Council just dramatically limited where mobile addiction services providers can operate in Kensington — and it may go further

For months, Philadelphia City Council members who favor a tough-on-crime approach to the addiction crisis in Kensington have faced criticism for supporting a bill that would dramatically restrict where mobile medical providers can operate in the neighborhood.

It appears Council did not appreciate the feedback.

At a climactic Council meeting Thursday, lawmakers not only approved that bill in a 13-3 vote, but also set themselves up to potentially go further with a new proposal that would ban mobile medical services in much of Lower Northeast Philadelphia and parts of North Philadelphia.

» READ MORE: Frustrations over Kensington erupted in Philly City Council with heated speeches: ‘How dare you!’

The newly approved bill was authored by Councilmember Quetcy Lozada, who represents the Kensington-based 7th District. The legislation will restrict mobile medical providers who perform services like wound care and overdose reversal out of vans and trucks to a designated lot on Lehigh Avenue during the day and a two-block stretch of Kensington Avenue overnight.

It will also prohibit nonmedical mobile service providers, such as those that distribute food to unhoused people, from staying in one place for more than 45 minutes.

“This legislation is just the beginning of difficult decisions that we’re going to have to make in order to take our community back, in order to make our community a healthy one,” Lozada said Thursday.

Progressive Councilmembers Rue Landau, Nicolas O’Rourke, and Kendra Brooks voted no on the measure. Councilmember Brian O’Neill was absent.

Providers, harm-reduction advocates, and addiction survivors testified that the Lozada bill would lead to more overdose deaths, saying that medical interventions need to be available to people in addiction where they are, rather than confined to areas designated by the city.

A second bill, introduced Thursday by Councilmember Mike Driscoll, a Lozada ally whose Lower Northeast-based 6th District includes a part of Kensington, has the potential to be even more restrictive.

Driscoll’s proposal would create a zoning overlay for his district that would prohibit mobile medical providers from operating unless they get a variance from the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, a process that involves feedback from registered community organizations, which are city-approved neighborhood groups. RCOs, which are often aligned with Council members and are critical of nuisance businesses and in some cases new development, are likely to be overwhelmingly opposed to allowing mobile providers.

Driscoll said part of his motivation for the proposal was a concern that providers could move into his district in the wake of Lozada’s bill.

“We wanted to make sure that the local community has a say in this,” Driscoll said. “In particular with Councilwoman Lozada’s bill — which I support — we felt there could be migration into the 6th Councilmanic District, and we wanted to make sure that that did not occur without protecting the community’s interests.”

As proposed, the bill applies only to Driscoll’s district. If he moves forward with it, it is all but guaranteed to be approved — thanks to the Philadelphia tradition known as councilmanic prerogative, in which lawmakers default to the wishes of one of their colleagues when it comes to issues pertaining only to their district.

Driscoll argued that forcing mobile service providers to get approval from the zoning board did not constitute a ban, and that not all RCOs would be reflexively opposed to care providers setting up in their neighborhoods.

“Every community is different, and everybody’s leadership within their civic associations is different,” Driscoll said.

It’s likely Driscoll’s proposal will face legal questions over whether zoning law, which regulates land use, can apply to mobile providers operating out of vehicles on public streets.

“I don’t believe you can regulate streets in a zoning ordinance,” said Matt McClure, leader of Ballard Spahr’s zoning and land-use team.

Driscoll considered that possibility, he said, but is confident his proposal is legal.

“You never really know whether legislation that you’re putting forward is legal until such time as it withstands the court challenge,” Driscoll said. “But I personally think we worked on this enough that it is a good bill and it is legal.”

Lozada’s and Driscoll’s moves are the latest examples of the dramatic shift in City Hall’s approach to the open-air drug market in Kensington and the citywide opioid crisis, a change that began last year when Mayor Cherelle L. Parker took office and Council established a “Kensington caucus” led by Lozada.

Parker and those lawmakers have sought to crack down on open drug use in the neighborhood by getting people off the streets and into treatment or the criminal justice system.

The new approach has so far had limited success, as Kensington is still overwhelmed by the addiction crisis and some of Parker’s efforts, such as the launch of a Neighborhood Wellness Court, have had rocky rollouts. Local observers say law enforcement sweeps in many cases have merely moved people around the neighborhood, or pushed them into different communities.

» READ MORE: Courts, city say they’re committed to the success of Kensington Wellness Court as program returns after brief hiatus

It nevertheless represents a sharp turn from the policies of former Mayor Jim Kenney, who championed a concept known as harm-reduction, which focuses on keeping people in addiction alive until they are ready to enter treatment.

Last week, numerous opponents of Lozada’s bill, including health providers and harm-reduction advocates, testified against the measure during Council’s public session, saying it would lead to more people dying from overdoses and accusing Lozada and other Council members of being callous.

“The proposed legislation would force these people to leave or mobile providers to leave areas in greatest need of outreach and services, effectively isolating an already marginalized population,” said Sam Stern, a physician.

Lozada then fired back with a lengthy and impassioned speech in which she said she was standing up for longtime Kensington residents who say the mobile service providers attract nuisance crimes and litter to their blocks and make residents feel unsafe.

“I have seniors who are living with people who are unsheltered on their porches and threatened by those individuals if they call police on them,” Lozada said. “Would you allow that in your house? Would you allow that on your property? Hell, no. Hell, no. So why should my residents?”

This week, Lozada had help in delivering that message as dozens of supporters of her bill testified during public comment, including schoolchildren who read prepared statements.

In a December committee hearing, the Parker administration testified in support of the intent behind Lozada’s bill but raised concerns about its implementation. The bill has since been amended by Lozada.

Parker, who has worked closely with the Kensington caucus, is expected to sign the bill into law. It would take effect 60 days later.

Staff writer Fallon Roth contributed to this article.