|
Title:
|
April 3, 2002
TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA:
I am returning herewith Bill Number 030114. Council passed this bill at its session on March 20, 2003.
Bill 030114 proposes to amend the portion of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District Controls" by prohibiting the operation of telemarketing businesses within the District. This measure is problematic for several reasons, including a.) the definition of "telemarketing business" is very broad, and therefore may have far-reaching, unintended consequences; b.) the banning of this use within the Old City area is not support by any finding of fact or formal studies; and, c.) at a meeting on March 18, 2003, the City Planning Commission disapproved of this measure.
To define the term "telemarketing" the legislation refers to the state Telemarketer Registration Act, which defines telemarketing as: "a plan, program or campaign which is conducted to includ...
|
Title
April 3, 2002
TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA:
I am returning herewith Bill Number 030114. Council passed this bill at its session on March 20, 2003.
Bill 030114 proposes to amend the portion of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District Controls" by prohibiting the operation of telemarketing businesses within the District. This measure is problematic for several reasons, including a.) the definition of "telemarketing business" is very broad, and therefore may have far-reaching, unintended consequences; b.) the banning of this use within the Old City area is not support by any finding of fact or formal studies; and, c.) at a meeting on March 18, 2003, the City Planning Commission disapproved of this measure.
To define the term "telemarketing" the legislation refers to the state Telemarketer Registration Act, which defines telemarketing as: "a plan, program or campaign which is conducted to include the purchase of goods or services or to solicit contributions for any charitable purpose, charitable promotion or for or on behalf of any charitable organization, by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one telephone call." This broad definition makes many different actions subject to telemarketing regulations. Importantly, however, the Telemarketer Registration Act makes specific exceptions that have not been referenced or included as part of Bill 030114, including:
- the exclusion of certain business-to-business telemarketers;
- the exclusion of businesses or occupations licensed or certified by the federal or state government, such as stockbrokers; and
- the exclusion of certain non-profit, educational and charitable organizations.
The practical impact of not including the exceptions that are a part of the state Telemarketing Act is significant; without such exceptions, many worthy, organized efforts to raise funds for churches, schools, and civic or neighborhood groups would no longer be permitted within the Old City Residential District. For example, if the Old City Civic Association sought to organize a telephone fund raising effort for funds to improve a community park, the group would be prohibited from conducting that effort from their Old City offices. By failing to recognize these important exceptions, or make any other exceptions to the broad definition found in state law, Bill 030114 will end up affecting many more businesses and other non-profit operations than just standard telemarketing setups.
As was noted by a representative of the City Planning Commission as the hearing held on Bill 030114, banning telemarketing businesses within the Old City area is not supported by any findings of fact or formal studies. Further, it was noted that in preparation for the hearing, City Planning reviewed media reports and received other anecdotal comments regarding conflicts with community members and employees of a particular business. If the issues outlined in these reports are representative of the concerns that this bill proposes to mitigate, these concerns may more appropriately be dealt with by the intervention of the Police Department or the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
For these reasons, I am reluctant to offer my full support for this measure. However, I am equally reluctant to use the harsh tool of a Mayoral veto to express my deep concern for this measure. I appreciate that the sponsor of this measure, Councilman DiCicco, was seeking to address the concerns of his constituents. Going forward, it is my hope that less onerous solutions to community problems can be developed so that we can support the dual objective of supporting the City's business community while supporting the residents who already make Philadelphia their home.
With kindest regards, I remain
John F. Street, Esquire
Mayor, City of Philadelphia
End