►
From YouTube: Committee on Public Safety 11-20-2018
Description
The Committee on Public Safety of the Council of the City of Philadelphia held a Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 to hear testimony on the following items:
180741 An Ordinance amending Section 10-840 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Criminal and Defiant Trespassers," to clarify and modify applicable definitions, penalties, and procedures, and to make certain technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions.
180978 An Ordinance amending Title 10 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," Chapter 10-800, "Safety," by adding a new Section 10-841, "Fraudulent Leasing of Residential Property," prohibiting conduct related to the fraudulent leasing of residential property, all under certain terms and conditions.
Committee on Public Safety
Chair: Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. (4th District)
Vice Chair: Councilman Kenyatta Johnson (2nd District)
A
Good
morning,
this
is
a
hearing
now
call
to
order.
This
is
a
hearing
one
from
the
Committee
on
Public
Safety,
to
hear
testimony
on
billing
numbers,
one:
eight
zero,
seven,
four
one
n
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
nine,
seven,
eight
I
see
the
presence
of
a
quorum
to
my
right
is
Councilwoman
Blackwell
and
Councilman
green
to
my
left
is
councilman
Johnson,
Councilwoman,
Parker
and
Councilwoman
Jim
I
also
see
in
the
seat
councilman
David.
Thank
you
for
attending.
B
A
We've
heard
some
of
the
horror
stories
about
some
of
these
issues,
whether
it's
a
young
man
who
was
selling
marijuana
when
he
was
a
kid
wound
up.
Thirty
years
later,
not
being
able
to
work
to
his
highest
level
of
proficiency
as
a
professional
or
hearing
about
people
who
were
in
critical
care
units
come
out
of
that
only
to
find
out
that
someone
fed
adversely
possessed
their
home.
So
this
body
is
constantly
evaluating
and
re-evaluating
some
of
the
codes
that
we
have
authority
over.
We
recognize
clearly
that
the
federal
government
is
is
the
big
level.
A
The
medium
level
is
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
and
we
are
but
small
fries,
but
we're
gonna
make
our
mark
known,
because
we
are
the
ones
with
boots
on
the
ground.
We
have
to
deal
with
the
citizens
that
come
to
our
office
with
these
issues.
So
with
that
Miss
Williams,
oh
wait
a
minute.
Are
there
any
others
on
the
panel?
That
would
like
to
say
a
few
words.
A
C
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
Jones.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
acknowledge
and
thank
the
work
of
my
tremendous
colleague,
Councilwoman
Cheryl
Parker,
for
her
leadership
on
this
issue.
This
is
an
extremely
complicated
area
of
the
law
and
it
really
matters
that
we
all
work
together
to
ensure
that
the
the
law
that
we're
putting
forward
takes
into
account
the
experiences
and
ensuring
protections
for
all
victims
of
this,
of
serious
issues
that
can
happen
unintended
or
intended
and
councilman
Parkhurst,
and
just
a
tremendous
job
leading
us
and
helping
us
understand
better.
C
All
the
nuances
that
happen
within
complicated
areas,
especially
for
some
of
our
most
vulnerable
residents.
I
also
really
want
to
extend
a
note
of
gratitude
to
all
the
legal
service
organizations
who
are
in
the
audience
here.
Thank
you
so
much
to
our
good
friends
at
CLS,
Pell,
cop
senior
law,
center
turn
and
others
who've
really
been
invested
in
making
sure
that
the
law
represents
a
vast
majority
of
citizens,
many
of
whom
can't
afford
to
have
lawyers
can't
afford
to
understand
all
the
nuances
of
law.
Thank
you.
C
D
D
D
Councilman
tobon
burgers
resolution
to
have
a
hearing
on
the
totality
of
these
circumstances
was
assigned
to
Allan
Dom's
committee.
The
Housing
Committee
council
president
came
to
me
and
said
in
order
to
consolidate
this
for
efficiency
and
effectiveness.
I'd
like
to
move
your
bill
from
the
Public
Safety
Committee
to
the
Housing
Committee
and
Councilman
Tom
burger
asked
that
I
that
I
do
the
same
and
I
agreed,
because
we
should
have
it
under
one
committee.
D
Councilman
Dom
did
not
know
that
this
committee
would
be
holding
this
hearing
and
therefore
we're
unprepared.
What
I
will
say
is
that
in
the
short
time
I've
been
here,
I
have
read
mr.
Gold's
testimony
I
think
it
is
consistent.
He
has
said
the
same
thing
all
along.
He
has
not
changed
any
of
his
points
about
people
who
may
be
harmed
prior
to
my
bill
and
after
my
bill
this
is
not
a
complicated
topic
whatsoever.
There
are
home
owners
in
Philadelphia
who
come
home
to
find
criminals
in
their
home.
D
The
bill
that
you're
trying
to
amend
simply
allows
the
person
who
is
the
homeowner,
who
has
the
evidence
to
contact
the
police
and
and
the
least
used
to
not
get
the
information,
and
if
the
police
don't
make
an
arrest
under
the
directive,
they
can
have
a
detective
look
at
it.
If
the
detective
chooses
not
to
make
an
arrest,
they
have
a
procedure
whereby
they
can
get
in
front
of
a
judge.
All
the
questions
that
mr.
Gould
identifies
are
you
a
victim
where
you
scammed?
All
that?
Do
you
have
a
legal
right
to
be?
D
D
What
is
the
problem
with
getting
in
front
of
a
judge
to
have
a
judge,
make
the
determination
faster?
In
addition,
if
the
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers
claim
to
have
fallen
for
a
scam,
then
the
amendments
say
that
the
homeowner
that
the
criminal
defined
trespasser,
even
if
they
make
a
claim
that
they
were
a
victim,
they
have
to
have
the
trespasser
in
their
home
for
up
to
15
days.
Where
will
the
home
owner
go
most
of
the
folks
that
we
have
heard
from
our
senior
citizens?
They
are
poor,
they
don't
have
another
house.
D
It
also
allows
for
a
vague
standard
that
before
the
homeowner
uses
or
contacts
the
police
or
user
ordinance,
they
have
to
conduct
a
reasonable
investigation.
The
homeowner
calls
the
police,
the
police,
do
the
investigation.
Under
this
amendment,
the
homeowner
now
has
to
conduct
a
reasonable
investigation
and
it
creates
a
private
right
of
action
against
them.
It
exempts
individuals
who
unknowingly
engage
in
criminal
and
deveined
trespass
I'm,
not
sure
what
that
is,
but
it's
an
easy
claim
to
make.
I
thought
I
was
supposed
to
be
in
here,
so
I
kicked
in
the
door.
D
I
change
the
locks,
but
I
did
it
unknowingly.
All
of
this
is
really
to
make
it
more
difficult
for
the
homeowner
who's
already
challenged
in
Philadelphia
and
then
finally,
we
created
a
deterrent
because
of
the
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers
who
we
have
found
to
purposely
break
into
people's
home
with
the
idea
of
getting
$3,000
cash
for
keys
except
they're,
not
leaving
they're
staying
there
a
long
time,
and
so
we
have
in
our
ordinance
$300
fine
per
day
up
to
the
judge
and
up
to
90
days
in
jail.
D
D
What
I
would
say
is
this:
we
have
spent
numerous
and
numerous
hours
meeting
with
the
same
people
sitting
there
talking
with
them
time
and
again
getting
their
letters
having
conversations
trying
to
reach
compromise
with
them,
but
they're
never
satisfied
with
the
compromise.
We
have
finally
passed
an
ordinance.
D
The
ordinance
has
passed
now
we're
going
to
hear
this
testimony
in
front
of
a
new
committee,
because
the
chairman
of
the
committee
was
trying
to
get
a
level
of
conversation
between
CLS,
tenants
rights,
folks,
senior
law,
project,
the
homeowners
popco
and
the
victims,
so
with
that
I
would
urge
you
to
send
this
back
to
the
committee
that
has
heard
all
of
this
testimony
dealt
with
all
this
and
otherwise
to
do
your
best.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
councilman
and
all
of
that
was
recorded
on
the
record
and
some
of
your
concerns,
questions
and
objectives.
I'm
only
going
to
respond
to
one
of
them,
which
was
the
very
first
one.
How
did
it
get
to
my
command?
As
you
articulated?
There
is
a
lot
of
criminal
and
possible
legal
action
that
might
be
in
the
criminal
area.
So,
in
my
opinion,
as
chair
of
Public
Safety,
this
is
truly
an
appropriate
place
to
have
those
aspects
aired.
A
I
also
note
that
the
chair
of
housing
is
also
on
this
committee,
which
adds
to
the
level
of
discussion
because
of
her
expertise
in
the
area.
Thirdly,
you
only
have
to
look
at
the
news
from
a
24-hour
news
cycle
and
Southwest
Philadelphia.
There
were
four
people
found
dead,
shot
to
death
in
a
dwelling,
and
it
may
have
been
a
result
of
criminal
trespassing.
So
all
of
these
things
are
reasons
why,
in
my
opinion,
it
is
appropriate
to
be
here.
Some
of
the
backroom
discussions.
I
wasn't
privy
to
I
was
at
the
same
meeting.
E
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
before
I
start
with
my
comments.
I
just
want
to
note
for
the
record.
One
only
needs
to
look
at
the
state
of
our
great
nation
to
value
the
importance
of
fat
versus
fiction
fact
versus
fiction
and
the
the
absolute
truth
and
the
great
thing
about
facts,
and
not
an
interpretation
that
is
subjective,
but
that
facts
don't
change,
and
so
it's
with
that
in
mind
that
I
want
to
first
I
want
to
state
the
obvious
and
mr.
E
Chairman
I
want
you
to
thank
you
in
advance
for
the
leeway,
because,
based
on
the
opening
remarks
that
we
just
heard
from
one
of
our
colleagues,
it
is
very
important
that,
for
the
record,
I
get
the
information
that
I
am
about
to
state
on
the
record,
because
it
will
address
much
of
what
I
consider
to
be
misinformation.
That
was
just
communicated
with
that
being
said,
I
want
to
state.
The
obvious
it
has
been
currently
is
and
will
remain
illegal
to
trust,
pass
or
break
into
someone's
home
and
take
up
residence.
E
There
are
no
squatters
rights
for
the
record.
Squatter's
rights
have
not
and
do
not
exist;
it
is
illegal
to
squat.
First
squatting
is
illegal
under
state
law
and
if
arrested
and
prosecuted,
you
will
face
penalties,
such
as
fines
and
to
jail
time.
Second,
under
my
bill
number
one
8:07
41
the
bill,
that's
being
heard
here
today,
squatting
is
deemed
a
prohibited
conduct
and
can
lead
to
both
arrest
and
municipal
civil
fines.
E
Unfortunately,
significant
misinformation
about
bill
number
one
8:07
41
has
been
distributed
via
social
media
through
various
communication
outlets,
and
the
misinformation
has
encouraged
some
to
come
here
today
to
testify
against
bill
number
one
8:07
41
and
if
you
are
here
to
testify
against
it,
I
hope
you
will
listen
carefully
to
what
I'm
about
to
say
and
then
ask
yourself
whether
or
not
you're
still
opposed.
If
you
retain
nothing
else,
please
listen
to
this
sentence.
E
Bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
seven
four
one
protects
rightful
home
dwellers
and
victims
of
fraud
and
while
ensuring
that
those
who
trespass
or
break
into
someone's
home
will
face
arrest
and
fines
under
the
city
code
and
criminal
penalties
under
existing
state
law.
There
are
three
main
differences
between
my
bill
and
the
current
law
on
the
books
regarding
criminal
and
defiant
trespasses.
Now
some
people
may
want
to
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you'll
be
able
to
read
it,
but
we
have
actual
copies
of
this.
E
For
anyone
who
is
in
the
chambers,
anyone
who
is
at
home,
watching
you
can
request
a
copy
electronically,
and
this
information
has
been
distributed
well
in
advance
to
all
members
of
this
committee.
The
first
difference
the
bill
on
the
books
currently
states,
the
following
types
of
individuals
cannot
be
deemed
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers,
an
individual
with
title
to
the
property,
an
individual
with
permission
of
the
owner
or
authorized
agent,
an
individual
who
has
any
sort
of
interaction
with
the
owner.
That
would
indicate
a
landlord-tenant
relationship
under
state
law.
E
The
difference
my
bill,
my
bill
states
that
the
following
types
of
individuals
cannot
be
deemed
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers,
an
individual
with
the
title
to
a
property
and
individual
with
permission
of
and
owner,
and
not
just
the
owner,
because
if
you
live
in
some
of
our
neighborhoods
and
mom
dies
and
the
home
is
being
left
to
family
members,
sometimes
there
are
three
owners
in
one.
That
is,
you
know
not
something
that
we've
just
created.
E
You
heard
it
mentioned
earlier,
a
victim
of
domestic
violence,
sexual
harassment
or
stalking
that
has
been
perpetrated
by
an
owner,
but
by
another
person
who
is
currently
or
has
recently
lived
with
the
victim.
Now
please
note
this
language
is
specifically
to
protect
victims
living
in
the
same
household
as
their
abusers,
who
may
have
the
deed
in
just
their
name.
E
I
want
you
to
just
bear
with
me.
Imagine
that
your
mother
has
recently
become
a
widow.
She
decides
that
she
can
no
longer
maintain
the
house
she
was
in
and
she
wants
to
rent
a
smaller
house
and
she
wants
to
be
closer
to
you.
She
finds
and
listening.
She
puts
down
her
first
month
in
her
last
month's
rent
and
security
deposit
and
she
moves
in
a
few
months
later.
Someone
shows
up
at
her
door
and
they
tell
her.
E
You
really
think
it's
fair
to
further
penalize
someone
who
has
just
been
defrauded,
particularly
with
jail
time,
particularly
with
all
of
you,
MacArthur
grant
supporters
who
are
in
the
audience
who
say
Philadelphia
was
on
the
right
path.
Now,
I
realized
that
when
someone
is
a
victim
of
residential
lease
fraud,
what
happened
to
them
is
not
fair,
but
they
still
have
to
vacate
the
property.
So
I
don't
want
anyone
to
think
that
we
are
phanie.
What
is
what
it?
What
is
you
know
what
is
considered
to
be
a
crime?
E
We
are
saying
if
you've
been
a
victim,
you're,
not
unfortunate,
say,
but
you
still
have
to
leave
and
that's
why
we
have
language
included
in
this
bill.
That
is
not
in
the
current
law.
That
I
should
mention
that
states
that
the
police
must
notify
the
victim
in
writing
that
such
victim
cannot
legally
remain
in
the
residence
and
must
make
arrangements
to
move
out
within
15
days.
E
My
office
has
developed
this
15-day
language
at
their
conversation
with
various
of
departments
of
the
administration,
including
police
law
of
the
office
of
supportive
housing,
as
well
as
the
District
Attorney's
Office.
Finally,
it
is
specifically
because
I
have
seen
an
uptick
in
residential
lease
fraud
recently
that
I
introduced
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
nine,
seven,
eight
as
a
companion
bill
to
one
eight
zero,
seven,
forty
one,
because
while
it
is
obviously
already
illegal
at
the
state
level
to
create
a
fraudulent
lease,
my
bill
imposes
a
civil
penalty
of
one
thousand
dollars
for
each
violation.
E
Additionally,
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
nine
seven.
Eight
also
makes
it
easier
for
both
the
actual
owner
of
the
property
and
the
victim
of
lease
fraud
to
seek
restitution
in
court.
The
third
main
difference:
my
legislation
changes
the
civil
penalties
for
criminal
and
defiant
trespass
in
the
way
the
law
is
currently
written,
the
penalties
for
criminal
and
defiant
trespassing
compound
daily.
What
does
that
mean
on
day
one
three
hundred
dollars
or
a
ninety
day
jail
stay
day
to
six
hundred
dollars,
a
hundred
and
eighty
day
jail?
Stay
you
get
it.
E
This
means
that
for
every
four
days
a
squatter
is
in
a
house.
That's
almost
a
year
in
jail.
One
month
is
seven
and
a
half
years
in
jail
and,
as
you
know,
many
of
these
squatting
cases
have
taken
six
months
or
more
to
resolve
so
six.
That
would
be
a
total
of
45
years
in
jail.
Macarthur's
supporters
I
think
we
all
agree
that
these
squatters
need
to
face
consequences
for
their
actions,
but
forty
five
years
in
jail
is
quite
frankly,
you
know
quite
laughable.
E
You
know,
especially
when
you're,
not
the
taxpayer,
who
has
to
put
this
a
bill,
especially
in
this
area,
when
we're
talking
about
bipartisan
criminal
justice
reform.
One
8:07
for
one
removes
the
daily
compounding
ninety
day
jail
stay
because
those
criminally
prosecuted
under
state
law
for
trespassing.
They
already
face
a
potential
jail
sentence.
Additionally,
the
way
the
law
is
currently
written,
I
want
you
to
think
about
this
and
I.
Want
you
to
think
about
our
police
districts.
E
It
requires
the
police
to
physically
go
out
to
the
property
each
day
to
issue
the
$300
fine.
So
that
means
every
day
the
police
has.
They
have
to
go
out
to
a
particular
property
that
issued
is
fine.
This
not
only
creates
implementation
challenges,
but,
quite
frankly,
our
police
force
use
for
people
in
the
basement
in
a
house
found
murdered,
I
want
them
investigating
at
that
house
and
not
telling
me
that
they
have
to
take
someone
off
of
that
assignment
to
go
on
a
daily
visit
to
another
property
I.
E
Rather
them
be
spending
their
time,
stopping
violent
crimes
than
going
back
to
the
same
house
each
day
to
try
to
issue
a
fine.
Instead,
this
bill
has
a
one
thousand
dollar:
five
for
first-time
squatters
and
a
two
thousand
dollar,
fine
for
repeat
offenders,
meaning
they
go
back
to
the
same
house
after
after
arrest
or
they
go
to
a
different
house.
This
fine
will
still
serve
as
a
deterrent,
while
also
making
it
much
easier
for
the
police
to
implement.
E
Finally,
now
that
you've
heard
me
explain
the
bills,
I
hope
it
is
clear
to
everyone
that
it
aims
to
protect
rightful
home
dwellers
and
victims
of
fraud,
while
ensuring
that
those
who
trust
or
break
into
someone's
home
will
still
face
arrests,
fines
under
the
city,
kaul
and
criminal
penalties
under
state
law.
I
too,
want
to
join.
My
council
colleagues,
woman
gem
is
saying
a
special
thank
you
to
our
legal
aid
organization,
CLS
senior
law,
public
interests
and
the
tenant
union
representative
network.
E
They
are
the
organizations
who
are
on
the
frontlines
every
day,
protecting
our
city's
most
vulnerable
and
elderly.
They
are
the
ones
who
have
been
consistently
sounding
the
alarm
that
the
law
on
the
books
covered
that
threaten
our
most
vulnerable
constituency.
Next
I
want
to
say
a
special
thank
you
to
our
law
enforcement
agencies,
particularly
the
police
in
our
district
attorney's
office.
E
I
was
incredibly
grateful
that
when
the
police
department
released
their
new
directive
regarding
squatters
on
September
the
28th
of
this
year,
they
showed
that
they
got
it
and
what
I
mean
is
that
they
understand
that
not
everything
is
black
and
white,
that
there
are
numerous
circumstances
where
someone
may
have
a
legal
right
to
reside
in
a
property,
but
for
one
reason
or
another
they
don't
have
a
deed
in
their
name.
We
didn't
make
that
up.
These
are
cases
that
are
quite
common
in
many
of
our
neighborhoods.
E
I
just
mentioned
that,
while
the
new
police
procedure
shows
that
they
get
it,
just
imagine
if
they
got
it
wrong,
their
procedure
shows
that
they
understand
the
very
intricate
nuances,
but
just
a
man
if
something
happened,
and
we
got
it
wrong,
meaning
just
imagine
if
someone
who
had
a
legal
right
to
reside
in
their
property
was
arrested
and
they
were
put
in
jail.
Can
you
imagine
the
lawsuit
and
the
multi-million
dollar
payout
that
the
city
would
have
to
make
my
bill
number
one?
E
E
That
was
the
first
time
they
were
all
brought
to
the
table.
So
I
don't
know
about
any
individual
meetings
that
occurred
in
silos
or
using
a
secret
way
to
communicate.
But
I
would
dare
say
to
you
that
every
organization
who
is
coming
to
testify
here
today
will
tell
you
that
they
never
got
together
as
a
whole.
The
way
that
they
should
have
in
order
to
develop
this
legislation
to
hash
out
details,
responsibilities
in
a
very
real
way,
I
noticed
a
much
more
difficult
way.
E
It
takes
a
longer
time
to
do
it
that
way,
but
fortunately,
for
me
it
is
the
only
way
that
I
know
how
to
get
things
done
and
that
is
bringing
everyone
to
the
table
at
the
same
time,
no
whispering
campaigns
but
to
whether
they
agree
or
disagree
to
make
sure
everyone's
perspective
is
heard
and
for
those
who
are
watching
at
home,
Lewis
saying
Councilwoman
Parker.
You
know
we
feel
that
you're
a
tad
bit
an
overly
spirited
right
now,
if
you
knew
the
hell
I
went
through
in
this
debate.
E
Diplo
diplomatic
silence
that
I've
had
to
demonstrate,
while
watching
the
information,
be
shocked
to
reporters
to
be
sent
on
social
media
almost
used
as
a
way
to
bully
some
of
my
colleagues
who
know
that
this
is
a
highly
public
and
charged
an
emotional
issue
and
they've
taken
this
information,
some
really
powerful
community
organizations
as
a
way
to
say
you
know,
you
know
we
deal
with
this
issue
of
squatting
in
tough
law
and
law
and
order
that
doesn't
make
a
damn
bit
of
sense.
We
want
that
to
stand
well,
I'm,
not
gonna.
E
Let
anybody
bully
me
the
facts
matter.
They
could
be
in
Washington
or
in
Harrisburg
and
Philadelphia,
but
I
don't
care
who
you
are
you
won't
bully
me,
you
don't
scare
me
and
I'm
gonna
speak
my
truth,
no
matter
how
difficult
it
may
be
for
you
to
swallow
to
my
colleagues
I.
Thank
you
so
very
much
and
mr.
chairman,
the
leeway
that
you
just
granted
me
I
am
very
grateful
and
appreciative
of
it,
but
I've
gone
through
hell
and
just
trying
to
do
this
right.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
You
Councilwoman,
you
sure
you
don't
want
to
tell
us
how
you
really
feel
you
do
and
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
my
colleague.
So
let
me
just
say
this:
we
are
not
a
monolithic
body.
We
come
from
different
points
of
view.
Looking
at
the
same
subject,
we
can
see
things
very
differently,
but
what
I
will
say
is
that
all
of
us,
I
can
I
can
safely
say
without
fear
of
contradiction.
Passionately
represent
our
constituents.
Voices
I
want
to
say
that
I've
always
enjoyed
the
the
back
and
forth
between
different
groups
as
well.
A
A
F
Morning,
Mike
Lee,
director
of
government
affairs,
District,
Attorney's,
Office
of
Philadelphia
and
I
will
be
reading
some
prepared
testimony
and
then
collectively
we
are
available
to
answer
any
questions.
This
committee
may
have
good
morning
and
Thank
You
counsel,
councilman
Jones
as
chairman
of
the
Public
Safety
Committee
and
other
members
of
the
public
safety
committee
and
council
members
and
public
in
attendance.
My
name
is
Mike
Lee
and
joining
me
today
is
Kimberly
esic
assistant
district
attorney
for
the
economic
crimes
unit
from
the
District
Attorney's
Office.
F
Homeownership
is
one
of
the
greatest
privileges
of
our
society
and
it
comes
with
some
of
the
most
responsibilities.
Determining
the
legal,
equitable
and
title
ownership
of
residential
properties
requires
detailed,
case-by-case
investigation
because
of
the
complex
interrelationship
of
property
rights.
This
is
why
property
rights
are
often
referred
to,
as
quote
a
bundle
of
Rights.
The
district
attorney's
office
supports
the
intention
of
bills,
one
eight
zero,
seven,
four
one
and
one
eight
zero,
nine
seven
eight,
because
these
bills
add
clarity
to
the
bundles
of
rights
surrounding
residential
property
ownership.
F
While
the
district
attorney's
office
will
continue
to
rely
upon
and
enforce
section
three
five
zero:
three
of
the
pennsylvania
crimes
code,
criminal
trespass,
these
bills
will
improve
the
district,
attorney's
auspice
response
inconsistency
for
residential
property
controversies
during
the
fiscal
year
2019
budget
hearing
demony
district
attorney
crasner
committed
to
addressing
economic
crimes
involving
residential
properties.
Subsequently,
the
district
attorney
has
dedicated
resources
to
expanding
the
economic
and
cybercrime
unit
and
improving
practices
surrounding
the
unique
challenges
of
economic
and
cybercrime
investigations.
F
The
District
Attorney's
Office
understands
that
making
the
distinction
between
civil
and
criminal
activities
surrounding
residential
properties
can
be
arduous,
and
we
are
working
with
law
enforcement
and
community
partners
to
improve
procedures
to
secure
sufficient
evidence
to
determine
if
and
when
an
arrest
can
be
made.
The
economics
crime
unit
has
collaborated
with
and
trained
other
criminal
justice
stakeholders
to
improve
investigations,
their
techniques
and
their
outcomes.
F
A
A
But
I
appreciate
your
enthusiasm.
I
would
now
like
to
record
be
recorded
as
voting
I
on
any
motions
and
approve
any
amendments
to
these
bills,
and
I
would
also
like
to
be
recorded
as
voting
aye
on
any
motions
to
report
these
bills,
with
a
favorable
recommendation
in
any
recommendation
that
the
rules
be
suspended
to
permit
first
reading
at
our
next
session
of
council,
we
will
now
go
back
into
a
public
meeting
and
I
will
relinquish
the
chair
to
councilman
Johnson.
H
Good
morning,
councilman,
Jones
and
other
members
of
the
Committee
on
Public
Safety,
my
name
is
Francis
Healy
and
I'm
special
advisor
to
commissioner
Ross.
First,
don't
behalf
of
the
Commissioner
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
giving
the
Philadelphia
Police
Department
the
opportunity
to
voice
its
opinion
regarding
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven,
four
one
regarding
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers
and
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
nine.
Seventy
regarding
fraudulent
leases.
As
you
know,
the
Philadelphia
Police
Department
supported
the
passage
of
bill.
H
One
eight
zero:
four:
three:
zero,
which
amended
title
10
of
the
city
code
by
adding
a
new
section
entitled
criminal
defiant
trespassers
due
to
a
relatively
new
and
emerging
crime,
whereby
offenders
illegal,
occupy
or
fraudulent
release,
residential
properties
to
unsuspecting
renters.
Commissioner
Ross
directed
that
a
policy
be
developed
and
implemented
to
address
the
criminal
activity,
but
also
to
better
serve
the
the
victims
of
these
crimes.
The
policy
which
is
known
now
as
directive
5.3
1,
provides
clear
instructions
for
responding
officers
and
the
assigned
detectives
when
dealing
with
this
complicated
financial
crime.
H
H
As
mentioned,
the
department
has
implemented
and
developed
a
comprehensive
policy
how
to
deal
with
both
the
criminals
and
define
trespassers,
as
well
as
the
innocent
victims
that
occur
from
rodent
leases.
This
policy
is
consistent
with
the
city
code,
section
1040,
and
the
amendments
being
made
here
today
under
both
bills.
As
such,
the
department
fully
supports
both
at
this
time,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
E
You,
mr.
chairman,
and
thank
you
all
so
very
much
for
your
testimony
relative
to
the
police
department.
Can
you
provide
us
with
just
a
general
overview
of
the
new
police
procedure,
director
5.3,
one
which
went
into
effect
on
the
28th,
just
like
almost
like
a
checklist
for
the
benefit
of
those
watching
just.
H
So,
as
you
know
as
a
background,
but
we
did
not
have
in
place
prior
to
this
order,
I'm
part
of
this
directive
with
specific
instructions
for
responding
officers
and
then
the
follow
up
by
detectives
on
how
to
deal
with
this
financial
crime.
It's
a
relatively
new
crime,
I
say
relatively
new,
but
the
Philadelphia
police
officer
said
respond
with
what
ill
equipped
it
deal
with
those
type
of
complicated
issues.
Much
like
we
would
handle
any
other
serious
crime
and
aggravated
assault,
something
on
those
lines
the
victims
need
to
have
service.
H
So
we
made
sure
that
what
we
did
we've
put
in
place
was
step
by
step
instructions
for
the
responding
officers,
basically
to
make
sure
that
the
victims
of
these
are
either
transported
to
the
detective
divisions
that
make
sure
that
the
service
that
they
get
serviced
first
and
foremost.
The
next
thing
is
instructions
for
the
detectives
on
how
to
investigate
these
things,
in
collaboration
with
the
district
attorney's
office,
the
district
attorney's
office.
H
E
H
E
Okay,
that
was
the
next
question.
Tell
me:
how
has
the
rollout
gone
us
so
far
like
now?
At
least
we
we
have
a
point
of
entry.
We
have
a
place
to
tell
everyone,
no
matter
what
section
of
the
city
that
you
are
in,
that
this
is
what
you
should
do
to
get
started
with
this
process.
So
how
has
it
been
working?
It's.
H
H
We
regularly
put
out
a
teletype
training
announcement
to
be
read
to
the
officers
and
detectives
on
a
three
day
period.
We'll
do
that
we'll
do
that
at
least
for
the
next
three
months,
one
day
a
month
to
make
sure
that
this
message
is
constantly
revisited
and
that
way.
They're
like
I,
said
it's
a
changing
culture.
We
want
to
make
sure
everybody
gets
the
board
on
it,
but
the
officer
is
responding
on
the
street
really
are
the
key
to
this.
Always
they
get
out
there.
They
understand.
This
is
something
beyond
me.
H
They
left
now
they
know
what
to
do.
They
just
don't
have
to
stand
and
say
well,
I'm,
sorry,
I
can't
help
you
right.
That's
the
biggest
thing.
That
was
the
really
the
biggest
concern
of
commissioner
Ross,
that
when
we
were
out
there
we
had
a
legitimate
victim
that
we
just
don't
stand
there
and
say
why
don't
you
to
help
you
now
the
officers
have
clear
instructions
and.
E
Just
for
the
benefit
of
those
who
are
in
the
chambers
and
those
who
are
watching
I
want
us
I
want
you
to
confirm.
For
me
whether
or
not
I
would
be
accurate
and
noting
that
this
police
procedure
that
you
all
have
established
this
directive
in
the
police
department
did
you
need
legislation
to
create
the.
H
E
E
E
H
The
issue
is,
we
had
we
have
a
provision
in
the
ARP
policy
when
we
have
an
innocent
victim
renter
of
the
issues
that
you
mentioned
correctly.
They
have
to
leave.
We
put
in
my
policy
as
soon
as
possible.
What
I
do
is
I
have
the
victim
assistance
officer,
it's
their
responsibility
to
interject
themselves
into
these
in
these
incidents
to
try
to
transition
the
the
frauded
victim
out
of
the
house
as
soon
as
possible.
H
E
H
G
D
Before
that
may
I
respond
to
the
statements
made
earlier,
what
councilman
David?
Oh!
Thank
you
very
much.
There
is
misinformation,
unfortunately,
I
believe
the
misinformation
is
from
the
lawyers
at
CLS
members
of
this
body.
That's
the
first
thing.
Those
same
statements
had
been
made
previously
and
had
been
fully
discussed.
First
of
all,
the
misinformation
centers
around
the
fact
that
the
ordinance
that
is
now
in
place
needs
to
be
amended,
and
the
police
and
district
attorney's
office
also
testified
in
support
of
the
bill,
which
is
now
in
ordinance.
D
The
only
thing
that
the
ordinance
does
is
it
allows
a
homeowner
after
they
have
called
the
police
because
of
a
criminal
violation
where
the
police
do
not
make
an
arrest,
and
unfortunately,
in
this
city
there
have
been
many
times
where
people
have
reported.
Doors
kicked
in
windows,
broken
into
numerous
people,
five,
six,
seven
people
in
their
homes-
they
came
here
and
testified,
and
the
police
did
not
arrest
them
did
not
take
action.
In
fact,
the
police
and
the
District
Attorney's
Office
told
them
to
file
in
Landlord
county
court,
which
is
the
wrong
court.
D
When
the
when
a
homeowner
comes
across
a
criminal
violation
of
their
home
and
the
police
do
not
make
an
arrest,
that
is
the
only
reason
why
we
created
this
ordinance.
It
is
limited
to
those
facts,
circumstances,
and
so,
when
the
homeowner
cannot
get
the
police
to
do
their
job
or
when
the
fact
scenario
is
complicated
and
the
police
are
not
sure
what
they
should
do,
the
problem
has
been.
It
has
taken
six
to
fourteen
months
and
sometimes
longer
to
get
in
front
of
the
judge.
D
The
only
thing
the
ordinance
does
is
it
accelerates
the
time
so
a
homeowner
and
the
person
who
is
in
the
home
if
they
are
a
criminal
trespasser
or
if
they
are
the
legitimate
victim
of
a
scam
or
if
they
have
some
claims
to
be
in
the
home,
can
get
in
front
of
a
judge,
because
a
judge
will
have
to
make
that
determination.
That
is
why
the
first
factual
statement
or
concern
about
who
is
not
listed
in
the
ordinance
is
not
accurate.
D
Anyone
who
has
a
claim
can
bring
it
when
they
get
to
in
front
of
a
judge.
Let's
say
it's
thirty
day
and
say:
judge
I'm,
an
heir
or
any
of
those
type
of
things.
However,
you
cannot
even
use
this
ordinance
without
first
contacting
the
police
and
describing
and
articulating
and
recording
a
criminal
violation.
The
next
thing
is
that
for
persons
who
abuse
the
ordinance,
they
too
are
subject
to
a
$300
per
day,
fine,
which
does
accumulate
and
up
to
90
days
in
jail,
which
does
accumulate,
but
all
civil
ordinances
are
limited.
D
You
cannot
have
more
than
a
certain
fine.
You
cannot
have
more
than
a
certain
number
of
days
in
jail,
so
they
do
not
go
on
forever.
We
are
not
allowed
to
do
that
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
Civil
fines
are
limited,
civil
jail
time
is
limited,
they
don't
go
on
forever,
but
both
the
criminal
trespasser,
defiant,
trespasser
and
anyone
who
intentionally
abuses
his
law
are
subject
to
the
same
penalties
of
$300
per
day
and
up
to
90
days
in
jail.
It
is
up
to
the
home
owner.
D
We
trust
the
judges
who
hear
these
cases.
The
only
thing
our
ordinance
does,
which
we
passed
11
to
6,
is
to
allow
someone
to
get
in
front
of
a
judge
that
has
the
authority
to
make
these
determinations
in,
and
the
amendments
that
have
been
forwarded
by
CLS
and
attendants
right
folks
simply
create
less
opportunities
for
homeowners
to
get
into
a
court.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
G
I
Name
is
George
gold
good
morning.
I
am
a
senior
attorney
at
community
legal
services
where
I
have
worked
in
the
area
of
housing
for
almost
50
years.
I.
Thank
the
committee
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
testify
today
on
this
important
issue.
I
have
also
been
actively
involved
in
housing
legislation
at
the
local
state
national
level.
I
am
very
grateful
to
have
worked
with
City
Council
for
decades
to
protect
the
rights
of
tenants
and
to
promote
decent,
safe
and
affordable
housing.
I
First
I
would
like
to
discuss
bill
1-800
741
and
its
proposed
amendments,
which
would
make
important
changes
to
the
criminal
trespass
ordinance,
which
was
passed
by
City
Council
and
became
law
in
September
2018.
We've
recognized
that
Philadelphia
is
facing
a
problem
of
criminal
trespass
by
those
who
have
no
legal
right
to
occupy
a
property.
However,
we
submit,
with
all
due
respect
to
councilman
arrow,
that
the
current
criminal
trespass
ordinances
has
serious
problems
and
that
ordinance
does
a
lot
more
than
simply
create
an
expedited
hearing.
I
There
are
more
than
14,000
properties
in
Philadelphia
titled
in
the
name
of
people
are
deceased,
their
heirs
of
rights
of
the
property
they
may
just
lack
paperwork
or
stymied
by
the
Philadelphia
Stangl
title
epidemic.
There
are
also
many
situations,
such
as
installment
sales
agreements,
where
an
agreement
signed
by
a
previous
owner
remains
valid
even
once
that
property
is
transferred.
The
limited
carve
out
in
the
ordinance
for
occupants
with
a
landlord-tenant
relationship
with
an
owner
or
prior
owner
do
not
adequately
protect
occupants
who
have
ownership
interest.
I
Moreover,
the
ordinance
does
nothing
to
protect
tenants
who
have
been
scammed
by
Foster's
Foster's
that
ran
out
properties,
which
they
do
not
own.
Every
lawyer
serving
tenants
in
the
city
has
to
come
across
cases
like
these,
where
a
person
will
say
he
or
she
owns
an
empty
property,
rent
the
property
to
an
unsuspecting
tenant
who
thinks
the
rentals
legitimate
and
then
disappear
after
receiving
a
deposit
and
several
months
of
rent,
the
ordinance
criminalizes
people
who
have
been
victims
of
this
sort
of
fraud
by
placing
them
squarely
within
the
category
of
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers.
I
We
strongly
support
bill
1
807
for
one
and
the
opposed
amendments
to
it.
They
would
resolve
many
of
the
problems
with
the
current
ordinance
at
the
June
4th
hearing,
you
heard
from
several
CLS
clients,
including
Morris
Simpkins
mr.
Simpkins
lived
in
his
family
home
for
more
than
60
years
after
the
house
was
sold
to
sheriff
Dale
for
property
taxes.
The
purchased
have
repeatedly
called
the
police
in
reported
mr.
stern,
as
a
squatter
under
the
city.
Laws
that
currently
exists.
Mr.
Simpkins
would
be
facing
potential
fines
or
jail
time
simply
for
living
in
a
house.
I
He
had
a
right
to
live
in.
You
also
heard
from
Margaret
green
who
signed
the
lease
and
paid
rent
for
money
months
after
the
landlord
disappeared.
After
three
years,
a
new
person
came
knocking
on
the
door,
demeaning
interest
to
the
property
and
claiming
to
the
be
the
owner,
but
his
ownership
was
a
deed,
purportedly
signed
by
two
women
who
had
been
dead
for
over
a
decade.
I
Whereas
authority
to
rent
such
property
and
to
quote
this
petition
would
protect
innocent
victims
like
Margaret
Greene.
The
proposed
amended
bill
provides
the
victim
has
15
days
to
move
out
or
such
time
as
provided
in
police
directive,
quote
the
former
owner
of
a
residential
property
sold
that
attacked
sale,
claiming
a
right
to
redeem
before
the
end
of
the
rented
emption
period.
Offense
of
pena
law
such
as
mr.
I
Simkins,
who
was
ultimately
able
to
save
his
longtime
fan,
quote
an
individual
who's
and
buyer
of
a
residential
property
under
installment
sales
contract
quote
an
individual
whom
the
property
is
conveyed,
conveyed
pursuant
to
an
unrecorded
deed,
quote
an
individual
with
a
right
to
reside
in
the
residential
property
of
the
federal
protection.
Tenants
at
foreclosure
act
quote
a
person
who
was
obtained
titled
by
adverse
possession
under
Pennsylvania
law.
It's
interesting
to
note
that
I've
read
the
testimony
of
the
three
landlord
Association
ruler
groups
and
they
claim
these
are
all
loopholes.
These
aren't
loopholes.
I
These
are
rights
that
people
have
to
live
in
in
property
and
it's
very
important
they
be
spelled
out.
The
bill
and
amendments
also
provide
that
the
affidavit
signed
by
the
owner
to
the
best
of
the
offense
knowledge,
information
and
belief
after
such
a
fan's
investigation
does
not
have
a
claim
to
reside
in
the
property
as
set
forth
above.
We
think
it's
very
important,
councilmen,
oh
I,
think
has
some
issue.
Why
require
the
person
to
do
a
reasonable
investigation?
I
I
think
it's
critically
important
that,
as
someone
is
accusing
and
going
to
the
police,
that
they
are
a
squatter,
that
they
know
what
the
law
is
and
what
the
exceptions
are.
In
addition,
the
bill
addresses
the
issue
of
victims
of
fortune
lanisha's
and
creates
a
private
right
of
action
for
persons
wrongfully
accused
of
criminal
trespass.
We
also
support
bill
1,
809
7a,
which
addresses
the
serious
problem
of
scammers
for
Dalila.
Fortunately,
leasing
a
property
they
do
not
own.
The
bill
would
create
a
fine
up
to
$1,000
in
a
private
right
of
action.
I
I
I
would
also
like
to
thank
councilman
Parker
and
her
staff
and
in
particular,
Rachel
meadows
for
all
their
great
work
on
that
they
appear
severe
for
many
many
months,
and
we've
really
really
appreciate
it,
and
I
also
wanted
to
thank
Frank
Healey
of
the
City
Police
Department,
the
city
district
attorney's
office
and
the
city
law
department
for
all
the
work
they
have
done
on
this
important
issue.
Thank
you.
J
Cataria
McCabe,
director
of
Veterans
kinship
care
and
tenant
rights
at
senior
loss
center,
Thank,
You,
Acting,
Council,
Chair,
Johnson
and
members
of
the
committee
on
public
safety
for
the
opportunity
provide
senior
law,
centers
response
to
the
two
proposed
bills
that
will
increase
protections
for
philadelphians
at
risk
of
displacement
from
their
homes
and
will
provide
a
remedy
for
residents
who
are
victims
of
fraudulent
leases
at
senior
loss
center.
We
protect
the
rights
of
older
Pennsylvanians,
we're
the
only
nonprofit
organization
whose
mission
is
dedicated
to
providing
legal
protection
to
Pennsylvania
senior
citizens.
J
We
provide
free
legal
assistance
to
thousands
of
seniors
each
year,
including
victims
of
elder
abuse
and
financial
exploitation,
elders
facing
housing
crises
and
homelessness
and
grandparents
raising
grandchildren
in
our
work.
We
assist
seniors
whose
homes
have
been
invaded
by
trespassers
who
refuse
to
leave.
These
trespassers
often
pose
dangerous
and
threatening
situations
for
seniors.
We
also
assist
innocent
home
owners
and
tenants
who
face
being
improperly
removed
from
their
homes.
Despite
having
a
legal
right
to
remain.
J
We
encourage
the
creation
of
a
process
allowing
those
trespassers
to
be
removed
more
quickly,
but
at
the
same
time,
we've
emphasized
the
need
to
carefully
calibrate
that
process
to
ensure
that
it
is
not
used
to
remove
in
since
seniors
from
their
homes.
We
support
bill
one
8:07
41,
because
it
meets
two
important
goals.
J
J
There
are
numerous
circumstances
where
senior
has
a
legal
right
to
stay
in
their
home,
but
there
is
a
danger
that
the
senior
would
be
treated
as
a
criminal
trespasser,
for
example,
seniors
who
lose
their
homes
as
a
result
of
text.
Fuller
closure
may
have
a
right
of
redemption
under
the
law,
but
without
bill.
One
eight
zero
seven,
four
one,
a
purchaser
of
the
property
at
sheriff
sale,
could
have
a
senior
removed
from
the
home
and
potentially
arrested
additionally
in
the
context
of
a
landlord-tenant
relationship
or
instances
of
domestic
violence.
J
There's
a
danger
that
bad
actors
will
make
false
affidavits
to
force
seniors
out
of
their
homes.
Quickly.
Senior
law
center
supports
the
bills
penalty
for
for
statements,
we
also
support
the
protections
for
seniors
who
are
victims
of
lease
fraud.
There
are
times
when
a
tenant
will
lease
a
property
and
begin
paying
rent
months
or
even
years
later,
the
innocent
senior
learns
that
the
person
to
whom
they
paid
rent
did
not
actually
own
the
property,
while
the
true
owners
do
have
a
right
to
remove
victims
of
lease
fraud.
J
The
innocent
victims
should
not
be
treated
as
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers.
This
bill
addresses
that
problem
now.
The
problems
of
lease
fraud
is
also
addressed
by
the
other
bill
being
considered
today
bill
one
eight,
zero,
nine
seven
eight
creates
a
way
to
sue
the
bad
actors
responsible
for
fraudulent
leases.
We
support
this
bill
as
one
of
a
broader
strategy
to
protect
the
innocent
victims
of
Leaves
fraud.
It
supplements
the
existing
unfair
trade
practices
and
consumer
protection
law,
which
provides
a
similar
rate
to
sue
the
perpetrators
of
consumer
frauds.
J
We
look
forward
to
continued
work
with
you
to
make
our
city
a
safer
home
for
our
senior
population
and
empowering
them
in
their
fight
against
exploitation
and
abuse.
We
thank
Councilwoman
Parker,
her
staff,
as
well
as
the
other
stakeholders
who've
been
working
in
collaboration.
We
appreciate
her
tireless
leadership
on
this
vital
issue.
Thank
you.
G
K
Yes,
my
name
is
Phil
ward,
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
the
tenant
union
representative
network
or
turn
where
tenant
service
and
advocacy
organization
that's
been
around
for
a
long
time.
Fifteen
to
thirty
forty
years,
you
made
a
bond
of
phase.
We
see
tenants
all
the
time
we
see
2,000
to
3,000
tenants
a
year
in
our
classes
and
so
we're
acquainted
with
this
issue
from
their
experience.
We
don't
protect
or
intend
to
protect
people
who
are
criminal
trespassers.
We
don't
believe
that
they
should
be
protected.
We
think
that
they
should
be
prosecuted
and
pursued.
K
That's
our
intention
and
I
say
that,
because
the
people
who
come
to
us
aren't
really
the
criminal
trespassers
they're
the
victims
of
criminal,
trespassers,
they're
innocent
people
who
have
been
tricked-
and
this
is
a
business
going
on
here-
this
is
not
your
normal
quote/unquote
squadra.
This
is
not
to
80s
when
people
moved
into
buildings
to
protest,
the
lack
of
affordable
housing
and
it's
not
people
just
wandering
in
because
they
want
a
place
to
stay.
K
These
are
people
who
are
victims
and
move
into
vacant
properties,
properties
that
are
not
boarded
up
properties,
don't
have
security
systems,
property
that
not
license
to
be
vacant
and
empty.
These
people
are
moving
to
these
properties
because
they've
got
a
name
off
a
Craigslist
or
somewhere
else,
and
they
were
told
it's
okay
by
somebody,
who's
a
liar
and
a
scam,
a
thief
and
they're
victims
of
that,
and
they
come
to
our
office
and
ask
us
what
we
what
we
can
do.
K
I'll,
never
forget
a
young
couple
who
were
like
in
their
20s
and
they
had
double
car
seat
for
a
little
two
little
twins
less
than
1
years
old,
and
they
just
moved
out
of
their
mother
than
one
of
the
mothers
properties.
They
were
a
couple
into
a
property
and
had
paid
it
up,
lose
their
money
for
a
deposit
and
after
a
couple
of
months,
someone
knocks
on
the
door
and
they
say
they're
from
HUD
and
they
have
to
move
and
it
comes
our
office
saying.
What
can
we
do?
K
We
have
no
money,
we
just
got
started
in
our
lives
and
what
can
we
do
and
we
tell
them
the
law
says:
you're
a
squatter
you're
gonna
have
to
move
out
as
soon
as
you
can,
and
it's
tragic
that's
the
way
the
law
is
right
now.
The
bottom
line
is
that
these
people
need
to
be
protected,
need
to
be
recognized
that
they
are
not
criminals.
You
recognize
the
victims
that
they
are,
and
fortunately
the
law
that
we
have.
The
amendments
were
talking
about.
K
Do
that
I'm
really
grateful
for
counsel,
miss
Parker's
efforts
to
pull
people
together?
It
was
unique,
it
was
the
way
democracy
oughta
work.
It
wasn't
his
private
consultations
that
we
had
before
we
got
to
hear
from
each
other
and
as
a
result
of
that,
I
believe
the
police,
who
were
dropping
the
ball
for
a
long
time
and
not
doing
anything
with
housing
issues
stepped
up
along
with
the
DA's
office,
decided
to
create
a
process,
that's
workable
and
willing
to
work
with
that.
We
think
that's
a
positive
step
in
the
right
direction,
but
you
take
it.
K
We
think
it's
very
important
to
do
this
and
we
also
are
concerned
that
this
law,
in
spite
of
its
improvements,
still
is
vulnerable
to
people
being
used,
be
legal
lockouts
being
committed.
As
of
this
affidavit
process,
this
affidavit
process
allows
owners
to
go
up
and
fill
out
a
form
and
gets
police
to
come
to
someone's
house.
K
That's
not
an
eviction,
but
it
feels
like
an
eviction
if
you're
an
immigrant
or
somebody
who's,
afraid
of
the
police,
a
returning
citizen
and
we're
afraid
it's
going
to
be
used
in
that
way
to
get
people
to
mandated
and
terrorized
and
to
move
out
illegally,
and
we
hope
that
doesn't
happen,
but
that
certainly
is
a
real
possibility.
So
we're
glad
for
this
these
amendments,
we
think
they're
critical,
we're
for
the
additional
bill
to
180
978
about
fraudulent
leases.
K
The
problem
is,
the
police
have
not
been
parsed
prosecuting
the
real
perpetrators,
they
disappear,
no
one's
tracking
them
down
no
one's
finding
out
these
people
who
are
renting
out,
and
so
you
do
it
again.
We
have
to
have
a
private
right
of
action
that
will
help
create
some
kind
of
accountability.
What
they've
done
so
we
have
this
opportunity
to
speak
before
you
and
we
hope
that
this
amendment
gets
passed.
L
Donnelly
Public
Interest,
Law
Center
I
first
want
to
thank
council
member
Parker
for
her
leadership
on
this
issue
and
her
strength
in
the
face
of
a
misinformation
campaign
that
has
happened,
and
she
has
been
a
voice
of
reason
and
a
protector
of
the
most
vulnerable
philadelphians,
so
Thank
You
councilmember
Parker
in
my
practice,
I
represent
tenants
fighting
to
assert
their
legal
rights
under
federal
state
and
local
law.
I'm
here
today
to
offer
my
support
for
Bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven,
four
one
and
one
eight
zero.
L
Nine
seven
eight
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven
four
one
introduced
by
councilmember
Parker,
is
necessary
to
protect
the
city's
most
vulnerable
tenants,
including
those
with
oral
leases,
families
and
properties
that
were
recently
sold,
and
it
is
some
people
who
you've
heard
a
lot
about
already
today
that
are
defrauded
by
third
parties
that
lease
out
properties
they
do
not
own
and
then
run
off
with
illegally
collected
revenues.
Crucially,
this
bill
protects
tenants
and
other
legitimate
occupants,
while
still
providing
owners
tools
to
combat
criminal
trespassing.
L
It
does
not
weaken
the
criminal
trespassing
bill
passed
by
council
earlier
this
year.
Instead,
it
clarifies
who
is
and
who
is
not
a
lawful
occupant
of
a
property.
It
doesn't
create
new
loopholes.
It
effectively
closes
them
the
ones
that
were
in
the
original
bill
that
would
have
allowed
unseemly
landlords
to
illegally
remove
tenants
from
their
homes.
As
an
example
of
who
this
bill
would
protect.
I
want
to
share
a
story
from
my
practice,
two
of
my
clients,
a
couple
with
young
children,
we're
living
in
a
house
that
was
purchased
by
a
new
owner.
L
Their
lease
did
not
end
for
six
more
months.
Yet
the
new
owner
claimed
that
my
clients
were
squatters
filed
an
ejectment
action
against
them,
so
my
clients
had
legal
counsel
and
we're
able
to
remain
in
their
home
for
the
duration
of
their
lease,
but
other
Philadelphians
won't
be
so
lucky.
If
and
when
the
city's
worst
landlords
use
the
new
criminal
trespassers
bill
to
bypass
the
lawful
eviction
process
and
legally
remove
rightful
occupants
from
their
homes.
L
Relatedly
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
nine
seven
eight
will
protect
both
the
vulnerable
citizens
that
we've
all
mentioned
at
this
table
and
property
owners,
both
of
whom
are
the
victims
when
third
parties
fraudulently
leased
properties
to
unsuspecting
tenants
without
consent
from
the
homeowner.
Such
fraudulent
leases
are,
unfortunately,
quite
common
in
the
private
rental
market
as
empty
property
properties.
High
poverty
rates
and
a
lack
of
affordable
housing
options
create
the
perfect
storm
for
sophisticated
fraudsters
to
make
a
quick
buck
through
illegal
rentals.
L
D
A
point
of
order,
mr.
chairman
councilman
David,
oh
the
examples
just
given
by
George
Donnelly
and
by
George
Gould,
are
not
related
to
the
ordinance
number
one.
He
has
just
given
an
example
of
a
young
couple
who
had
a
lease.
If
you
have
a
lease,
you
are
not
a
criminal
there's,
no
criminal
violation.
Therefore
the
ordinance
as
it
exists
does
not
apply
to
that
case,
and
if
you
have
a
right
of
recollect
the
reclamation
redemption,
if
you're
an
heir,
you're,
not
a
criminal.
D
If
there's
been
a
sheriff
sale,
you're
in
the
property,
you
didn't
break
into
the
property.
There
is
not
someone
living
in
the
home.
Therefore,
all
those
situations
described
are
not
affected
by
our
ordinance
and
again.
That
does
not
allow
the
police
to
arrest
or
remove.
It
simply
provides
if
the
home
owner
provides
an
affidavit
that
there,
the
owner
there
was
a
criminal
break-in.
D
They
called
the
police
of
police
record
the
violation
they
can
then
apply
to
get
in
front
of
a
judge,
and
the
judge
will
hear
and
determine
if
the
judge
finds
that
the
people
in
the
house
have
a
legitimate
right
to
be
there,
then
they
are
not
removed.
They
can
then
go
through
a
regular
process.
If,
however,
they
find
that
there
is
evidence
of
a
criminal
violation,
the
judge
will
then
issue
an
order
that
the
sheriff
will
execute.
D
E
Thank
you
point
of
information
before
my
line
of
questioning
for
this
panel.
Mr.
chairman
and
I
just
want
to
note
for
the
record.
It
was
noted
earlier
that
we
had
a
hearing
a
prior
hearing
and
at
that
time
a
Margaret
green
testified
against
councilman
oz
bill,
because
she
was
concerned
that
people
in
situations
like
the
one
she
was
experiencing.
E
The
examples
that
were
just
given
by
this
panel
that
my
colleague
just
noted
in
effect
could
would
not
be
considered
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers,
and
so
she
was
concerned
that
people
in
situations
like
the
ones
she
was
going
through
would
be
deemed
criminal
and
defiant
trespassers
and
thus
subject
to
arrest
fines
in
a
90
day.
Jail
State
copy
of
her
testimony
is
included
in
our
packets
after
the
hearing.
E
This
is
the
part
that's
important
to
get
on
the
record
after
the
hearing
my
office
and
quiet
with
the
law
Department
about
Margaret
Greene's
case,
and
we
asked
them
whether
or
not
according
to
the
bill
that
was
passed
as
it
was
written.
Could
they
give
us
a
formal
legal
opinion
and
they
reply
and
I
want
to
state
this
for
the
record?
If
if
mr.
E
Brown
was
not
the
owner
of
the
property,
the
matter
is
less
clear
and
on
the
face
of
the
bill,
miss
green
could
be
considered
a
criminal
and
defiant
trespasser,
and
it's
people
like
that
example.
So
you
know
again,
you
talk
about
what's
what's
objective
the
law
department
that
is
Department
the
city
of
Philadelphia
relies
on
to
provide
us
and
give
us
legal
opinions
about
the
legislation
we
put
forth
for
introduction
and
consideration
in
this
body,
and
they
have
just
told
us
that
this
woman
would
have
been
considered
a
criminal
and
defiant
trespasser.
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
for
the
record,
it's
not
about
what
Cheryl
Parker
feels
that
was
the
response
of
our
law
department.
What
that
being
said,
I'm
mr.
Chairman
I
want
to
again
say
a
special
thank
you
to
the
organizations
who
just
testified
and
I
just
have
one
question
for
you.
The
meeting
that
we
held
as
a
result
of
the
resolution
that
we
introduced
regarding
the
task
force
and
we
held
the
task
force
meeting
across
the
hall
in
our
city,
council
chambers,
that
was
in
essence,
a
roundtable.
E
It
included
the
district
attorney's
office,
the
sheriff's
office,
the
police
department,
on
all
of
your
legal
aid
organizations.
The
courts
had
you
ever
at
any
time,
since
this
issue
of
squatting
had
been
on
the
table
and
a
legislative
prescription
was
being
proffered.
Was
that
the
first
time
you
had
ever
been
at
a
roundtable
of
that
magnitude
to
discuss
the
issue
at
hand.
J
K
L
M
You
mr.
chair,
this
issue
has
been
debated
for
some
time.
I
know
from
my
experience
when
I
represent
all
the
paddling
community
development.
We
had
an
issue
in
reference
to
people
squatting
into
city-owned
property,
and
we
were
not
able
to
move
the
police
to
take
any
action,
because
at
that
time
gentleman
the
police
took
the
perspective
that
if
they
saw
items
in
a
property
look
like
a
person
have
been
living
there.
M
They
were
not
going
to
remove
that
person
and
then
the
law
department
to
actually
do
a
civil
judgment
action
to
remove
someone
from
a
city-owned
property.
So,
as
I
listened
to
the
conversation
and
debate,
it
definitely
causes
a
tension
between
those
property
owners
who
to
know
faulter
own.
Have
someone
come
into
their
property?
That
is
squatting,
their
property
illegally
and
the
property
owner
is
now
in
a
situation
where
they
now
have
to
get
that
person
out
of
the
coffee.
Then
you
also
have
situations
where
you
have.
M
People
who
also
know
faults
in
their
own
have
been
duped
into
a
situation
thing
and
it
can
be
in
the
property
and
find
out
at
some
point
later
that
the
person
that
gave
them
the
lease
had
no
real
legal
interest
in
doing
so
so
as
I
reflect
on
that
I
just
had
some
questions.
In
reference
to
the
amendments
that
were
circulated
by
my
colleague,
councillor
Parker.
M
There
were
some
changes
that
were
made
in
reference
to
the
penalty
phase.
Now,
considering
that
some
of
the
concerns
have
been
raised
and
there's
been
amendments
and
put
in
for
some
of
the
issues
that
you
talked
about,
would
you
have
any
concerns
if
the
amendments
to
the
bill
were
increased
in
reference
to
penalties,
if
some
of
the
exceptions
that
were
put
into
the
bill
were
passed,
I'm.
M
In
the
amendments
that
were
circulated
at
Council
in
Parker,
which
provided
some
of
the
definitions
and
change
the
definition
of
what
is
a
criminal
and
defiant
trespasser,
if
that
amendment
was
passed,
would
you
be
supportive
of
additional
amendments
that
increase
the
penalty
in
the
fines
under
the
bill?
It.
M
I
think
one
of
the
issues
that
I
see
is
that
there's
some
concerns
that
were
not
deterring,
squatters
and
I
understand
your
perspective.
In
reference
to
you
felt
that
the
definition
of
criminal
defined
trespassing
was
too
broad,
but
one
of
the
other
County
bounding
issues
is
that.
Are
we
not
deterring
squatters
enough
and
I
wanted
to
get
your
perspective
on
that
I.
I
J
L
Green,
no,
no
one
up
here,
as
you
know,
is
concerned
about
criminal
trespassers
in
terms
of
protecting
their
rights.
They
don't
have
any
rights.
There
are
no
squatter's
rights,
so
we
would
be
okay
with
the
penalties
in
the
original
bill,
but
what
I
would
say
is
I
questioned
whether
or
not
increased
fines
are
going
to
deter
illegal
squatting,
I
question
whether
or
not
that
is
actually
an
effective
deterrent,
but
to
the
extent
it
would
be
in
a
final
bill.
M
L
An
increase
so
I
think
it's
probably
unlikely
that
a
person
who
is
a
criminal
trespass
is
going
to
know
exactly
what
the
fine
is
per
day
and
and
what
the
jail
time
is
and
then
know
it's
illegal.
They
know
it's
illegal,
that's
why
they
do
it.
They
know
that
they're
taking
a
property
so
again,
I,
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
belabor
this
point
too
much.
We
would.
We
would
support
the
original
penalties
because
again
the
people
up
here
are
not
here
supporting
squatter's
rights,
because
there
are
no
such
thing
as
squatter's
rights.
K
Me
just
modify
that
a
little
bit
I
think
those
are
not
our
constituents,
the
people
who
are
doing
this,
the
illegal
squatting,
so
the
penalties
were
talking
about.
Not
a
great
concern
to
us,
on
the
other
hand,
is
basically
men
beings.
We
wouldn't
want
someone
in
jail
or
45
years
for
making
a
mistake
like
this,
so
we
have
to
make
sure
we
balance
that
out,
but
certainly
we're
not
trying
to
protect
that
constituency
and
the
protectors
are
not
here.
Maybe
the
public
defender's
office
ought
to
be
questioned
about
that.
K
Let
me
just
make
one
more
comment,
and
that
is
that
I
don't
know
away
someone
moving
into
a
building
could
determine
whether
or
not
the
person
they're
talking
to
is
an
agent
for
the
owner.
There's
no
way
that
I
know
of
that
can
advise.
Somebody
can
find
that
out.
There's
no
record,
there's
no
ID,
there's!
No!
K
If
the
person
part
of
century
21
or
people
estate
company,
that's
one
thing,
but
if
stranger
comes
up
and
says
I'm
her
owners
agent
and
could
get
into
property
with
a
key
there's
no
way,
you
can
tell
the
public
record
that
they
are
not
an
agent
of
the
owner
that
kind
of
record.
If
it's
part
of
a
license,
it's
very
hard
to
find
that
is
even
available
to
general
public
and.
L
I
You
know
the
fortune
unleashed,
we
I
suggested
there
being
increased
fine
for
that
and
I
think
it
should
be
I
mean,
unfortunately,
that's
a
real
business
in
Philadelphia
of
people
breaking
into
homes
and
then
leasing
them
out
and
I.
Think
you
know,
should
be
severe
penalties
and
I
think
that
bill
was
real,
important
and
I
suggested
that
there
be
an
increased
buying
for
that
yeah.
E
You
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I
just
went
to
a
note
for
the
record
in
response
to
my
colleague,
councilman
Derek
Greene's
questions
regarding
fraudulent
leases
and
the
the
criminality,
along
with
the
fines
that
we
just
introduced
in
the
legislation
that
we
offer
and
I
just
want
to
say
for
the
record.
That's
exactly
why
we
introduced
a
bill
because,
right
now,
although
we
know
it
is
illegal
to
do
there
when
there
was
nothing
on
the
record,
you
know
you
know
providing
for
people
who
knowingly
enter
into
that
business
to
have
to
be
forced
to
pay.
E
So
I
just
want
to
note
that
for
the
you
know
again,
sometimes
people
I
think
develop
legislation
in
search
of
a
problem
and
I've.
You
know
tried
my
best
not
to
allow
that
to
be
my
modus
operandi,
but
we
we
developed
it
in
an
effort
to
provide
a
very
tailored
prescription
that
we
thought
wasn't
again
to
to
too
broad,
for
example,
again
for
the
MacArthur
grant
supporters.
You
know
for
45
years
of
the
45
year.
Example
like
I
want
you
to
tell
me
how
that
you
know
I
forget
moral
sense,
but
my
good
economic
sense.
G
N
N
I'm,
a
senior
citizen
home
owner
in
Taccone,
with
limited
resources,
annual
income,
limited
annual
income
now
because
of
the
short
notice
of
this
hearing
and
having
having
to
have
to
wade
through
our
language,
which
can
be
partially
or
mostly
incomprehensible
to
most
of
us.
I
hope
that
I'll
be
coherent
and
cohesive.
N
In
my
testimony,
a
word
that
my
testimony
has
is
opposition
and
because
it's
included
in
into
in
my
testimony
this
is
the
particular
word
that
I'll
be
using
I
hope
that
you
bear
with
me
I
post
this
bill
for
the
following
reasons
under
to
see
the
word
live,
it
is
used.
It
is
not
clear
as
to
whether
or
not
the
alleged
abuse
victim
actually
had
legal
standing
to
occupy
my
property.
If
that
was
the
case,
does
the
word
lift
me
in
1
day
2
days?
N
If
your
she
refuses
to
leave,
doesn't
mean
that
if
the
person
claims
to
have
lived
in
my
house
under
the
above
situation
and
claims
to
have
been
a
victim
of
sexual
harassment
or
domestic
violence
by
the
person
that
watched
my
home
while
I
was
on
vacation
is
not.
Is
that
person
not
considered
a
trespass
or
if
the
person
refuses
to
leave?
It
seems
to
me
that,
despite
Hepper
any
kind
of
legitimate
of
investigation,
it
puts
me
at
a
disadvantage.
N
The
second
reason
I
oppose
this
bill,
is
that
in
for
anyone
could
say
that
they're
renting
a
property
from
someone
who
claimed
to
be
the
owner
or
agent
in
good
faith.
What
does
reasonable
good
faith
mean?
The
situation
puts
me
again
in
jeopardy
and
that
those
who
are
alleging
renting
in
good
faith,
has
access
to
all
my
personal
information
and
possible
identity
theft
I'm
out
in
the
cold
and
the
trespasser
is
living
it
up.
The
third
reason
I
oppose
the
amendment
of
bill.
N
1
8:07
41,
is
that
what
appears
to
be
in
tui
owner
were
authorized
agent.
There
was
a
burden
that
the
homeowner
has
to
shoulder
some
sort
of
investigation,
which
isn't
spelled
out
in
the
meantime,
I'm
still
homeless,
with
a
trespasser
that
has
freedom
of
movement
and
able
to
live
in
my
property,
with
all
my
belongings
without
any
kind
of
hindrance.
That
person
is
able
to
come
and
go
while
this
so-called
investigation
is
occurring.
My
fourth
objection
to
the
amendments
is
4b,
which
states
that
Fiona
authorized
agent
has
to
initiate
investigations.
N
N
My
sixth
objection
or
my
fifth
objection-
is
that
4e
anyone
can
claim
to
have
been
scammed.
Homeowners
are
still
in
jeopardy
of
becoming
homeless
and
their
properties
and
ID's
are
also
in
jeopardy
of
being
stolen.
Even
if
people
are
scammed,
it
still
presents
the
same
problem
for
homeowners.
Those
people
can
will
have
access
to
the
homeowners,
wealth
and
personal
information
which
can
also
be
sold
on
the
market.
N
N
N
Nevertheless,
it
seems
to
me
that
a
1000
or
2000
dollar
fine
is
not
suitable
for
someone
who
claims
to
be
in
the
property
legitimately
and
who
actually
is
not
in
that
property
during
any
kind
of
investigation.
If
that
person
is
a
trespass
or
a
criminal
and
defiant
trespasser,
that
person
can
leave
that
property
at
any
time
without
any
hindrance.
If
this
puts
everything
that
I
have
that's
that's
material
in
jeopardy
of
being
stolen,
you
know
and
then
there's
an
investigation
where
that
particular
person
has
to
be
found.
N
N
G
E
You
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I,
want
to
thank
you,
mr.
Russell,
for
your
testimony.
I,
don't
have
any
questions
for
mr.
Russell
mr.
chairman,
but
I
do
want
to
note
for
the
record
there,
all
of
the
fines
that
are
listed
in
this
legislation.
This
is
another
layer
already
on
top
of
of
state
fines
along
with
potential
jail
time.
So
this
is
just
another
layer.
E
I
want
to
note
that
for
the
record,
in
addition
to
that,
I
want
to
note
for
the
record
that
we
must
take
into
consideration
that
there
was
no
standard
police
procedure
in
place.
There
was
no
procedure
in
place.
So,
if
someone,
you
know
said,
I'm
a
victim
of
domestic
violence,
what
we
are
forgetting
is
that
the
police
department
has
to
conduct
an
investigation.
There
was
no
standard
operating
procedure.
You
just
can't
say:
I'm
a
victim
of
domestic
violence,
I'm
a
victim
of
stalking.
E
We
have
a
police
department
who
now
has
a
procedure
in
place
where
you
take
that
and
Meishan
to
them.
It
will
be
investigated
much
like
if
someone
accuses
someone
of
a
crime-
and
you
can
say
someone
assaulted
me
someone.
Someone
hurt
me
that
the
police
department
will
conduct
an
investigation
and
and
based
on
the
findings
of
their
investigation,
they
will
determine
whether
or
not
that
they
think
the
person
is
credible.
So
that's
the
part
that
we
are
not.
E
We
are
forgetting
and
much
of
our
discussion
that
we
did
not
have
a
system
in
place
that
would
ensure
that
each
case
is
investigated
and
again,
I
want
to
thank
the
police
department
for
acknowledging
on
the
record
that
the
procedure
that
they
have
in
place
is
not
the
result
of
legislation.
It's
not
the
result
of
a
bill
that
was
passed.
It's
not
the
result
of
this
bill
that
is
in
front
of
us.
They
instituted
that
police
procedure
at
the
directive
of
our
police.
Commissioner,
a
Ross
and
I'm
sure
they
worked
in
consultation
with
our
administration.
G
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
testify.
My
name
is
Charles
bode
I'm
with
the
West
pal
Saunders
Park,
our
Co
out
in
West
Philadelphia.
We
recognize
this
is
an
extremely
complicated
issue.
Perhaps
it
needs
a
little
more
thought.
My
first
point-
I
testified,
I
guess
earlier
this
year
on
the
previous
bill,
but
I
received
no
notice
that
there
was
any
kind
of
a
comprehensive
meeting
for
me
to
come
and
present
their
viewpoints
and
so
forth.
B
My
next
question
concerns
the
homeowner
is
allowed
to
have
an
investigation
or
supposed
to
have
an
investigation.
What
constitutes
an
investigation?
How
much
do
I
have
to
pay
as
a
homeowner
to
have
an
investigation,
and
then,
if
we
have
to
wait
for
a
judge,
if
I
go
home
this
afternoon,
cover
I
can't
get
in
my
house,
it's
gonna
be
a
long
cold.
Wait
for
a
judge.
B
How
long
do
I
have
to
wait
to
find
a
judge,
I
can't
get
in
my
house,
and
then
we
have
the
problem
as
the
previous
gentleman
mentioned,
of
our
possessions,
what
happens
if
they
gets
thrown
out?
How
would
I
file
my
income
tax
is
my
Pennsylvania
tax?
Is
my
state
taxes
if
I
have
no
financial
records
because
someone
threw
them
out
who
pays
my
penalties
for
failure
to
file
my
taxes
properly?
My
wife
is
chair
of
our
our
CEO.
All
the
records
for
the
our
CEO,
the
computer,
with
all
the
information
is
in
our
house.
B
If
I
we
go
home
and
can't
get
in
tonight,
what
happens
to
our
our
CEO
to
the
cases
we
are
supposed
to
take
to
the
CBA
tomorrow,
so
I
think
we
need
to
address
the
property
owners
rights
to
their
possession.
Perhaps
we're
talking
about
theft
of
use
here
instead
of
squatting
or
something
maybe
we
need
to
rethink
on
a
little
bit
so
I.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
I
realize
you
have
other
things
to
do
and
you
need
to
get
on,
but
thank
you
thank.
E
Seconds,
mr.
chairman,
just
one
a
note
for
the
record
and
thank
everyone
for
their
testimony
that
no
Philadelphian
has
to
pay
a
fee
for
an
investigation.
We
now
have
standard
operating
procedure
in
existence
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia
to
address
the
illegal
criminal
and
defiant
trust
passing
you
know
known
as
squaty.
There
is
no
cost,
there
is
no
fee.
There
is
a
standard
point
of
entry
to
address
this
issue
now
and
that
point
of
entry
is
with
our
Philadelphia
Police
Department,
with
the
new
procedure
that
they
have
established.
That
was
not
in
existence.
E
So,
when
Philadelphians,
who
were
victims
of
a
criminal
and
defiant,
trespassing,
tell
us
about
these
stories
of
going
to
the
police
department
and
them
saying
they
don't
know
what
to
do.
They
couldn't
help
they.
You
know
there
was
no,
because
there
was
no
process
established.
There
is
one
now
and
it
is
not
a
result.
Legislation
at
this
council
passed
or
this
legislation
before
us.
It
was
an
executive
decision
made
by
the
police
department.
Thank
you.
G
We
will
now
go
into
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
action
to
be
taken
on
bill
number.
One:
eight,
zero,
seven,
four
one
and
bill
and
number
one:
eight:
zero,
seven,
nine
seven.
Eight!
The
chair
now
recognizes
the
councilman
charelle
Parker
for
a
motion
on
the
amendment
to
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
seven,
four
one.
E
G
It
has
now
been
moving
properly
seconded
that
the
amendments
of
bill
number
one,
eight,
zero,
seven,
four
one
be
approved.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
will
signify
by
saying
aye
hi
those
opposed
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
carries
and
the
limits
of
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven
four
one
has
been
approved.
The
chair
now
recognizes
councilman
Cheryl
Parker
for
motion
on
bill
number,
one:
eight,
zero,
nine,
seven,
eight
and
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven,
four
one
as
amended
Thank.
E
You
mr.
chairman
I
move
that
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero,
nine
seven
eight
in
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven
four
one
as
amended,
be
reported
from
this
committee
with
a
favorable
recommendation
and
further
move
that
the
rules
of
council
be
suspended
to
permit
first
reading
of
this
bill
at
the
next
session
of
council.
Second,.
G
It
has
to
move
on
property
second,
that
the
bill
numbers
one,
eight,
zero,
nine,
seven,
eight
and
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
seven,
four
one
as
amended,
be
reported
by
from
this
committee,
with
a
favorable
recommendation
and
further
move
that
the
rules
of
council
be
suspended
to
permit
first
reading
of
this
bill
at
the
next
session
of
council.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
will
signify
by
saying
aye
hi
those
opposed
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
carries.