|
|
|
CouncilMANIC
A strange, complicated, battle played out in City hall today.
On the one hand, it seemed to pit a group of residents fighting for their neighborhood against the cold, machinery of city politics; on the other, it showed residents fighting for a cause so particular and so hard to understand that it wasn't clear what, exactly, the real conflict was over in the first place.
For days, I've been getting emails from a number of Chestnut Hill residents knows as the Chestnut Hill Residents Association regarding an apparently-controversial dialysis center to be built on a currently-vacant property near Germantown Avenue in Chestnut Hill.
The strange thing is that the center isn't really controversial: its hours are — and only by nine hours.
In a nutshell (summary thanks to a detailed article in the Mt. Airy Independent): Major international dialysis operator Fresenius Medical bought the vacant building with the intention of developing it into a dialysis center. Neighbors raised concerns over the hours of operation, particularly night hours, requesting that the center operator put in writing that the center would operate only from 6 am to 6 pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.
Eventually the Zoning Board of Adjustments granted a needed zoning variance with the restricted hours in writing as part of the deal. But then the developer hired power attorney Carl Primavera, who — somehow — managed to get the ZBA to reverse its decision about the hours without another hearing. According to the Mt. Airy Independent, his missive to the ZBA contained letters of approval from Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller and other city officials.
The residents sued, but, before they could have their day in court, Councilwoman Miller then a bill that would allow spot zoning for the property, to be heard in Committee today, well in advance of any court dates.
Now the residents are mad as hell: they feel betrayed both by the developer and by the city, which they say let a powerful player rig the game in favor of his client, and at the expense of regular residents who fought fair and square.
Which brings us to today's Council hearing. Members of the Residents Association and Primavera showed up to make their case. Primavera said his client shouldn't have to promise not to keep night hours. Residents say the democratic process has been hijacked.
But (and here's where it gets even more complicated)The main question on the minds of Council members — why the hours made a difference anyway — didn't seem to have a clear answer.
It isn't hard to understand why neighbors would be angry over having their local victory trumped by power and politics, but it is more difficult to understand why the thing they're fighting over in the first place — an extra 9 hours of business per week— matters.
"Our greatest concern is that they lied to us originally about hours of operation and have since put on a full course political press with expensive legal/lobbyist support to win what seems a minor point," wrote resident Peter Burke to me in an email, "so what else are they keeping secret?"
Fair enough: but one comment from a resident in today's hearing made CP wonder if there aren't other, unstated issues here. Referring to a neaby ironworks, the resident noted that "They stop working at 5 pm and go home." As to another nearby business, he noted that its workers "don't stay here at night."
Clearly, this battle has symbolic value to the neighborhood residents waging it. But is it possible there's a NIMBY dread of outsiders — especially coming into the neighborhood, at night — at play as well?
Let's face it: dialysis centers in this city attract a crowd that skews ... not toward the gentry. And the idea of night hours isn't a light one for patients: dialysis takes hours, and patients with day jobs will rely on night hours to keep their jobs.
Not surprisingly, meanwhile, (on neighborhood issues, Council members almost always defer to the judgment of the Councilperson whose district it is) — the zoning variance passed out of committee.
Chestnut Hill residents, mayb you can fill us in: why the big deal over night hours?
tricky issue, tricky situation. It's fair to question all possibilities of NIMBY concerns---the good ones and the possibly not so good. One way to look at it is, there are other businesses along the Avenue that operate into the evening and that's regarded as positive for the neighborhood. So this block is different. But what if another business wanted to move in with evening hours for services more appealing or useful to neighbors? Would they still object? On the flip side, the power politics of special interests cannot be ignored either. And there's a subtle issue related to complex problems of public health and health care reform which is the possibility that dialysis centers are not just a sign or symptom of an urgent health need in the community but that dialysis has funding advantages that other health problems don't get. Meaning, that dialysis is different from other health care services in the way that it's funded and there are concerns that financial incentives favor dialysis, which can be a treatment for preventable late complications from other diseases made worse by lack of funding for other, better but inaccessible health care services. It's very fair to consider the role of dialysis in our for-profit health care system. However, I don't think that's a major reason why the neighbors are objecting. And, restricting the hours of operation won't solve the nation's health care problems. But it's an important aspect of the whole issue, particularly in a city with such very high rates of diabetes.
[...] point of view of the issue and proceedings. The strange case of Chestnut Hill v dialysis center :: The Clog :: Blog Archive :: Staff Blog :: Phi... Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]
[...] The strange case of Chestnut Hill v dialysis center :: The Clog ... But then the developer hired power attorney Carl Primavera, who — somehow — managed to get the ZBA to reverse its decision about the hours without another hearing. According to the Mt. Airy Independent, his missive to the ZBA contained . [...]
 |
"Should there be winners and losers?"
Less a question than a zen koan, such was the riddle Councilman Wilson Goode Jr. put to witness after witness in the marathon hearing that stretched from Tuesday to Wednesday on a proposal to change the way Philadelphia taxes businesses.
Councilmembers Bill Green and Maria Quinones-Sanchez want to shift the tax burden from the net income (profit) portion of the tax — which only applies to businesses inside Philadelphia — to "gross receipts" (sales), which applies to all business transacted in the city.
The idea is to get at large, out-of-state corporations — Wal-Mart, for example, doesn't have to pay an income tax here, but a bodega owner does — while letting small businesses of the hook. To that end, the bill would exempt the first $100,000 of sales, immediately exempting more than 30,000 local businesses from that portion of the tax altogether.
There's plenty of opposition to the bill, though many of the actual businesses testifying against it were large corporations based out of the state (Marriott, large construction firms based in Jersey).
Most of the testimony favoring the change came from small, Philly-based businesses (bodegas and small groceries, car dealerships, the Kensington & Allegheny Business Association).
But no one opposed the bill as vociferously as Goode, who used his time to question the witnesses largely for delivering a series of rhetorical riddles — "Should there be winners and losers?" being his clear favorite.
Here's a snippet from the hearing, in which Goode interviews Anthony Tigano, a car dealer who favors the bill (read more in this week's A Million Stories):
Goode: Should there be winners and losers? In terms of business taxation?
Tigano: That's a very good question â I believe the way the system is set up is currently unfair. I think firms set outside the city â¦
Goode: My question is should there winners or losers?
Tigano: I'm answering your question: the present system is unfair â
Goode: I have a second question as well.
Tigano: Ok ⦠I was just trying to answer your first question.
Goode: I'm going to ask you my second question. Do you support the land value tax?
...
Tigano: Um, I'm not familiar with that question. . . I'm trying to answer a question on the [business privilege tax].
Goode: When we consider tax structure we do not do it in isolation.
Of course, as the testimony made quite clear, there are already winners and losers. Currently, big out-of-state corporations are the winners in the current tax structure, which lets them avoid one part of the tax that local businesses must pay.
And there's obviously room for healthy debate: Councilmembers Green and Quinones-Sanchez don't dispute that their bill will benefit some businesses more than others: They simply argue that the change is more fair than the current practice. The city, represented yesterday by Finance director Rob Dubow, disagrees. Economic consultant and former city finance director Stephen P. Mullin, on the other hand, thinks the bill's a good idea.
But of all the questions worth asking, "Should there be winners and losers?" seems a little ... existential.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eva Miranda, Roy Hughes. Roy Hughes said: Heated debate — and hot air — on business taxes.: The city, represented yesterday by Finance director Rob Dubow,... http://bit.ly/frhyni [...]
I got the job I have now because of that internship :) Do it, kids!
[...] Unfortuanately, CC Wilson Goode Jr. seems to not be happy about this. I DON’T KNOW WHY. Either he’s just cooky or there’s some funny business going on here. Here’s the interesting take by the city paper: City Paper Article [...]
 |
Straight out of the inbox, direct from Councilman Goode's office, and passed along without comment:
Philly will benefit from more than 60 GOODE Laws
Youngest At-Large Councilmember has proven track record
(PHILADELPHIA, October 28, 2010)— City Councilman W. Wilson Goode, Jr. has introduced sixty-three bills that have been approved by Philadelphia City Council since taking office in January 2000. The last three bills which were introduced this fall, concerning fair lending and community reinvestment, will soon be signed into law. Goode's background as an economic development administrator from 1992-99 has given him a policy edge in City Council on economic issues. The 45 year-old Chairman of Council's Commerce and Economic Development Committee formerly served as Vice President of Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation and as Economic Development Administrator for the Philadelphia Department of Commerce.
In eleven years on City Council, Goode has introduced over sixty ordinances with measurable impact: employment tax credits to create thousands of new jobs; job preferences for local residents for civil service positions and City projects; the local minimum wage standard raised from $5.15 per hour to $10.88 per hour; business diversity goals for City contracting improved from less than 5 percent to 25 percent; small business lending in working class neighborhoods increased from 40 percent to 55 percent; fair lending and community reinvestment goals required for City depository banks; and $30 million in tax credit partnerships for neighborhood economic development.
After receiving a National Achievement Award from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Councilman Goode continues to craft landmark economic opportunity legislation.
[...] Jeffrey Billman пиÑеÑ: Search. «Great vision without great people is irrelevant.» —Jim Collins, Author, «Good to Great». In Partnership with JobCircle …. (13 comments). Cardio with Obama (11 comments). Fox News does not approve of my potty-mouth (9 comments). The mysterious institute that spied on Pa. anti-drilling activists (8 comments). Q&A: Cambodian deportee’s wife talks about moving back to her homeland (7 comments). How many casino hires are working a year later? … [...]
Upon reviewing his legislative record and the positive impacts had on thed lives of real everyday Philadelphians, it's pretty hard not to conclude that "Wilson Goode is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AWESOME!" Get your "Wilson Goode is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Awesome!" T-Shirt.
I'm ordering my: âWilson Goode is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AWESOME!â T-Shirt too!
One thing is true, the proof is in the pudding and his record clearly shows that he fights for the betterment of Philadelphia. âWilson Goode is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AWESOME!â I agree.
It seems so long ago seasons when you consider the current chill that Phillys independent promoters, party throwers and house concert presenters were rocked by Bill No. 100267. Like the numerical sequence from Lost, mystery surrounded Councilmen Darrell Clarke and Bill Greenlees promoter bill and its proposed ideas for controlling not only the renegade promoters responsible for over-crowded/under-policed events, but also those that were conscious and law abiding.
Having to announce each date to the Philadelphia police and the possibility of having your event denied a permit within a mere 10 day window of the event without warning or reason sent promoters in to a tailspin. Yet thanks to several weeks of meetings between promoters (namely Patrick Rodgers of Dancing Ferret, the most ardent of collaborators) and Greenlees office, a happier and more agreeable set of amendments will be introduced on Wed., June 9, before the License & Inspection Committee.
After the first major set of time and date stamped changes made by Greenlee that we revealed exclusively, under this amended version of the bill, special assembly occupancies will be responsible for notifying police two weeks in advance only when and if an event occurs beyond a venues regular and recurring business operations whereby an 'outside operator' will take 'operational control' of the special assembly occupancy meaning, maintaining legal occupancy capacity and deployment and supervision of security detail if any exists.
While promoters will now be required to register with the City and have a current business privilege license, the amendments also offer police the tools to redeploy manpower if necessary to accommodate for promoted events beyond a venues regular and recurring business operations. It will also allow police to contact promoters if necessary when a crime occurs.
For now, Rodgers seems satisfied. I am feeling VERY good now, says Rodgers via his Blackberry. Looks like my work here is done.
PREVIOUSLY >> "In the words of one promoter, 'It's chilling'."
PREVIOUSLY >> Progress! Council's promoter bill is marginally improved!
PREVIOUSLY >> The Promoter Bill: No longer as insane
Ive been reporting about City Councilmen Darrell Clarke and Bill Greenlee's Bill No. 100267 since it was lobbed at promoters on April 22. You know the one where promoters would have to apply for a permit from the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) 30 days before every single event (52 permit applications per year if you run a weekly event) that would cut last-minute shows or pickup parties to say nothing of house party gigs at places like Carriage House and Danger Danger Gallery. Applications would have to include detailed security plans, the promoter's business-privilege-license number, the venue's capacity and the expected crowd. The bill would hold promoters liable for the actions of the crowds at the events they promote, would requires that every permit application include the contract between the venue and the promoter making rental prices and rates for each individual promoter public record . Plus the PPD could deny a permit for any reason and without explanation up to 10 days before the event no one wins. City promoters lose cred.
Its already started.
I spoke to one food catering operator and two independent sound organizations that rent equipment. Theyre afraid to take jobs that could canceled with 10 days notice if the bill passes as is. Another promoter told me that the union workers were talking about sound and light men possibly being cut from gigs with 10 days notice. Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Marketing peeps are rumored to have expressed concerns over the bill.
Enter Patrick Rodgers he of Draculas Ball and Dancing Ferret booking and management fame. He offered to help Councilman Greenlee's staff work on specific language for a bill that would address the concerns of the police department without crippling the city's music and entertainment industries. They accepted the offer and scheduled a meeting for Wednesday to try hashing out some preliminary language.
My hope is that we wind up with essentially a new bill, Rodgers says. The first good news was that initial hearing for the bill has been moved. The June 1 L&I Committee meeting was canceled due to scheduling conflict, and, Rodgers says, No new hearing date has been set, but they have to have a meeting so I'm sure it will be soon-ish.
Even better, as of last night, Rodgers meeting with Greenlees people led officially to the 30-day permit rule and the 10-day cancellation rule being taken off the table.
It's dead, no longer part of the legislation, says Rodgers. We are making significant progress on other areas of concern. I go back tomorrow to work at it some more. I am optimistic that we will wind up with a bill that empowers police to go after unsafe events while not disturbing the commerce or culture of legitimate events. Anything can happen in politics, of course, but for right now, I feel that our concerns are being heard and addressed.
Stay tuned.
Yesterday, 5/23, Black Collar Radio had Councilman Greenlee on to discuss this bill for about an hour, and we got some interesting answers, as well as some interesting non-answers. You can listen to the replays at www.blackcollarradio.com/channels/podcast and hear it from the source of it all. Great work by all that made the noise to start Council's initial retreat, fuckin A and rock on. Black Collar Crew
[...] of the city. This week, there is good news to report: At the end of last week, local promoter Patrick Rodgers told A.D. Amorosi that some of the more onerous points of the bill — the 30-da.... And in this piece in today’s Daily News, Greenlee continues to keep an open mind, suggesting [...]
[...] PREVIOUSLY >> Progress! Council's promoter bill is marginally improved! [...]
In a marathon session, City Council moved ahead on a 9.9 percent property tax hike, a tax on smokeless tobacco and cigars, and withheld a bill that would impose the mayor's baby: the sweetened beverage tax.
It seemed earlier in the day like that tax was going to pass but Council leadership was unable, apparently, to muster the nine votes needed. The administration, however, hasn't given up on the soda tax by a long shot.
Councilman Frank DiCicco, who proposed the first property tax hike as an alternative to a flat $300 trash fee, voted "no" on the 9.9 percent hike today, favoring a 12.1 percent property tax hike that would have made up most of the difference.
Council also approved a spending bill with about $17 million in cuts, disappointing Councilman Bill Green, who has proposed more than $40 in cuts himself, mostly by not filling unfilled positions.
Right now, Council will have to find about $18 million more in revenue or in cuts.
These bills have just passed first reading they'll need to pass again next week to become law.
 |
More budget coverage on Twitter.
This morning, the regular meeting of City Council was suspended in order to hear speakers on various revenue proposals being floated by Council and the administration, including a property tax hike between 9.9 percent and 12 percent, a sugar-sweetened beverage tax (between, apparently, half a cent and two cents), and a tax on smokeless tobacco products and cigars.
The plan seems to be this:
After this hearing, Council leadership will meet with the administration and try to hammer out a deal. Council needs nine votes to pass it, but the final votes on this stuff aren't usually quite that close: leadership would like to get 11.
Assuming it happens, Council will reconvene its regular meeting, amend the bills that constitute the mayor's initial budget proposal, and allow the revised budget a first reading and initial vote which will let them vote it in finally next week.
So what's the deal going to be? Not totally clear yet. A new proposal of a 12 percent increase to the property tax seems to be gaining some traction. It would close most of the current budget gap and likely obviate the need for other taxes. Councilman Frank DiCicco, about an hour ago, seemed to voice support for it, saying:
"We're going to take a political hit no matter what we do ... I say take the 12.10 [property tax hike] and not worry about the other taxes because we can't get the nine votes anyway."
However, it seems to be up in the air still whether Mayor Nutter is willing to drop his sugary beverage tax or not he's staked some political capital on it, and has received national attention for the proposal.
 |
| phillyist.com |
A couple of days ago, I got a rather chipper email from the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the region's largest bicycle advocacy group.
In it, Executive Director Alex Doty wrote the following (emphasis added):
Yesterday morning, there was a copy of a letter from Councilman Kenney on my desk asking the head of the Parking Authority for stepped up enforcement of vehicles blocking bike lanes. How did we get from November's legislation to this?
See below for details of a very productive meeting we had with Councilmen Kenney and DiCicco hosted by Deputy Mayor Rina Cutler. What I took from that meeting was that the Councilmen are fed up with sidewalk riding. While I understand why some people do it, I am also fed up with sidewalk riding. But the Councilmen, like us, are also fed up with cars -- and even pedestrians — not following the rules of the road. Fed up enough to follow up one of our concerns with a letter to the Parking Authority. Thank You, Councilman Kenney!
Councilmembers Kenney and DiCicco are, of course, the very same lawmakers who sought a little while back to impose hefty — OK, more like hysterically insane — fines on bicyclists for riding with headphones, riding on the sidewalk, or riding fixed-gear bike unequipped with a brake (I actually agreed with them wholeheartedly on that one).
Though the laws were harsh, the tone taken by DiCicco and Kenney was always reasonable, and they spoke of equal and equitable enforcement. This little bit of news shows that they meant it, and that they're willing to respond to public input: Democracy with a D, if you ask me.
Which makes, by the way, whoever invented the "Frank DiCicco sucks: equal rights for bikes" T-shirt look even more dense than they did when said shirt appeared in a Philadelphia Weekly article about the laws.
Who sucks now, T-shirt? Hm?
Diciccio still sucks, and Kenny. They are still trying to get bike messengers to register for riding in the cities. Which must have been who they were targeting in the first place when they tried to get all those crazy laws enforced on everyone, only to find out that Philadelphia is a huge cycling city and his 'look before you leap' attitude got him tons of criticism from fellow councilmen and other officials. Now to save face they start listening to what people started saying in the first place and give everyone equal enforcement. No matter what this is what they want, they want to do things that get there name in the papers so come election time everyone knows there names.
Jeff: So making sure cyclists, especially those who tend to pose a greater danger than others, follow the laws already in effect is bad so it reduces crashes and near-misses? At the same time, you can have equal-enforcement, but sometimes there is a need to crackdown on one group or another in order to re-achieve it.
I have never seen a bike messenger stop at a red light, have any of you?
I've seen a few, but most of them seem to just jet through or stop for a little bit until they see its safe to go.
[...] who proposed some fairly ridiculous, unfair bike enforcement laws in November (but who, as of late, may be an OK guy after all). "When Frank DiCicco dies,” says Hammer, “bury him with his ass out of the ground [...]
 |
It's been a long 24 hours of bike news in Philly.
Yesterday morning, Councilmembers Jim Kenney and Frank DiCicco co-sponsored and introduced laws aimed at greater enforcement and regulation of bicycles. One would would raise the penalties by jaw-dropping factors (a hundredfold, in one case) for bicycle infractions and require bicycles to register and carry license plates in the city.
To the latter, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia — which has been a consistent voice in calling for bicycles to obey traffic laws — offered on its blog a very interesting case study in what's happened when other cities tried to introduce similar laws. Spoiler alert: They repealed them because they didn't work.
But the former bill, the penalty-raising one, has some interesting quirks, as well. For one thing, it may effectively outlaw many fixed-gear bikes.
You see, Philadelphia's and Pennsylvania's bicycle regulations differ slightly. One difference: the definition of "brakes."
The two bills introduced by Councilman Kenney have new penalties for riding without brakes (one fines you a thousand dollars; the other has your bike confiscated).
But what is a brake?
If you know about fixies, skip this paragraph. Most bikes as we know them in the USofA have brakes — either hand brakes or pedal brakes. Fixed-gear bikes may or may not have hand brakes, but don't require them (although it's a good backup plan) because the rear wheel is inextricably tied to the crank. In other words, you pedal backwards and the rear wheel actually goes backwards — or, if you've got some momentum going, it slows down. You brake by resisting the forward momentum of your legs. Read more about it on Wikipedia.
Which begs the question: What constitutes a brake? In a Daily News article, Councilman Kenney spoke about the brake issue and mentioned "delivery" workers. I'm guessing he's talking about bike messengers, who often ride fixed-gear bikes:
"The trend with some of our delivery-service people and messengers, for whatever reason, is to remove the brakes," Kenney said. "It's a state law that bicycles [must] have brakes."
Is it possible — and not to knock the guy, it is kind of an arcane subject in most circles — that he doesn't realize that these bikes have alternate braking mechanisms?
But Kenney's bill only raises the penalties for an offense already on the books. To see what constitutes a "brake" we have to look at the laws.
Pennsylvania's law â closer, I'm told by the Coalition, to widely-adopted bicycle regulations, has this to say about brakes.
Every pedalcycle shall be equipped with a braking system which will stop the pedalcycle in 15 feet from an initial speed of 15 miles per hour on a dry, level and clean pavement.
But Philadelphia's code says this:
Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheel skid on a dry, level, clean pavement.
Pennsylvania, in other words, only requires a "braking system," which fixed-gear bikes have.
Philadelphia, though, requires "a brake" â which could mean a hand brake, which a fixed-gear might or might not have (again: this is because fixed-gear bikes can be braked with the legs alone). In an interview yesterday, Councilman Kenney legislative aide Sarah Sachdev, who helped with the bill, did not know what a fixed-gear bike was, let alone whether the Councilman's $1000 fine/confiscation penalty would apply to one.f
[...] My friend Chris McKenna just sent this video shot by bike evangelist Michael McGettigan of University City's Trophy Bikes. McGettigan set up a camera at Rittenhouse Square — it appears to be the east intersection with Locust — to see if anybody at all comes to a full stop (that's his red folding bike in the foreground). There are, count 'em, three stop signs and a flashing red light which means, as McGettigan explains in the video, that drivers must come to a complete stop and then proceed when it's safe. The coming to a stop issue is one that's always brought up by people on the "cyclists are scofflaws" side of the urban biking argument whenever these things are hollered about. [...]
Barry,
Try slamming your front break in a pinch and see what happens, or more accurately, where you land.Andy Dyson, No experiment required, physics already tells us that a front braking system is required for maximum breaking power. It is just a fact. That isn't to say that fixie riders can't stop safely, but they will be able to stop MORE safely with a front break.
I guess I have to tell my 9 year boy that we have to ride our bikes in the street now. Or should I ride on the sidewalk with him and risk a ticket? How will I explain to him that the police are just doing their job and that I am not a 'real' criminal? I guess we'll take or chances with the motor vehicles that don't stop at stop signs, run read lights, turn on 'no turn on read' signs, and don't share the read. Remember Tony Jr.,, daddy loves you but our City Council doesn't. Oh yeah, how much has it cost tax payers already for the creation of bicycle laws? How much is it going to cost for the enforcement of these new laws?
Most people that ride a fixed gear bike can stop much quicker than non-fixed gear bikes with traditional brakes. Most hand brakes do not make the wheel skid at all. please read this article if you think a fixed gerar rider does not have a brake, because they DO! http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1304912 to quote: 'he "skidded to an immediate stop.â Then, he describes that the cops applied their hand brakes and slid past him. "One guy almost fell over. I had more control than they did,â'
unbelievable!
I don't think it's a bad idea to enforce that bikes can come to a screeching halt on command: if you were in the path of a cyclist -- as another cyclist, a motorist, OR a pedestrian (who, might I add has no frame of any sort to protect them), I'm certain you'd like to think that bike can stop quickly for your own safety.
I have been a cyclist since 1982, I have raced both mountain and road. I am a true advocate across the board. I also feel that although the fines are steep, they are in order. the majority of cyclists will refine their riding styles accordingly. The jokers will continue to be jokers and as a result they will be fined. As for the license plate, well that is just stupid. In centre county,Pen State area, a registration sticker sufices that is placed somewhere on the bike frame. this also helps with theft as it is not removable with indication that it was there. In most European countries this is mandatory as well as fixed lighting both front and back. all issues of traffic law are applied and come with a fine. If we want more more rights as cyclists and more safety on the road then we must bear the responsability as a result. I see this an overall positive. SO please stop crying
[...] redundancy, in a clear attempt to target fixed-gear bikes, a Philadelphia councilman proposes a $1000 fine or immediate confiscation of any bike without brakes — yet fails to comprehend that a fixie is a brake. Possibly related [...]
First they came for the fixie riders, but I was not a fixie rider, and Idid not speak out because I was not a fixie ridermade snide, petty comments...
Man, who cares. Fixed Gear bikes are for hipster doofuses who ride to show off. The only thing I regret about outlawing fixies is that the amount of hilarity that I will witness when these losers wipe out due to their own stupidity will decrease. Too bad.
These laws make sense for safety reasons, but the fines are ridiculous. The reason I ride is to save money. I'm in the process of selling my car because insurance, gas, and maintenance were killing me... Now I have to worry about biking fines that cost more than my car?! I'm not too worried though, because I think enforcement of these laws will be tough. I don't plan to change my biking habits...
State law supercedes county or city law. Hence this "law" is not really law. First person who gets an infraction due to this new "law" can take it to court and any judge worth his salt should throw the law out. Done.
These laws make sense for safety reasons, but the fines are ridiculous. The reason I ride is to save money. I'm in the process of selling my car because insurance, gas, and maintenance were killing me... Now I have to worry about biking fines that cost more than my car?! I'm not too worried though, because I think enforcement of these laws will be tough. I don't plan to change my biking habits...
Please also read the following article: http://www.slate.com/id/2232555/?gt1=38001
I would also like to express my support for Stop as Yield for Bikes. If Stop as Yield is not honored, I feel pedestrians should be ticketed for j-walking or crossing at an intersection when they have a red light/don't walk even when there are clearly no cars around. If you want to be so strict with laws and promote safety, it has to be across the board.
Solve problems like gun crimes, homeless people, domestic abuse, and potholes.
I think this calls for some science. I suggest some identical bikes with identical tires and tire pressure and identical weight riders, a speed gun, a suitable paved area, some chalk and a measuring tape, and some agreed upon referees. Since the fixie rider is the one with something to prove, --they are the ones under attack-- they can pick the gear ratio and the riding position. Since this won't be a handling test the fact that it's not their regular bike shouldn't be an issue, and in fact it probably won't be the regular bike of either competitor; we're not talking how well it corners or something. This event would be a fundraiser for Neighborhood Bike Works. If there is interest I'll be contacting bike manufacturers so that we can borrow a pair of identical bikes, and maybe some of the people at Drexel who organized a human powered vehicle race here last summer. They have timing equipment. Contact me with suggestions regarding people, bikes and locations where this could take place. I myself am genuinely interested in the outcome but truly neutral regarding any desires as to who would be seen to stop in a shorter distance. I suggest that there be committees or teams on either side of the issue that can agree on equipment and rules. The event should test fixed-only versus fixed-with-front-brake verus freewheel with two brakes. We should consult some statisticians to make sure that the number of runs by each side make a statistically significant result. The experiment should be conducted with runs at various speeds so that any advantage of one system over another would be demonstrated in such a way that nobody could say something like "well, the fixie may have won, but brakes work better when you're going really fast/slow," etc. Who is really neutral about this and would like to work on the event, so that there's no feeling of bias by either side? Send me an e-mail.
Bicyclists, take heed: The Philadelphia Police announced today that officers will be launching the slightly-terrifyingly-named "Central Bicycle Enforcement Initiative" at Rittenhouse Square.
What, if anything, the timing has to do with today's proposal by Councilmembers Jim Kenney and Frank DiCicco for rather draconian bike enforcement laws, I don't know. But there it is.
I received two press releases about the "initiative." One came from the police. It read:
Tomorrow Friday, November 19, 2009, the Central Bicycle Enforcement Initiative will begin at 1:00PM at Rittenhouse Square. Members of the Bicycle Coalition will be on hand to help with the education on bike laws, rules and safety. Hand-out material will be provided.
The other came from the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. It was a little more involved.
While the police make the event out to be a friendly get-together between the two groups, the Bicycle Coalition's press release suggests that the Coalition got involved only after 9th District Police Captain Dennis Wilson informed them that he was already planning a crackdown.
(You may remember Captain Wilson, by the way, from just over a year ago, when the City Paper reported that his officers had somewhat inexplicably raided a houseful of activists and detained them. Charges were never pressed.)
Here's the slightly-abbreviated dilly, according to the Bike Coalition (read the full press release, including bicycle violations and how much they cost, here):
The Bicycle Coalition's Education Department sat down with Captain Wilson from the Philadelphia Police 9th District today (November 19, 2009). This meeting confirmed that Police intend to begin an enforcement and education campaign beginning tomorrow, November 20, 2009. The campaign will focus on egregious actions of motorists and cyclists in the Center City area.
Bicycle police officers from the 9th, 6th and Center City Districts will be on the streets enforcing the rules of the road in Center City. In addition to other violations, the Police will be stopping bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, not stopping at red lights or stop signs and riding the wrong way in the road. The Police Department will also have vehicle units out on Spruce and Pine Streets ticketing motorists who are driving in, or illegally double parking in the bike lane or driving aggressively.
. . .
In response to this enforcement campaign, the Bicycle Coalition will have Bicycle Ambassadors out on the streets helping to educate bicyclists who may not know the rules of the road and provide tips for riding in traffic.
. . .
Please be advised that this is not a warning period and tickets will be issued. Safety education coupled with enforcement, applied equitably to all road users, is the first step to improve safety for all.
. . .
[...] response seemed out of proportion. While it has led to a mostly healthy debate over road safety, a stepped-up enforcement effort against bicycle scofflaws seems to many like a case of misplaced priorities, considering how many [...]
[...] response seemed out of proportion. While it has led to a mostly healthy debate over road safety, a stepped-up enforcement effort against bicycle scofflaws seems to many like a case of misplaced priorities, considering how many [...]
[...] response seemed out of proportion. While it has led to a mostly healthy debate over road safety, a stepped-up enforcement effort against bicycle scofflaws seems to many like a case of misplaced priorities, considering how many [...]
[...] in collisions with cyclists on Philadelphia streets precipitated an uproar in the local press, a crackdown on cyclists by the police and a new round of proposed legislation to fight the perceived scourge of scofflaw [...]
[...] in collisions with cyclists on Philadelphia streets precipitated an uproar in the local press, a crackdown on cyclists by the police and a new round of proposed legislation to fight the perceived scourge of scofflaw [...]
[...] in collisions with cyclists on Philadelphia streets precipitated an uproar in the local press, a crackdown on cyclists by the police and a new round of proposed legislation to fight the perceived scourge of scofflaw [...]
Why is this bad? Breaking the law on your bike isn't just dangerous for you, it's dangerous for all the other bikers and the pedestrians, because you anger drivers and do unexpected things like ride on the sidewalk. If you believe the laws are unfair, go ahead and break them, and take your ticket to court like a good civil disobedient. Otherwise if you want to operate a vehicle, motorized or leg powered, you have to follow the rules. I don't get why that's some awful injustice.
Riding up 22nd Street this morning there was a police car parked in the left hand lane pointed south (22nd St runs north) and an officer was talking with a biker and seemed to be filling out a report/ticket. Could this be a symptom of the Initiative?
I hope this "Initiative" continues and the push is directed at sidewalk riders. Why would anyone object to that? And to piggy back on another commenter yesterday in this overall thread; I don't care WHY you are riding on the sidewalk, if you are doing it, it's illegal, so stop rationalizing it. BTW, NY State Law calls for confiscation of bikes if caught riding on the sidewalk: § 19-176 - Bicycles operation on sidewalks prohibited Bicycles ridden on sidewalks may be confiscated and riders may be subject to legal sanctions. See also N.Y.C. Traffic Rules and Regulations §4-07 (c). If they can do it, why can't we be content to pay only a fine?
Is this a one day event?
will this be a one-day enforcement?
It makes me happy to know that I can feel free to commit heinous crimes now, knowing that the police will be tied up with bikers. Loot and pillage, motherfuckers! It's a free for all!!!
Hey Isaiah - you might want to check this group out - it's been spontaneously organized and in less than 48 hours has about ~350 participating - and made the evening news
enforce the laws already in place. also, please read "A Letter to Philadelphia City Councilman Frank DiCicco" @ http://mattkosoy.com/index.php?id=18
I do not support bicycles on sidewalks. I am an avid cyclist. I would like you all to see my comments in the other post about this as well: http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2009/11/20/does-the-proposed-council-law-target-fixed-gear-bikes/#comment-202897 http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2009/11/20/does-the-proposed-council-law-target-fixed-gear-bikes/#comment-202912 I do ride a fixed gear (and also a hand brake) but many riders can stop their bike riding fixed without a hand brake within 15ft, as the law expresses the brake should do.
Enforcement is fine. Augmenting fines, forced registration and confiscation is crazy. I follow the laws as it is, but god forbid I get my bike taken away - i cycle 10 miles each way to work daily.
"Central Bicycle Enforcement Initiative" Does that mean downtown? Great, yet more rules and laws which are enforced only in certain areas of the city.
If I have to obey all the laws, and get a license plate, I should then be able to take up entire lanes AND be able to ride on 676, etc. Right? Please... I am NOT opposed to enforcement of the sidewalk law. I enforce that now with elbows. If you are too scared to ride on the street, you shouldn't be riding. BUT, many of the sidewalk violators are BMXicans, and since a good number aren't legal, does anyone really expect that without proper documentation they are going to get licenses? They ride bikes because they don't have the docs to get drivers licenses for crying out loud... I'm not against all the proposed laws, but some just scream fascist police-state and are an obvious pick on the little guy to make money scheme. Like our cops have nothing better to do? Or it will be enforced in part by the outsourced PPA? We have easily the worst transit system in the country, the economy is shit, and now people who were going to find alternatives to paying for gas or dealing with SEPTA are getting attacked? Ugh.
You should always keep in mind the rules and regulations of the road when your riding your bicycles for your safety.
- ActiVman
- adventures
- Arts
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Awards
- Bad Idea Factory
- Beer
- Below the Curve
- Bikes
- Booze
- Brian Hickey
- BRT
- Budget
- Budget Fuss
- Business
- Casinos
- City Council
- City Hall
- CouncilMANIC
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Design
- DROP
- Drugs
- Dubious Distinction
- Elections
- End of Days
- Environment
- Fashion
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- FrackTrack
- Free Library
- Gambling
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Greenstorming
- guns
- Hall Monitor
- Health
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Holidays
- Ice Cubes
- Iggles
- Immigration
- In Memoriam
- Labor
- Lawsuits
- Letters
- LGBTQ
- Maps
- Marcellus Shale
- Media
- MMA
- Mummers
- Music
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Nation
- News
- Non Sequitur
- Opinion
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philaphemera
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- Photos
- Poverty
- PPA
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Prisons
- Protest
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Schools
- Science
- Screwing Philly
- SEPTA
- snow
- So Lush
- Soccer
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Strike
- Stuff We Like
- Taxes
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- television
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Weather
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- Stu!
- Shopping
- get out
- 10-track mind
- ArtsFlash
- Bloggity
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Colleges
- Comedy
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- errata
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Movies
- Murder
- Night Moves
- Recycling
- radio
- Scientology
- Sex
- Sixers
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Theater
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- WIN
- What we don't heart
- trailer!
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Askadelphia.
- Broke in Philly
- Contest
- Dance
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Education
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Goodbye
- Gossip
- Great American Heroes
- PATCO
- Pearl Jam Week
- Puppy
- Stars of the Photostream
- sustainability
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week
- Animals
- ElectionEar
- Photostream
