here years 13 ago. I thought it was done when Reverend 14 Brown was a part of this billboard 15 initiative, and I see that it hasn't been done. I'd like to make a couple of recommendations. One is, maybe we could somehow sticker those billboards that are illegal so that folks in the community know that these billboards are illegal, or maybe we should just take some paint and throw on them. I'm not being facetious here. For the last 25 years, we've been coming 189 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 here, and it seems like all we get is excuses. Not necessarily from you all, but just excuses of why the conditions in our neighborhood remain the same. And if they don't change, maybe what we should do is, and I said to Attorney Crawford, just get a brown paper bag, going back to my legal service days, and march down to the federal courthouse and sue everybody that's involved in this. We're talking about our children, and every day our children see those signs. Every day. They see the liquor. They see the beer. They see people stumbling out of these establishments. They see their parents sometimes addicted to drugs and alcohol. I was in South Philadelphia High School the other day, and you can see the tobacco from the cigars in the stairwell and you can smell the reefer like it was a hooch in Vietnam, and it's sickening and it needs to stop. And if we all need to go upstairs or downstairs, 190 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 wherever the Mayor is, to say, Let's get together on this piece today, maybe that's what we need to do, because tomorrow the kids are going to see those same old nasty billboards. Maybe we should create a nuisance task force, somewhat maybe a bilateral task force, Councilman, and maybe one of you and someone like Tracy from the community side co-chairs that task force. Maybe we look at not just the billboards, but all the other nuisances that go on in our community that are brought in by people from the outside. How dare Temple University allow somebody to come here and testify like that? We'd like to have a copy of the testimony, because as soon as we leave here, we're going to go to Temple with it. We're going to go straight to Temple University with it and see if they object to a professor from the Law School on Broad Street testifying on behalf of 191 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 the alcohol industry that's corrupting our community. If you look at this map and then go get that billboard that candidate, now District Attorney, Abraham walked around with to show all the crime in the City when she was running for DA and then look at this map, it seems to me to be -- I mean, if the Health Commissioner has been here and the Commissioner from DHS has been here and said this is no good, then maybe we should get you all to sign on to the suit on the brown paper bag and we should all go down federal court and do -- let me tell you something, this didn't start with the guy who is downstairs now. This started with your Governor. I mean, he was the one who didn't want to enforce this stuff, and he's up there now. And we got these stop-and-go's going crazy in our community. You guys getting ready to hold hearings with his Control Board. Maybe we should think about sweeping him 192 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 out. It's time for this crap to stop. I haven't been here in a long time. A lot of you have never seen me here before. I've seen Council change. I don't even know some of the guards in the back. That's how long ago I've been here. This was a terrible lesson of civics.
Tracy asked me to bring some of my students here to testify. I'm glad I didn't. You know, when that bill -- and I'll finish with this. When that billboard thing years ago passed, I 15 was just asking my wife, it couldn't be around schools, the billboard. I saw those billboard companies with the billboard on the back of a trailer and they ride around the communities. They were sitting -- the school was at 24th and Christian. They'd be sitting at 17th and Christian with the billboard. These jokers need to pay a price. We need to penalize them. We need to take some money out of their 193 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 pocket. As a community, maybe we need to go around and take them down. We don't have enough resources. Don't lock us up when we start taking them down. This is ridiculous. I'll close with this, maybe a month or two ahead of time: Fund the Health Department to its fullest levels so that it can do the education it needs, not through some program, but it can do the ongoing education it needs to educate our folks and to treat our folks who are addicted, because if there's not a demand, there won't be this kind of crap going on. So we need to take a serious effort in this town to educate people and to treat people so we can reduce the need. It's crazy. I'm going to ask Councilwoman Blackwell, who has got a lot of these signs in her district, and she's my Councilperson, if she'll join us in some type of aggressive legal action against these folks. 194 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 That's all I have to say. )
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions of this witness from any Committee members? (No response.)
My name is Greg Spearman. I'm actually with the 18th District Community Town Watch and other groups. You can keep on naming them. The last panel that was sitting up here, they did leave, didn't they? Because I really would like to know if they got any of the eight sheets in their neighborhoods. We already know they don't live in Philadelphia. We would like to know the dynamics of their neighborhood and how it reflects with this here map, and I think that's something that should be asked. It's 195 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 something that I think is very important, because the last time I came down here to testify about this here proliferation of this type of advertisement in our communities, L&I took and deferred their judgments and their duties to the legal process, but as you seen as the billboard industry came in, they came in with their legal representatives, and I don't see why we don't have our legal staff in here, why we don't have the legal department here telling us why.
Well, how did this guy just get to ramble on and we didn't have any cross-examination from our legal department? Thank you, Councilman Clarke, for doing an eloquent job, and such as you, Councilman Goode. Thank you both. (Applause.)
But where's our legal staff at? 196 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 I think it's very insulting. I was kind of offended, Councilman Kenney, when you deferred the responsibility to the second floor, and especially an At-Large member. You're At-Large, sir, and I think it's your responsibility --
Well, you came directly at me, so I just want to correct the record, if you can just give me a second. I never deferred to the second floor. I explained, and I think pretty clearly explained, that no matter what we introduce here and what we pass here, unless the enforcement is ordered by the second floor, they won't come down. That's all I said. (Applause.)
I think most 197 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 people here are astute enough to know the makeup of this legislative government. That's why we're here.
I'm not fighting with you, sir. I'm just telling you how I feel. This is my personal opinion.
Well, you're directing a criticism at me when I've been nothing but supportive of this issue and you and everybody else in this room since I've been here, and I don't think it's fair. That's all I'm saying. That's my opinion.
So if you want to attack me for whatever reason and praise Councilman Goode and Councilman Clarke, that's fine, but --
Sir, if you took it as an attack, then you misunderstood what I'm saying.
I don't 198 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 think I deserve to be criticized for something I've been trying to work with and help you and everybody else in this room for years in here. 6 (Applause.) 7
And if you 8 feel that that's warranted, then fine. 9 You have a problem with me, I understand. 10
The point that 11 I'm making and what I'm saying today and 12 I think -- 13
And I'm sorry for that. I'm not a doctor or else I would help.
The point that I'm making in saying that -- and if you take it as a personal attack, I'm sorry for that, because it's not. Because we all share responsibility in this, each and every one of the Councilpeople up 199 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 there, as well as us, and that's why we're here living up to our responsibility. We're all going to have to take and gourd. I mean, it's not a situation where we have to go down, such as Vernard said. When you said that, he said "along with all the Councilpeople." We all have a responsibility in this. Councilman DiCicco said the last time we was here talking about these here eight sheets, he referred to your father, Mayor Frank Rizzo, at the time. He said -- I don't remember the exact wording. He said what he would do is take them down and then go to court later.
We're here trying to figure out what the legal process is. We know they got all these illegal signs. I ask you, you find a way for me to take them down at my cost in the Third Councilmanic District. Take me up on it. I'll pay for the training if I 200 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 need training. You just take me up on it and I'll take down what I can on these eight sheet signs, because it's ridiculous. It's actually insulting to us. Dr. Godley gave us all the reasons why, barring none, all the reasons why we should be out there taking these signs down, and I think it's criminal for all of us in this here -- in the capacity of these elected positions that we have, because I'm an elected official, too, 60th Ward, 11th Division, to take and ignore these things that's happening. I live in the 18th Police District. We have a community workshop once a month. Ninety nine percent easy of the community workshop is black people in the workshop, but it tends when we look -- at 42nd Street, you can't sell no 23 drugs. On 52nd Street, you can sell drugs all day. I think the problems that we 201 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 have aren't exclusive to West Philly, North Philly. I think when it comes back down to it, as I said yesterday at the hearing, it comes down to will, and do we have the will to do the right thing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Spearman. Do any Committee members have any questions of this witness? (No response.)
Could we get a copy of the testimony of the Professor from Temple? We tried at the table, but there wasn't any left.
The law professor from Temple University, could we have a copy of his testimony? 202 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865
I want to thank everyone for coming in to testify. Are there any other persons to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I'd just like to personally say that I think we had very good testimony today. Thank you for your commitment to this issue, and your passion shows, your commitment shows in your testimony. Thank you. This concludes the testimony on Bill No. 050865 and we will now move into our public meeting. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I was prepared to offer two amendments, one increasing the penalty to $700, subsequently to $2,000 over a period of years. I was also prepared to introduce an amendment pairing back from a thousand feet to 660 203 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 feet, but because of the testimony of the individuals both representing Clear Channel and the lawyer representing Clear Channel, I think I would prefer to leave it at a thousand feet at this time, because it is clear to me that they will fight this particular provision regardless as to what amount of feet we put it in, so we might as well leave it at a thousand. So I'm going to offer the amendment to increase the penalty. So at this time, I'd like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 050865. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it. Councilman Clarke, can I have a motion on Bill No. 050865 as amended.
Yes, Madam 204 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 4 050865 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 050865 as amended -- I move that Bill No. 13 050865 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. And I guess we're going to also call for rules suspension?
So as to permit first reading of the bill at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
Will someone please make that motion. I can't make the motion.
Madam 205 12/6/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 050865 Chair, I move that Bill 050865 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Then this Committee is concluded and this bill has been reported out favorably. (Joint Committees on Public Safety and Public Health and Human Services adjourned at 1:50 p.m.) - - - 206 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 6, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)