Thank you. been read on two different days, was approved by City Council on December 4, 2003, and was returned to Council by the Mayor as disapproved at today's Session of Council. The question is, shall Bill No. 030686 pass notwithstanding the Mayor's disapproval? Again, I would call your attention that a vote of aye is to override the Mayor's veto. And a vote of no is to sustain the Mayor's veto. At this time I would ask the Chief Clerk to please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 15, the nays are 0. A two-thirds majority of all Councilmembers having voted in the affirmative, the Mayor's veto is overridden. (Applause.)
Today, we have a third. Council will now proceed under a special order of business to the reconsideration of Bill No. 030714. This bill was passed by Council at its December 4, 2003 Session, and was returned disapproved by the Mayor to today's Session of Council. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Council reconsider Bill 030714, which was approved by Council on December 4, 2003. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor let it be known by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, the motion carries. Council will now reconsider the vote by which Bill No. 030714 was passed. The Chief Clerk will please read the title of the bill. THE
Bill No. 030714, an ordinance amending Section 11-505 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Sidewalk Paving and Other Improvements by Property Owners," by revising the process governing the grading, paving, repaving or repair of sidewalks and setting or resetting of curbs, and by revisiting the assessment of property owners for the cost of such work, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll try to be brief on this. President, this is an issue that I have worked on over the years probably for almost all of my time here in City Council, which is trying to reestablish in a different way a process that was already in place prior to my arriving in City Council which is, how does the City try to address the concerns that homeowners have about the general condition of their curbs and sidewalks. We recognize that the general liability and responsibility for the homeowners with regard to curb and sidewalk still rest with them. But the question always occurs. In many of our neighborhoods throughout this City where you have the deterioration of the curb and sidewalk area, the excessive cost that is involved in trying to deal with this, how are homeowners supposed to respond to make sure that their curb and sidewalk are in good repair, in good order? There is at least one program in the City that operates in only a couple of neighborhoods because of cost which is called the Model Blocks Program. It is a program by the William Penn Foundation as well as the City's Office of Housing and Community Development with a grant from our Community Development Block Grant funds. And what happens in that program is, when the block organization works with the Model Blocks Program, they determine the full cost of repairing the curb and sidewalk. Thirty percent of the cost is covered by the homeowners. The other 70 percent of the cost is covered by the program. What this bill seeks to do is move us one step closer to having an actual program that is responsive needs of our citizens. Now, we received a message here today from the Mayor. And I respect the Mayor's message and I respect his concerns. I think though, unfortunately, the concerns are overstated and premature at this moment. One, we have a very limited program. Two, other than that, there is no program that responds to the concerns of citizens, unlike the situation in Chicago where they have a program for people and an additional program for citizens, and many other cities across the country. But this bill today, notwithstanding the message that we received, does not cost the City any money for a couple reasons: One, there is no identified funding source. Two, if you read the bill in its entirety and look at Section 11-505 of the Philadelphia Code, that section which we have amended reads, "Whenever the Department of Streets determines that it is necessary to grade, pave, repave or repair the sidewalks and to set or reset the curb of any public street in the City, it shall give written notice of the Department's intention have such work done and the provisions of this section to the owner of the property adjoining which such work is to be done or to his agent," and on and on. It is within the full discretion in this bill still of the Department of Streets to determine when they are out repaving a street, which is our responsibility, if the curb and sidewalk area are so deteriorated that it is necessary to have the curb and sidewalk, this bill starts to set up a process by which there would be payment, reasonable payment by the homeowners, similar to the process that we put in to effect a couple years ago when I raised the issue, and many Members here supported, the issue of retaining walls. Now, for years we were told, the City can't do anything about retaining walls, we can't afford it, they're too expensive, they're too many of them, on and on and on, horror stories day and night. Last year during the NTI hearings, the issue was raised about having some of the NTI money provided for a study and a pilot program to deal with retaining walls.
Today, three retaining walls have been done in this City; one in the 8th Councilmanic District, one in the 9th Councilmanic District, and one in my own in the 4th Councilmanic. As a result of the start of a similar process, determining what the cost would be, we decided in this Council before we had a funding source identified, before we had a program in place, that homeowners would only be responsible for $50 per linear foot on the repair of a retaining wall. Then we identified a funding source, and then a study was done, and now work has been completed. Apparently, the City likes the program so much, they did a pilot program of three walls this year, NTI anticipates doing eight to twelve retaining walls next year. But every year that I've been here until last year, I was told by the government, We cannot do retaining walls, they cost too much, it's too expensive for the City, which is the same message in this particular letter today. We need to establish a process. People have been asking for years, when is the City going to do something about this? We talk about neighborhood revitalization and what it means. Well, it means different things to different people in different neighborhoods. This is the kind of neighborhood revitalization that some people would like to see. It's not a helter-skelter situation. It's not about 23 hundred miles of streets and 4500 acres of sidewalks. Of going to do every curb and sidewalk in the City because every curb and sidewalk in the City does not need to be done and you have to have a rational program to do it. But we don't re-surface everybody's street every year either, even though they may be need. We allocate a specific amount of money for re-surfacing. That's what we have, that's what we use. And if we don't have any more money for your street, we'll try to get you next year. So we're trying to establish a rational process for how we address this particular issue. " All I heard from people was yes. Now we have a bill that passed this Council I believe unanimously. Now it's come back. If you supported the concept before, it seems to me that you should support the concept now because nothing has changed in the last two weeks between on December 4th and now the bill coming back to us on December 18th. So I ask my colleagues to support this effort, to start a process as we go into next year's budget process and next year's discussion about NTI. Let us give something to the taxpayers of this City. Let us give them something that they have been asking for and establish a rational process that allows us to get from Point A to Point B. Doing the streetscapes in this City does improve the quality of life in many of our neighborhoods. So I ask my colleagues to support this effort, to start a process of putting a program in place. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted for the record the sponsor indicated that there was a unanimous vote. I voted against the I voted against the bill upon its passage. And unfortunately, because I to some degree agree with the concept of the bill, will be voting today and it's purely for budgetary issues. So I just wanted for the record to correct the sponsor.
Thank you. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I knew I was on slightly shaky ground. Some of you may have noticed I hesitated when I said unanimous. I was wondering about that, and I appreciate Councilman Clarke correcting the record. I meant certainly no disrespect to him in mischaracterizing. I do appreciate the Councilman's concern about the financial implications. I think -- and the Councilman knows me well. I think I've indicated over some of my time here in City Council that I share similar concerns about financial pressures and budgetary issues. As I laid out earlier though in my comments, at the moment this bill would not cost the City anything because the only people who at the moment under this bill who would be able to determine that anything was going to happen would be the Department the Streets. Last I checked, the Department of Streets was a major part of the City Administration and the Executive branch of government. And I think until we've identified a funding source, the Department of Streets probably won't respond to the particular provisions of this bill. But it does, again, as I indicated, at least start a process. I'm very mindful of the fiscal concerns that we are facing. At the same time, we do spend money every day. We make spending decisions not only in this Council but in the government; some of which we actually have a hand in, some of which we don't. This is an issue that is very, very important to many people throughout the City. So I would only ask members to think about their colleagues, think about the needs and requests that people have made, and vote in particular measure. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'm not suggesting or in any way attempting to influence anyone's vote. I just simply wanted to indicate the basis for my vote. I personally don't like setting unrealistic expectations for the constituents of my particular Council District. So until I can, hopefully, identify a reasonable funding source or the possibility of a funding source, I just don't feel comfortable voting this bill. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. colleagues to support this bill because Councilman Nutter and I and a number of other Councilmembers represent areas where this issue of curbs and sidewalks, retaining walls, driveways -- when I go to a meeting, I know immediately what they're going talk about because it's important and their community and the quality of life. We had the same struggle over the retaining wall issue during the NTI hearings. My district was the beneficiary of getting one of those retaining walls, and it made all the difference to those neighbors up in East Oak Lane because that crumbling, blighted retaining wall was repaired, and the people were very happy. All they ask us to do is to try and find a way to help them. They don't ask the City to pay the whole freight. Just set a process in place so that we can participate. Five people don't want to pay for a hundred houses. They want everybody to pay their fair share. And so therefore, if we begin -- and we've been for years looking at what is the process, then we need to have a process in place to begin to So I think that this is a good bill and we ought to support it.
Thank you. This bill having been read on two different days was duly approved by City Council on December 4, 2003, and was returned to Council by the Mayor as disapproved at today's Session of Council. The question is, shall Bill No. 030714 pass notwithstanding the Mayor's disapproval. Again, a vote of aye is a vote to override the Mayor's veto. And a vote of no is to sustain the Mayor's veto. At this time I would ask the Chief Clerk to please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 13, the nays are 2. A two-thirds majority of all Members of Council having voted in the affirmative, the Mayor's veto is overridden. There are neither reports from committees nor bills on the First Reading Calendar this morning. Therefore, the Chair asks Councilwoman Blackwell to please call up the bills on the Second Reading and Final Passage Calendar to be considered today.
Thank you, Madam President. Today Bills No. 010181, 03040, 030767, 030768, 030769, 030825, 020826, 030742, 030743, 030785, 030788, 030731, 030732, 030733, 030734, 030735, 030736, 030737, 030738, 030739, 030741, 030784, 030682 030772, 030773, 030774, 030775, 030776, 030777, 030778, 030779, 030780, 030781, 030782 030827 are being called up for second reading and final passage today. Thank you.
Thank you. All other bills will be held. The Chief Clerk will please read title of the first bill to be considered, Bill No. 010181. THE
An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1500 entitled "Area Surrounding Airports," by adding a new Section 14-1503 entitled "Building Setback Line," under certain terms and conditions.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 14, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 030740. THE
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Allegheny Avenue, Collins Street, Westmoreland Street and tulip Street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chair recognizes Councilman
Thank you. If this is the time in which to speak, I'd be very pleased to speak, Madam President.
Council has, so far, indicated that it's concerned about the people of Philadelphia. We will find out when the real issue comes today whether Council is interested in saving neighborhoods, a fine neighborhood like Port Richmond, a neighborhood that cannot tolerate being the home of a group of people who run business into the ground, who chose to employ people without health benefits putting the cost of taxpayers health benefits instead of accepting them, a group of people who seek to introduce into the United States the notion that workers have no rights, that a job is not worth having because it doesn't pay to support your family, it doesn't take care of health benefits, it doesn't take care of retirement plans. Who's going to provide for retirement? A company so each of the last two years, over a half of all of its employees leave because they can't stand the conditions, a company with a representation that even -- Councilman O'Neill, I'm going to mention one of your favorite candidates, Republican candidate for Senate and current Senior Senator from Pennsylvania Arlen Specter says -- and remember, he's Republican. And he says, "It's time for Wal-Mart to meet the human race." (Applause.)
AFL President John Sweeney seems to disagree with the contingent of carpenters that have occasionally come here to speak in support of Wal-Mart. Sweeney says that Wal-Mart has delayed war on labor and on the American worker because Wal-Mart is trying to bring to the United States third world citizenship. He's trying to treat the people of United States as workers unfit to be able to support their family. That's why so many of them leave each year. It's a company that compels people under various circumstances to work for are afraid to -- they're asked to stay overtime and they're not even paid. And my suggestion is that any person in public life, any person in public life who supports that kind of standard has no business representing the people of the United States. (Applause.)
When we get sworn in for the next term on January 5th, just like every other swearing-in ceremony, we swear to do things in the interest of the people of Philadelphia and to break the wage standards. And to say that 8 to $10 an hour is a fair wage is not servicing the good of Philadelphia. I, at the last meeting, spoke about the blight that I think Wal-Mart is, and it's a blight that's getting recognized everywhere. More than 20 communities have already been engaged in these kinds of battles against Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is open and the clear, they hate the labor movement, they think workers should have no rights except the knee and crawl on the floor and tell their families that they're entitled after two years if they last that long -- and very few do -- that they're entitled to health benefits, but you're not. They say that to their wife and their children. And if it's a wife working, she has to say it to her husband and her children. Because when they finally award health benefits, they award it only to the worker, not to the family. Don't they appreciate that a worker is concerned about his family? I say a company that operates that way has no right to exist. It is a blight to the nation. And we're going to join, I hope, today the more than 20 other communities that have rejected Wal-Mart. And I can't understand under any circumstance why anybody in this body would vote to employ Wal-Mart. The City of Philadelphia is much better without any Wal-Mart anywhere. (Applause.)
But certainly, in a residential area with the small streets that Richmond, this will be the death nail of the hospital. And without a hospital, a community dies. (Applause.)
I also represent Port Richmond. It isn't only a District Councilman that represents, I run in every area of the City, and I'm concerned about every area of the City. The people in Port Richmond voted overwhelmingly to send me back to Council. They also voted for Councilman DiCicco. I see my duty to protect the people of Port Richmond. And I think the people of Port Richmond appreciate that fact. (Applause.)
So I'm appealing to my colleagues, each of whom received a memorandum from me yesterday outlining the joint bipartisanship in opposition to Wal-Mart and the way in which the business groups think about Wal-Mart. Just a week ago, Monday night, Brookin Institute that issued that famous report about two weeks ago saying that backward and Philadelphia has moved backward over the last 50 years, is now at across road. And the author of that report said plainly at a hotel that the choice is clear, Philadelphia's at the crossroad, it either goes the Wal-Mart way, which means to provide jobs that don't support families, or get focused on economic development which pays a wage that enables the worker to support his other her family and provide for retirement and for health benefits. And the author of this report said, "If we do it the Wal-Mart way, then 50 years from now we're going to go back again, as his report does, to the last 50 years and say for this second set of 50 years, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania have also moved backward. So that the business community -- Brookin Institute is no liberal group but is a group in between moderate and conservative. But they are interested, apparently, in seeing Pennsylvania develop. I think it's shameful that the Wal-Mart proposal is even being presented to of Philadelphia. And I urge all my colleagues, respect the citizens of Philadelphia say no to Wal-Mart. Vote no on this issue. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Councilman Cohen is very eloquent on the issue. We're supposed to be a labor town, a labor City. Wal-Mart is the biggest enemy that organized labor has in this country or any country across the world. (Applause.)
It pits one union against the other in order to get short-term benefit for one union. But the unions that support building this Wal-Mart, it isn't about building that we're opposing. We want the warehouse to be filled. We want the warehouse to be fixed up. We want the warehouse to become profitable. We want the warehouse to provide jobs. It is who and how. And the way to go. (Applause.)
The company today is almost a government unto itself. It tells the government of Bangladesh how much they're going to pay an hour so that they can produce the products that they then sell here very cheaply. They tell the government of Honduras that a factory has become unionized and the factory has gone up from 25 cents an hour to 35 cents an hour. And since they have gone up, they are moving their product to nearby Guatemala which we'll pay them 25 cents an hour. They want and they employ over a million individuals across this country. Close to 2 million, I think. They don't pay a living wage. Wherever they go, they put other retail businesses out of business. (Applause.)
We have right close by Aramingo Avenue, a very thriving retail sector. Aramingo provides lots of jobs to citizens of Philadelphia, to the people of neighborhoods around it. The businesses on Aramingo Avenue pay a living wage. The competition will be Wal-Mart, a huge Wal-Mart. Many of those businesses that are now on Aramingo Avenue will not survive. People will be out of work. And the interesting thing about all of this issue is that we have put forward this project without having an economic impact done on the community and how it would affect the retail businesses that surround it. No economic impact. We do know how Wal-Mart has affected and impacted other communities. We have seen it all over the United States. We have seen malls close down after Wal-Mart comes in and out-bids, out-sells them because they can, they can put low prices on their products because, like I said, they're a government unto themselves. The revenues that they gather is probably more than 40, 60, 70 nations across the world. We need to be able to protect our own retail businesses. We need to protect the businesses on Aramingo Avenue. We need to and the retail individuals on Allegheny Avenue and up towards Kensington. Those people have been there for years. They haven't left. Even when the neighborhood started going down, they came in and they stayed. (Applause.)
And those unions that support it today, let me tell you something. When Wal-Mart is in charge, there will be no unions. (Applause.)
And the way they are going across this country -- look what is happening in LA, in Los Angeles, in California today. The City Council of California today is considering bills of how to prevent the establishment of Wal-Marts across the City of Los Angeles. The State Legislature is looking into how do you prevent the economic disaster that would occur in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, if you leave this company to have its way. It isn't about development; it is about jobs, living wage, and how do we Wal-Mart way is not the way to go. (Applause.)
It is very simple. We need to have a plan for the warehouse. We need to sit down with the economic development people that the Mayor has, with PIDC, and start looking. Look, we don't need to go begging in this City. This City is here, it is up and coming. We don't need to say, "You can come in and exploit our communities and our workers the way you exploit the third world in order to have a warehouse full with cheap stuff that will be bought when people will not get a good salary, with no health benefits, no job security; a company that right now in over 20 states across the country have been using illegal labor, exploiting illegal aliens, exploiting them. And now the federal government is looking into how they have used in order to prevent and to avoid paying good janitorial services and other services that they need. It's a company that goes and cuts corners in a profit. A profit becomes the end-all and be-all of this company. They violate human rights in the third world and they violate union and human rights in the United States. I don't think we're that desperate for a few jobs. I think we vote against Wal-Mart. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I was born and I was raised in Port Richmond. (Applause.)
And I don't think one person here in Council knows Port Richmond the way that I know Port Richmond. I rise to a different issue. We have three major Catholic churches right there on Allegheny Avenue. We have funeral parlors on Allegheny Avenue. We have doctors that I go The traffic just could not take a Wal-Mart. There is no way. (Applause.)
A Wal-Mart will destroy Port Richmond, believe me, because I am familiar with the traffic. I'm there practically every other week. And there is no way that I could support a Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. My question is, Where will the traffic come from? Will it go off Westmoreland? Will it come down Richmond? Will it go up I-95 at Allegheny and proceed towards Kensington? Where is this traffic going? I don't think there is a plan where that traffic is going. What happens when the children are coming out of the schools? What happens on Sunday? (Applause.)
There are many, many issues. I feel -- and I'm asking my colleagues to vote no against Wal-Mart. (Applause.)
I think we had some guidelines. Please do not do that.
Thank you, Madam President. First, I'd like to thank everyone again. I know a number of you have been here for, I think, the last two weeks. There are folks in favor of the Wal-Mart, and there's obviously folks opposed to it. And I want to thank you all again for coming to these meetings and participating in the process. These are never easy decisions to make, especially when a District Councilperson receives numerous, thousands of petitions. And when I look through those petitions as best I could determine, my best guess -- and it's only a guess because it's impossible to determine whether they're all authentic or not. And if I take out what you think is not authentic and you remove the signatures of people who live in Northeast Philadelphia, Chestnut Hill, Gladwyne who signed petitions opposed, you start to wonder really what is the true feeling in the community. I've been around long enough, as most of the Council folks in here, anytime there is opposition to anything, the people who are opposed to situation, a bill or what-have-you, although they may not be in the majority, are generally the most vocal. I have deliberated this issue for the last 15 months, and there are those who still believe that the hospital fully intends to take that site and develop it. I, for one, am still not convinced of that. The hospital had a chance for 15 months -- for three years, as a matter of fact, since the Goldman Printing Company went out of business, to buy that site. And for them to come to a public hearing and to suggest that they're going to as another parking lot when they have a parking lot on the south side of Allegheny Avenue that is normally locked up is ludicrous; is ludicrous. It's insulting. (Applause.)
The one thing when I began this process that I never thought, at least about three months into this process, I never thought I'd have to deal with was the issue of a Wal-Mart not being accepted because this Council recently supported a bill in Councilman O'Neill's district on the site of the Whitman Chocolate factory on the Boulevard to develop a number of big boxes, including a Wal-Mart. For me, it was never a question of being pro-Wal-Mart or anti-Wal-Mart. For me it was a question of what is in the best interest of the community at large. And we do differ. We do have our differences. I never ever once suggested that a Wal-Mart or any other type of retail or industrial development at the Goldman Paper SITE would not increase traffic. Anything there, including an annex to the hospital, which I never think will happen although I would like to have seen happen, would increase traffic. Granted, not to the extent that a Wal-Mart may, there will be additional traffic no matter what becomes developed on that site. And to suggest that all of the churches and all of the parishes along Allegheny Avenue which are now all in my district are totally against it is incorrect. I received a letter yesterday from the principal of Our Lady Help of Christians supporting a Wal-Mart. She believes, as I do, that the removal of a two block blighted building which is a potential disaster to the entire Port Richmond community and the hospital is much better than what you are all proposing, to let it sit there and hopefully somebody else beside a developer for Wal-Mart will come along and do something with that site. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tear it down.
If you tear it down, who's going to pay for it? The taxpayers. And then what we have is a vacant lot. And I can tell you, because I will be for better or worse representing you for the next four years, the next complaint will be, "What are we going to do about the vacant lot, the short dumping and all the other problems that are there?" That being said, that being said, as a courtesy to everyone and especially some of my colleagues who still are not certain about what to do with this bill, I am going to hold this bill with the purpose of -- so that you all understand, the people with placards opposed, this means the bill is dead for the time being. Okay? The bill is dead. I am giving the hospital and all of the community leaders who say that they have an interest in getting something done positive three the next few months to come up with a plan that works in everyone's best interest. Thank you. (Applause.)
Please leave quietly. We're still trying to conduct very much.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a point of order.
Thank you. I want to thank Councilman DiCicco for his action today. It averts immediate dangers. But I want the Port Richmond community to know, don't relax. Don't relax. You have a legitimate interest in what's going to happen to that building. We want it used in a way that's to the good of the community, not hurting it. And once more, I want to thank Councilman DiCicco for recognizing that it's not wise to punish a community with a decision they're not prepared to receive. So thank everybody in Richmond. You won a great victory for everybody in Philadelphia. Thank you.
I would ask the Clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 030762. THE
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Map by changing of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Fillmore Street, the County Line and Oxford Avenue..
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 15, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 030768. THE
An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending provisions relating to the reconstruction of non-conforming structures, under certain terms and conditions.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll. THE