COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, Sept. 29, 1999 10:16 a.m. - - - BILL 960064 - Amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions" by amending Chapter 9-600 entitled "Service Businesses," and by amending Section 9-608 entitled "Real Estate Signs" by amending the terms and conditions pursuant to the time period real estate signs may remain upon premises containing single or multifamily dwellings and by deleting Subsection 2 relating to prohibited signs, all under certain terms and conditions. BILL 970744 - Continued until the call of the Chair. BILL 990496 - Continued at the request of the sponsor. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Diane Lucidi, Director of Government. . . . . Affairs, Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors Lindsay Johnston, President. . . . . . . . . . 4 Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors Broker-Owner, Common Ground, University City Gerri Cooke, Executive Officer . . . . . . . . 17 Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors Jeff Boyer, Past President . . . . . . . . . . 23 Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors; Real-Estate Broker, West Philadelphia Ashley Andrus, Director of Public Policy . . . 26 Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Melani Lamond, Realtor, University City. . . . 27 Anne Rubin, President-Elect. . . . . . . . . . 33 Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors Broker-Owner, Century Lubin-Beck 17 Larry Starkman, Starkman Real Estate . . . . . 36 18 Deborah McColloch, Deputy Director . . . . . . 38 Office of Housing and Community Development 19 20 21 3 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Rules Committee. I would like the record to reflect that Bill No. 970744 will be continued until the call of the Chair, and Bill No. 990496 is being continued at the request of the sponsor. Therefore, the only bill that's going to be considered today is Bill No. 960064. I would ask Mr. DeMarco to please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 960064, an ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions" by amending Chapter 9-600 entitled "Service Businesses," and by amending Section 9-608 entitled "Real Estate Signs" by amending the terms and conditions pursuant to the time period real estate signs may remain upon premises containing single or multifamily dwellings and by deleting Subsection 2 relating to prohibited signs, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. 4 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Diane Lucidi. I'm director of government affairs for the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors.
My name is Lindsay Johnston. I'm the president of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. Good morning, members of the City Council Rules Committee. I am Lindsay Johnston, president of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors and broker-owner of Common Ground in University City. I am here today as a spokesman for the association. To testify in support of repealing the citywide ban on real-estate sold signs. The Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors, established in 1908, is the oldest citywide membership organization available to real-estate professionals and related service providers. Our membership presently consists of over 1300 licensed residential and commercial real-estate agents in the Philadelphia area. The association was founded on the principle of 5 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 partnerships with its members, with the community, and with city government. This principle has been the guiding force for the association's continued growth, progress, and success. The City of Philadelphia presently prohibits the posting of sold signs on single or multifamily dwellings in Philadelphia. That's Ordinance 9608. This prohibition is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and harmful to the city and its residents. Philadelphia is the only major city in the country that still enforces this antiquated legislation. Baltimore, Maryland was the last city to repeal the prohibition on sold signs in 1997. We have documentation from the top human-relations directors, both in Baltimore City and in Baltimore County, which I offer as Exhibit A, all in agreement that since the ban on sold signs was lifted in Baltimore, there have been no reported occurrences of block busting and/or panic selling in the city or county. A move in repealing this ordinance is a step in the right direction. Restricting -- I'm sorry, thank you, on to . Let me back up 6 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 here.
My apologies. A move in repealing this ordinance is a step in the right direction. Restricting the use of real-estate signs is harmful to the city. The statute, which purports to benefit the citizens of Philadelphia, actually infringes upon their amendment rights of freedom of free speech. This public policy has no place in our city. And because of its dated nature, the questionable real-estate practices which originally spurred the need for this historical law have been curbed by fair housing regulations. The Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 and real-estate-related amendments made to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in 1986 were enacted for the purpose of repressing these unethical and illegal practices. Further, the Real Estate Commission's rules and regulations prohibit licensees from promoting panic selling and provide severe penalties for those convicted of this practice. As you know, we face a perilous decline 7 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 in Philadelphia home ownership and continue to look for ways to attract potential residential and commercial buyers to Philadelphia. The ban on sold signs is a silent deterrent to citywide development and community pride. If I'm right, in the last two months, there have been at least four cover stories that have based their story on the decline in population in the City of Philadelphia. Perception is the basis for all buying decisions. The existence of numerous for-sale signs and no sold signs gives the prospective buyers the sense that people are fleeing the city and thereby diminishing the perceived value of Philadelphia's real estate market to current and future residents. Mayor Rendell has always promoted the city as a progressive place to live and work, especially to major corporations. The mayor's Business Action Team works diligently to convince companies that Philadelphia is the place to work and live. However, when a company decides to relocate, housing for relocating staff is a key issue to the final decision. In an area sweep of Philadelphia, 8 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 potential transferees would only note that there are many properties for sale. Because there are no sold signs, the logical conclusion often that is reached is that houses are not being sold, and these homes and their respective areas are not desirable places to live. By placing a sold sign on the property, we send a very strong message to the potential buyers that people are investing in the city and that it is a desirable place to live and work. City Council should desire to implement laws which form the basis of a rational and legal housing policy. It should encourage ownership of real property through the least intrusive means so that all citizens have the right to buy and sell real property in a constitutionally permitted manner. Since City Council is truly concerned with improving the residential fabric of the city, it should do so in a way that does not restrict the marketability of a property, which is strategically dependent upon signages. Prohibiting sold signs prevents the flow of information to the community at large, advising that sellers are successful in finding 9 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 buyers for their homes; and, thus, revitalizing our neighborhoods. The impression created by the sold sign ban is that homes never sell in Philadelphia. Consequently, these dangerous perceptions take root in the reality of neighborhood deterioration and flight from the residents to surrounding counties and states. I am aware that there is a letter from the Center City Housing Association that is disappointed in what this bill represents. I would tell you that their problem is more with Bill 51, which is with signage in general, and this is not their issue, and we would be happy to work with them with their concerns.
But for now, we urge City Council to repeal this law through the adoption of Bill 26 so that the City and the real-estate community can move beyond the blemishes of the past. Allowing the use of sold signs gives the perception that Philadelphia is a viable place to live and to work and that the real-estate market is not stagnant. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.
Thank you 10 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 very much. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. We've been at this effort now for a few years, and I understand and agree with and accept the contention, through my own visible -- from my own viewing of the situations in neighborhoods, that it is very frustrating to see sale sign after sale sign after sale sign, sometimes four and five on the block, and really never know in your own mind the disposition of that property or what's going on with it. One of the things that I raised privately to your association, and I want to raise publicly today, is something that I noticed while down at the Jersey shore this summer. There also is always a lot of signs there. They say every house at the Jersey shore's for sale at any given time. But I also noticed a lot of signs out on the lawns and then also the additional of a sign that says "sale pending," which would lead me to believe that someone has at least made an offer on 11 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 that property and that the potentiality of going to settle on that property is pretty real. Some of the opposition that I've gotten -- as a matter of fact, we've gotten today from the insurance company -- from a real estate and insurance company, is that they're saying that the sold sign really is misleading because it's really not sold until the settlement happens. And then once the settlement happens, there's no need for a sign on it anyway. So I'm wondering whether or not the sale-pending issue, or the sale-pending designation, sends the message we want to send while, at the same time, not having to deal with this law at all because it's not putting a sold sign on the property.
We have not discussed whether a sale-pending sign would be a satisfactory alternative. However, as it stands now, a sale-pending sign is also against the present rules.
Could you tell me where it is? I think it's just the use of -- see, I mean, we go back to the '70s. The issue that 12 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 created this situation in the first place was that some unscrupulous property owners and real-estate people were using the sold sign, the negativity of a sold sign, making it very prominent in the community, sending a message to the people living there that it was time to get out of your neighborhood, you know, that everybody was running. And that was done for the financial benefit to those particular individuals and to the social but it was to the economic detriment of the neighborhoods that they were doing it in. And I think at the time, it was probably an appropriate effort to stop the use of those sold signs. I agree with you totally that as time has gone on, the proliferation of sale signs today has the same detrimental effect as the sold signs did in the '70s. I think I get the same message from the proliferation of sale signs in every neighborhood as I would have gotten from the sold signs back in the '70s. The problem that we face today in dealing with this legislation is that, as we had in the past, we have a Center City problem, as you've mentioned in your testimony, because they 13 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 have arguments not necessarily with the issue of sold versus sale but with the issue of size, length of time that the sign stays up, the A-frames protruding from the wall -- we went through all of this discussion with the Center City people in the past. And one of the things that I wanted to do was to try to separate the two issues by continuing to prohibit the sold signs in Center City, while at the same time allowing the neighborhoods, which are basically single-family row houses where you see all of these signs, to maybe do the sold sign or sale-pending issue. My problem is that the issue of signage gets so involved with all of these other issues that we lose sight of the fact of what we're trying to cure here -- and that is the view that people in every neighborhood are selling their houses and running. So we get involved with aesthetics, with size, with length of time, with whether or not people want signs on the property at all. There are some people who will come in and argue that they don't want a sale sign on the property under any circumstance or a rental sign on the property under any circumstance. I mean, 14 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 we try to deal with and cure one problem that's facing the neighborhoods in an economic way and then all of this other stuff gets thrown on top of it, and we wind up getting nowhere. So that's why I'm suggesting two things now: consideration of an agreement that will leave Center City out of it for the moment, because they seem to be the ones most animated about the issue of signage; and to also maybe consider the possibility of doing the sale-pending sign as opposed to the sold sign. I'm not asking for you to give me a definitive answer on it today but to kind of just put that into the thought process.
There are a lot of questions and a lot of things that I'd like to respond to. I will start with the whole issue of sold, sale-pending. In the nomenclature of the industry, "sold" is "sale pending." I mean, of course, anywhere else you are and that sold sign is up, it is still the same situation -- that sale is in the process, there is a binding contract on the property. My statement that my understanding was 15 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 that the sale-pending sign was illegal was based on conversations with other real-estate agents who, over the years, have tried to -- tried to sidestep the issue of sold signs by putting up a sale-pending sign, or whatever, and still has gotten busted by L&I for that language, saying that is the same as a sold sign, that can't stand. I do agree with you, but I have not discussed this with -- I am not the association, I'm just a spokesperson -- that anything, even a sale-pending sign, does give the idea -- does further the idea that there is activity in the city. One of the reasons why I brought this sign was to show you that one of the issues with Center City -- and, geez, I wish all of our neighborhoods were as healthy and as vital as Center City, but their problem is with more signage. I don't create another sign here; all I do is, I take a little tag and I stick it up over my sale sign and it says "sold." And that's it. So it's not a further visual pollution, or whatever, to the neighborhood. I believe on residential sale signs, 16 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 there is a limit as to the size of a residential sales sign, and I believe it's an 18-by-24 or a 24-by-36; and on a protruding sign, I think it's an 18-by-24. So when we start talking about these signs, etc., we're talking about commercial signage. And, again, we are willing to address those issues with the Center City residents associations.
I think one of the Center City complaints is that it's not an issue of necessarily a house that's up for sale or a property that's up for sale; it's an A-frame on the wall which advertises continual rental. So if you have an issue -- and this is -- I'm not -- don't shake your head because I'm not necessarily in agreement, I'm just telling you what was articulated to me, that you have a property with 15 units and at any given time, one or two may be available. So the protruding A frame stays there perpetually and never comes down. And that's one of the complaints that was articulated to me through a couple of Center City residents associations. So that's one of the issues that needs to be fleshed you out if there is going to 17 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 be a citywide removal of this ban. But I would ask again to consider two things: number one, what we do with Center City and some of the signage, because that's where the predominant complaint about this bill is coming from; and whether or not the sale-pending issue does get us around this issue.
Gerri? I'm sorry. This is Gerri Cooke, and she is the executive officer of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors.
I guess I have a little more history than Diane does. Just stepping back a moment, we do have and we did develop some language, and there was a hearing, actually, on Bill 51 that went forward with Happy Fernandez at one time, where we did meet with the Center City residents group and many, many other groups in the Center City area and came to an agreement on signs. And at that time, the -- it was -- the bill was introduced, and I believe Zoning -- everybody was a part of that meeting, but Zoning had a problem with the wording of Bill 51 and said they needed to come 18 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 back and work on it. And at that time, Center City had said to us, the residents, that they had no problem -- and this is exactly their wording: they had no problem with our sold-sign issue going through and supporting us on this issue as long as their issue on Bill 51 went through. But we were supportive of that and would like to try to bring it back. We called a meeting actually last year on it a couple times, and the proper people didn't attend, so we are still wanting to work on Bill 51 with them. The sold-sign issue, rather than pending, is something that our members throughout the city have felt is a one-word change: it's from "pending" to "sold." We have felt for many years that our members have felt that it has been prohibitive. I do know of the one person that contacted you on -- the one real-estate insurance person. And there are some people that feel -- some of our smaller companies that feel that they -- it's a competitive thing for them. They don't want it to pass because they feel that if a larger company has 65 sold signs and they only have 5, 19 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 competitively, they're not in the market. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about in the sense of selling Philadelphia and making it a viable neighborhood. You know, we -- and we do work for -- I mean, we're here to support our Realtors as well as our community. But in this issue, we feel that this is a community issue. We feel that it's very, very vital and very important as we drive around and look at signs in the City that we begin to see "sold," that we begin to see that this city is moving and not stagnant. And I -- I'm not sure that I believe or even agree with Lindsay that the "sale-pending" sign has the same effect on someone that's riding through a neighborhood as "sold" does. Coming from an area that always has sold signs and sale-pending signs, they do mean different things to buyers. I mean, a Realtor might not think they do, but I as a consumer, as I drive through -- and I am not a Realtor so I look with different eyes -- but as a consumer, it does mean something to me. Sold means sold.
I would agree with you 20 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 because that is what -- when you see any real-estate, commercial property that's -- or just the basic understanding from the consumer's vantage point, when you see a sold sign, if you're in the 'burbs or whatever, you know what it means. "Sale pending" is not the terminology that is used. It all means -- it means the same thing wherever you are, whether you're in Topeka, Kansas or in Philadelphia. If that property's under agreement, that real estate agent has a "sold" sticker on that sign. And I believe one of the -- one of the points that we were discussing was about how you can be maybe in Overbrook or Overbrook Farms and you cross over City Line Avenue and all of a sudden, your sale signs that you were seeing before, now you're seeing sold signs, and the perception is, Hey, this neighborhood is viable, but in that other one, nothing was selling. So to some extent, when you're -- and this is a consumer -- a pro-consumer bill here. And so if we're talking about what is the best benefit to the consumer or the homeowner, I would have to say that being able to say "sold," the 21 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 strength of saying "sold," it's not passive, it's more forceful.
When this bill was enacted 29 years ago, it had our support in its enaction. Now, we have been to every agency that we can conceivably think of to see if anybody has an opposition to it, and we have seen none. Human Relations, L&I, OHCD, City Planning -- I mean, we have been everywhere, talking to everyone, because we have wanted the input of everyone to see, Is this something that we need to move forward with or do we need to step back on it? And we have not run into a brick wall, except for the letter that I read this morning from the Center City residents with anyone, including -- last time we brought this issue up, we had Realtors here with us. We have, as you can see, several African-American Realtors in the audience. They're all in agreeance (sic) that this is something that we need to move forward with. And that is the reason that the bill was enacted in the first place.
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell, your light is 22 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 on. Do you want to be recognized?
Yes, Madam President. Thank you very much. I wanted to say that I support the position of Lindsay Johnston and the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. And as you might know, they are an integral part of the economic development plan in University City and in West Philadelphia. And, certainly, we are in total support of them in their support of Bill No. 12 26. I would also like to note that in the audience is Larry Starkman, who is part of Starkman & Sons, and they're also an integral part of the pro-economic development project that's going on in West Philadelphia. And he, too, is here in support of this. So, certainly, we would hope that the committee would consider that we support this bill 21 and think it might be helpful in trying to move forward our housing and economic development plan in West Philadelphia. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you 23 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 both very much. (Applause.)
Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? Please approach the witness table. (Jeff Boyer comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Jeff Boyer. I'm a past president of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors, and I am a real-estate broker from West Philadelphia. It was during my term as president of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors that this issue was first brought before City Council. There are a couple of things that I would like to kind of embellish upon that have already been said. The issue of the sign was -- the ban was first enacted by an agreement between the Realtors of Philadelphia and the Human Relations Commission. Both organizations thought that it would be a good thing as a way of resolving the issue of block-busting that was prevalent back at 24 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 that time. Since then, we have consulted with the Human Relations Commission, and both organizations agreed that now is the time to remove this. The issue that Councilman Kenney brought up about using the words "pending" or other words to that effect, I've been in the business since 1976, and I can remember in the late '70s or early '80s, there were brokers in Philadelphia who tried to get around the law of sold signs by posting signs that said "gone," "too late," things of that nature. And they were told by L&I that that was not acceptable. Now, if you're saying to me, or Councilman Kenney's saying, that since the law doesn't specifically prohibit using "gone" signs, then fine, tomorrow morning, I'll have 30 "gone" signs up in the City of Philadelphia, and I think that the rest of my colleagues will also have "gone" signs up all over the place. But that doesn't address the issue of people who are not familiar with Philadelphia and the quirks of the real-estate market here. I do a lot of transferees. I'm with a national franchise organization, and we have people coming in from 25 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 all over the country. I'm with Century 21 -- I imagine most of you have heard of it. And the reaction that I get from people who are coming in from San Francisco, Steam Boat Springs, Colorado, is that they have never heard of such a thing as no sold signs. And my office is located in the heart of West Philadelphia, and it's very easy for people to go to Delaware County or to Montgomery County from my location. Frequently, I've talked to people who've recently purchased homes in the suburbs, you know, people I've met at parties or something, and they say, Well, we never considered Philadelphia. Well, why not? Well, aside from some of the other problems, nobody's buying any houses in Philadelphia. We went to Delaware County, we drove through Philadelphia, and we saw a mixture of homes where people were buying and selling. We've been to New Jersey, we see people buying and selling. But in Philadelphia, everybody's trying to sell and nobody's buying. And we're seeing, as Mr. Johnston said, newspaper articles that say that we're losing population. But by showing that people are 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 willing to invest in Philadelphia by using a "sold" sign, a recognized symbol that is a nationally recognized symbol, that people are investing in the community as well as selling, I think it gives a more balanced picture of what's going on realistically and can fly in the face of some of the news reports -- that, yes, at least in this area, people are investing. Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to speak to you.
Thank you very much. (Ashley Andrus comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Ashley Andrus. I'm director of public policy for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. And I do have some testimony to submit for the record, but I won't take any more of your time, but I just wanted to let you know that the Chamber does support the bill and shares the same views that were expressed by the previous witnesses. 27 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 Thank you.
Thank you very much. (Melani Lamond comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Melani Lamond. I'm a Realtor in University City, and I'm also very active in different community groups in the area. And it's more my involvement with the community groups that has brought me to a strong awareness of this issue and how important it is to my neighborhood and, I would have imagine, to other neighborhoods too, that people realize that there are people coming to the neighborhoods. And it's from that point of view that I'm interested in sold signs. It's just another task for our office to have to get them up there. We're selling properties without having them. It's not that we need them to sell properties to people who are already convinced that the city is a good place, but there are a lot of people who aren't convinced of that. And, as Mr. Johnston mentioned, there have been a number of articles 28 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 saying how many people the city has lost in the last years -- anywhere from 8 to 12 percent. 4 I hear from people in my neighborhoods 5 things like, Well, I saw that sign went down on 6 Springfield Avenue. Did they give up? They can't 7 imagine that it's sold because they didn't see a 8 sold sign, and no one knows that sold signs are 9 illegal on residential properties. They see them 10 on commercial properties where they're legal, and they don't realize that they're not allowed on residential properties. All they know is that they never see them. And people will say, Well, I better go ahead and sell now because in a few years, it might be completely hopeless since I never see anything selling in the area. So they're leaving, even when they didn't really want to go yet. Of course, if they ask me these questions, I tell them that the signs are illegal and that there's no need for them to go or not buy or whatever. But there are so many people who would not ask the question. And people's lack of knowledge about the illegality of the signs is so complete that 29 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 when I brought it up once to David Cohen, when he was chief of staff and he was at a West Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce meeting, he didn't even know about it. When I mentioned it to Mayor Rendell at a community meeting in West Philadelphia, he didn't know about it, either. No 8 one knows that they're illegal. And we have an opportunity here to give free PR to the City of Philadelphia. It won't cost the city a thing; the Realtors will take all the costs and will let people know that people are buying here and people are glad to come here. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Maybe those who have an institutional memory of what happened in the '70s could explain the process that some of the unscrupulous people used the sold signs to do block-busting. It's my understanding that the sale sign never went up; the only thing that went up was the sold sign. As opposed to what's being 30 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 asked to do now is just to have an addition or an addendum to an existing sales sign which shows that it's sold. My understanding was that during the '70s, when this phenomenon was going on, Realtors were just slapping sold signs up, that the house was -- people didn't know it was going up for sale, that the sold signs would just pop up on every block, as opposed to having, for a period of a period six months to a year, a sale sign and then a sold sign slapped across it. Is that accurate or no?
That's -- that's -- from the best of my understanding, although I wasn't licensed back then, that's my understanding. And sometimes those properties weren't even sold. It was strictly -- it was a combination of taking of a minority family, usually a black family, through a neighborhood very visibly and then coming behind and putting up sold signs -- a totally unscrupulous practice. I mean, we brought this upon ourselves. And it's also one of the reasons why we supported the legislation to ban sold signs. 31 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 But -- and what would happen was, they'd basically say, These people just bought next door so you'd better put your house up for sale 'cause it's going to be worth half as much a year from now. Well, that was then and this is now. And not only -- we're still not in a perfect society, but I can just tell you that there are other pieces of legislation in place that would not allow that activity to promulgate itself at this point in time.
I would also speculate that in traditionally mixed-ethnic and -race neighborhoods and in predominantly African-American, middle-class neighborhoods, this issue of sold signs doesn't even apply. I mean, if the concept of banning sold signs was to keep unscrupulous Realtors from breaking up white ethnic communities, I mean, if you have a middle-class, predominantly African-American or mixed-ethnic neighborhood, this isn't even an issue anymore because, I mean, who are you chasing out?
It is not that issue, 32 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 but it is still an issue in that --
Because, I mean, the neighborhood's stable, you know, no one's trying to break that particular neighborhood's -- the blocks in that neighborhood, and that the purpose of the '70s ban really doesn't apply to many of our ethnically-diverse neighborhoods today.
Let me recognize Anne Rubin -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Longstreth.
I think that I am probably the only person now in the Council who sat in on those meetings when I was in the Council back about 30 years ago when this legislation was passed which we seek to eliminate today. And 33 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 there was every reason for having that legislation at that time-- we're talking 30 years ago. And you stated very correctly that the industry brought it on themselves by some of the excesses that were being practiced at that time. But I think it becomes increasingly evident, as we listen to the situation that's existing today -- Philadelphia has probably 500,000 fewer people than we had then and there are total changes in some of the racial mixes of the various areas -- that this has outlived its usefulness, and that this legislation should be passed.
Thank you, Councilman. (Applause.) (Anne Rubin comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. I'm Anne Rubin. I'm president-elect of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. I'm also broker-owner of one of the six offices of Century 21 Lublin-Beck. We have offices both inside the 34 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 city limits and in the counties. And what I see here is that Philadelphia is behind the rest of nation in our business. We are the only municipality now that is not allowing our business to advertise our successes and to promote the movement in the neighborhoods. Percentage-wise, we're moving just as many houses in the neighborhoods in Philadelphia that I work in as we are in the suburbs, but it doesn't appear that way. And when I take buyers through and talk about the bordering areas, they want to go into the counties for several reasons, but one of which is that they believe that there is growth there and appreciation there. And we, in not being able to promote that we're doing business and that properties are moving, are in essence in some of our areas creating, quote/unquote, panic selling, where there are people that don't necessarily have to move out but are just scared now because there are so many homes up for sale in their area, and that if they don't move now, they may not get the value for their homes. They're not concerned with who's 35 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 coming in but with what is their home going to be worth if there's so many others for sale in the neighborhood. And it's -- all municipalities -- many municipalities in our surrounding areas as well as throughout the country have ordinances, have laws about sizes of signs, how long, etc. We're not opposed to that; we are very much in favor and willing to discuss with everybody those kinds of ordinances. But there is no other municipality that has a ban on being able to say "sold," "sale pending," "too late," "gone," or whatever words the agent chooses to use to say that this is successful. So what we're asking for you to do today is to move this out of committee and move this forward and put us in line with all of our neighboring communities and the communities throughout our country and how our business is conducted by allowing us to change one simple word on a sign. And we very much want to talk and work and move forward in a positive way with the Center City residents associations on Bill 51.
Thank you. 36 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 (Larry Starkman comes forward.)
Hi. I'm Larry Starkman, from Starkman Real Estate. I wasn't going to come up here but I thought it would important. You know, all my friends and colleagues here primarily do more residential sales. I seem to do the majority of commercial and industrial and land development sales in West Philadelphia for the last 40 years; for the last 10 years, very intensely. And I've always been able to put up sold signs. We spend a lot of money on signage, my father and I. I believe -- and it's very expensive. You know, these signs are $300 to $500 apiece, the V sign. And to stick up a sold tab over it, they charge another $30 just for labor, just to put up a sold tab. But I have to be honest, and Councilwoman Blackwell was talking as well, that just in West Philadelphia alone, outside of the Penn campus, let's say, from 40th Street out to 63rd Street, from Woodland Avenue to City Line Avenue, where I'm involved, without these sold 37 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 signs that I'm putting up, the development in West Philadelphia, I think, would have taken a lot longer to get developed. The signs go up on buildings that -- a lot of times, these large distressed buildings, these acres of land are located where a lot of people would think, Well, who would ever want to buy a building like that? And then we bring in a buyer from another part of the United States or a developer or Rite-Aid or CVS or Eckerd's or McDonald's, people who would never even know that anything existed in West Philadelphia, and then I'm able to put up a sold sign after the settlement. And, you know, sometimes I keep up -- you know, get kidded by Lindsay -- Lindsay and I work together. You know, I keep up the sold signs for months, until the new owners tell me to take it down. And I do it for a reason -- not for ego, but it shows the community what's happening in West Philadelphia, in University City. And business has been booming there like crazy commercially. And I attribute it to -- I really do -- a lot of it, to being able to put up sold 38 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 signs. Developers are coming into West Philadelphia all the time from all over the country. And I get more calls from signs that I have sold tabs on than from -- it's better than any newsprint. And the sellers and the owners of all these properties now feel the properties are valuable. Politically, it's been wonderful. It just helps create jobs, and it's a whole psychological part of the sign that I've been very, very interested in. And I just thought you should consider that. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (Deborah McColloch comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Deborah McColloch, and I am the deputy director of the Office of Housing and Community Development, and I'm here today in support of Bill 25 No. 26. 39 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 OHCD has engaged in a variety of neighborhood revitalization efforts throughout low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in the city, including the very successful Settlement Grant Program, which recently awarded a settlement grant to its 10,000th first-time buyer. The signs bill, as proposed, will demonstrate the strength of neighborhood real-estate markets and support OHCD's home ownership programs. I urge its adoption.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I think you know that I'm committed to getting this bill done. We've been at it now for a couple of years now, and we have until December 16th, which is our final day before the end of the 40 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 term, for final passage, which means we have a reasonable amount of time to try to work through some of the issues that affect some of the people that were complaining about it in a letter. We don't have enough votes here today to get this bill out of committee. But what I would like to do is to arrange a meeting for next week, or as early as possible, for us to sit down with some of those who have some concerns that may be founded, may be unfounded, and then try to come to some conclusion and move this forward with a commitment to trying to get it done before the term is over, rather than having to go through this again in a new term with some members of Council who may not -- you know, who may be different than what we have here today. I would rather have unanimity on this issue, or close to unanimity, than I would having, you know, a very close 9-to-7 vote on this thing. So what I would like to do is call you today or tomorrow and arrange something for sometime next week so that we can sit down with the District Council people who represent Center City -- Councilmember DiCicco and Councilmember 41 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 Clarke and Council President Verna, who has a portion of Center City -- and try to work this through so that when we come back again, it will be, hopefully, a fait accomplis or a formality, and that we'll be passing something out of committee -- rather than taking a chance and putting it out today and then having people who misunderstand the purpose of the bill begin to lobby Councilmembers to be against it and wind up with a vote that's very close or a loser. So that commitment is to schedule that meeting sometime today or tomorrow and then go through it and come back here again. I think it's the best way to do it, and hopefully, we can get it done with a 16-to-nothing vote.
I would concur with the statements made by Councilman Kenney. And as Chairperson of this committee, I certainly would make my commitment to you that once we have ironed out the differences with the Center City residents and anybody else who may have concerns, that we will list it for a prompt hearing so that we will be able to pass this, hopefully, by the end of the term. 42 9/29/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960064 Thank you all very much for attending and for your patience. Thank you.
Thank you for your time. (Adjourned at 11:00 a.m.) - - - 43 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, September 29, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO. 960064 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter