City Council examines controlversial 'quality of life' bill

Critics are concerned that the bill would unfairly target the homeless, and threaten to challenge its constitutionality. The scenario: You can't hand out leaflets in some public areas. You can't sit on the sidewalk for more than a half hour during a two-hour period. You can't ride your bicycle on the sidewalk, nor can you vend without a license for a particular location. A totalitarian third world dictatorship? No, Philadelphia -- that is, if City Council passes a proposed ordinance designed to improve city residents' "quality of life." The proposal -- officially titled the "Side Walk Control Ordinance" but known as the "quality-of-life bill" to everyone familiar with it -- was introduced in December by Council President John Street and has sparked strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Proponents say that Philadelphia needs to follow the example of other cities around the country and enact measures to improve the "quality of life," loosely defined as encompassing safety and an intangible sense of feeling better about one's neighborhood and city. But critics, prepared to mount a court challenge if the bill passes, argue that the bill is unconstitutional and unfairly discriminates against the homeless. "People are fleeing this city because of quality-of-life issues," said Kathleen Murray, chief of staff for Councilwoman Anna Verna, who represents Northeast Philadelphia and co-sponsored the bill. As a result, Verna "feels something needs to be done," Murray said. On the other hand, West Philadelphia Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, who describes herself as "a main leader of the opposition to the ordinance," said she is concerned with the far-reaching effects of the bill. "This is the most comprehensive, reactionary bill," Blackwell said. "I've never seen anything [like it] in all my time in politics." Vending controversy The bill's impact on the University would be minimal, since it only regulates public property and most of the sidewalks on campus are privately owned, according to Carol Scheman, Penn's vice president for government, community and public affairs. Scheman said that the University administration is only concerned with the part of the bill that applies to vendors. The proposal prohibits the sale of any goods or services in a public highway, unless the Department of Licenses and Inspections grants a permit for a particular location. This provision would not affect vendors in University City if the controversial ordinance proposed by Blackwell to regulate vending on and around campus is passed, since her legislation would override Street's bill. Scheman said that in light of the quality-of-life bill, critics of the vending ordinance should consider it the best possible alternative for maintaining a vending presence near campus. "In the absence of enacting the legislation proposed by Councilwoman Blackwell, it is logical to assume that Council President Street's bill would virtually eliminate vending," Scheman said. But Jason Eisner, a member of the Penn Consumer Alliance -- one of the ad hoc groups, along with the University City Vendors Alliance, formed last summer in response to the original vending proposal -- said the quality-of-life bill was "not figuring heavily into our plans." "Blackwell will not let it go through in its current form," Eisner said. Blackwell said the bill's prohibition of vending is one of the reasons she is "working actively to defeat it." Hearings on the University City vending ordinance will be held on April 14. Hearings on the quality-of-life bill, however, will not occur until late April or early May, according to Brenda Fraser, the legislative attorney for ordinance co-sponsor Councilwoman Marian Tasco, who represents Center City. And according to Fraser, the bill will likely undergo much revision before Council's 17 members vote on it. She said it "will be modified" before and during the hearings. But Blackwell said she and the other Council members who oppose the ordinance hope that hearings will not be scheduled at all. Too restrictive? The quality-of-life ordinance attempts to remove any obstructions to the sidewalks by banning from them motorized vehicles, bicycles ridden by anyone over the age of six and roller skates and skateboards. Lying on the sidewalk or sitting on it for more than one half hour in a two-hour time frame is also prohibited. Furthermore, the bill bans sitting, standing or lying on the sidewalk in such a way that prevents the "free passage of pedestrians." In an effort to crack down on pan-handling, the ordinance bans people from soliciting for money within an eight-foot radius from any building entrance or vending cart or within a 20-foot radius of any bank entrance or automatic teller machine. It also prohibits people from soliciting money in a way that causes someone to "fear bodily harm" or "damage to or loss of property." The rules regulating the use of sidewalks are designed to get homeless people off the streets. But some critics said they fear the ordinance will just be a tool aimed specifically at getting the homeless off the streets of Center City. "There is some question as to where the ordinance will be enforced," said David Jaros, a legislative assistant at the American Civil Liberties Union's Pennsylvania chapter. "It could end up just shifting the homeless population from Center City to West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia." At-large Councilman Angel Ortiz, who opposes the ordinance, said he is very concerned with the way the bill handles the homeless in general. By passing the ordinance, "you're making homelessness a criminal offense," Ortiz said, adding that "there are better ways to deal with these people." Blackwell said she was also concerned with the effect the ordinance would have on homeowners. "You should be able to ride your bike on the sidewalk in front of your house even if you are over six and sit a bundle down for more than 15 minutes if you are a senior," Blackwell said. "This bill doesn't just affect the homeless, but everyone in the community," she added. First Amendment Concerns The ordinance also bans the distribution of handbills within an eight foot radius of a building, the posting of any sign on public or private property or on a utility pole without the permission of the owner or placing a vending box on the public sidewalk without a permit. Some Council members cited these aspects of the ordinance as violations of the right to free speech. At-large Councilman David Cohen "feels the ordinance raises some real questions about the First Amendment," said Bill Greenlee, a staffer in Cohen's office. The ordinance is based on a similar quality-of-life campaign enacted in New York and other cities, according to Jaros. But in New York, officials enforced existing laws instead of enacting new statutes. Many argue that Philadelphia could also use laws already on the books to achieve the objectives of the proposed ordinance. "The things that need to be addressed can be addressed with existing laws," said Greenlee. "It would be overkill." Ortiz said he believes the ordinance overreaches in trying to achieve its objectives. "It has so many problems in terms of broadness that make it unenforceable and unconstitutional," Ortiz said. The bill sparked a discussion last week at the Annenberg School for Communication, where a group of concerned students and community members held a meeting to inform people about the ordinance. At the meeting, attended by about 25 people, Jaros and other opponents of the legislation spoke out against the ordinance. John Feinberg, a legal assistant at the ACLU, said his organization and other groups would challenge the ordinance in court if Council passes it.