Re: [UC] SHCA board meeting -- historic designation

[Jeff Abrahamson]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:07:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So you can see that populationwise, renters vastly outnumber owner
>occupants. At the SHCA Board Meeting Tuesday which some of the
>interested parties attended, the  figure tossed around by SHCA people
>in support of the fact that the Association primarily comprises
>private homeowners is 18% owner occupant and 82% renter. And this, of
>course, is a large part of my point. The 18% seem to want to impose
>their mores on the 82%... surely, I'm not the only person who sees
>something wrong with this picture.

Al, I think you're concluding too much from the data you have.

The 18% want something, but the 82% have a vote, too, so I don't see
an impending imposition of mores without due democratic process.

Moreover, your argument seems to be that owners of rental units ought
to be against designation. But renters, not owners of rental
properties, are what make up the 82%. Renters have different interests
than owners, and may, for all we know, appreciate some of the
purported benefits of designation (like getting to live in a more
picturesque place, if that's a benefit). It's well known, anyway, that
some renters are willing to pay more to get more.

-- 
 Jeff

 Jeff Abrahamson  

 Buy my boyfriend's new novel: The Big Book of Misunderstanding
 


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see .
Archive is at .

[UC] SHCA board meeting -- historic designation

[Krfapt]

Jeff Abrahamson wrote me as follows:

"The 18% want something, but the 82% have a vote, too, so I don't see
an impending imposition of mores without due democratic process.

"Moreover, your argument seems to be that owners of rental units ought
to be against designation. But renters, not owners of rental
properties, are what make up the 82%. Renters have different interests
than owners, and may, for all we know, appreciate some of the
purported benefits of designation (like getting to live in a more
picturesque place, if that's a benefit). It's well known, anyway, that
some renters are willing to pay more to get more."

Since Jeff shared a previous private e-mail from me to him with the listserv, he won't mind my sharing this -- and my response -- with you because I believe it clarifies a point about which I'm sure several others in our group of concerned citizens have been wondering.


Jeff:

This is precisely what I proposed that SHCA ascertain before proceeding in what they purport to be the name of the community! (More specifically, a balanced -- pro & con -- information campaign followed by a survey.) And what, among other things, I will continue to press -- despite several proponents of the designation raising objections to it. May I count on your cooperation to urge that just such an information campaign and survey be conducted in advance of the submission by SHCA? (Acknowledging that UCHS, not purporting to be vox populi, isn't morally obliged to ascertain the sense of the community -- although its members may wish to do so prior to spending any more time and money on a proposal with at least a reasonable chance of ending up being defeated by grassroots opposition, if not at the level of the Historical Commission distinctly undemocratic "decision" than of subsequent court challenges based on the flouting of "due process" in 14-2007 of the Philadelphia !
Code.)

I also have done some research over the years on how the market sets rents and how rents can be used as marketing tools. While historic designation isn't mentioned directly in anything I found, costs of operation are certainly a factor. So the kinds of things that will cost housing providers a lot more money than necessary -- and that therefore make it necessary to raise rents to cover operating costs and provide a fair return on investment -- are certainly factors. Examples, a roof that costs five times as much to replace, energy efficient windows that are twice as expensive as thermally- and structurally-comparable units but don't meet some 100-year-old profile criterion, this rather than that kind of spindle on a railing. When's the last time a prospective tenant turned away from your building as you were taking him or her to see an apartment because they didn't like the fact that the concrete steps to the porch didn't have the "right" kind of bullnose lip? Or because you!
 had a wrought-iron rail leading up the stairs from the sidewalk (at the insistence of your liability insurance company) when the original design called for no railing whatsoever or prescribed a wooden rail and turned spindles of the type only Norm Abrams knows where to buy (and he's spending someone else's money)? Never happened to me!

By the way, although I'm talking in terms of "landlords," the same considerations apply to private homeowners. Walking around, I see lots of crumbling concrete, masonry needing pointing, porch rails with missing spindles, Mansard roofs needing replacement, wooden sashes coming apart, etc on owner-occupied private homes. If the owners haven't corrected the problem now, when they can go for a functional and perfectly adequate solution, think of their dilemmas when the jobs will cost them several times as much -- and they'll have to go through an elaborate procedure to get approval rather than have any of several local guys who everybody knows and trusts (one of whom is on the SHCA Board of Directors and works closely with Councilwoman Blackwell, by the way) come in and just do it.

Finally, David Toccafondi posted the two papers to which I referred about the negative impacts of historic designation on property values on the Internet in PDF formats.
* http://pobox.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/impacts.pdf
* http://pobox.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/adverse.pdf

Al Krigman

[UC] Historic Designation

[Karen E. Heenan]

I have read all the posts regarding historic designation with interest.
In the beginning, I was for designation; now, after reading and
considering my own situation, I am firmly against it.  I bought a house
in UC because I could afford it, first of all, and because I wanted a
big old house where I could do a lot of the fix-up work myself.  While I
do want the results of my work to appear as historically accurate as
possible, on the other hand, I don't think that anyone who doesn't own
my house or pay my mortgage should be able to tell me what I can or
can't do with it. 

I also don't want to feel compelled to have work done that I am not
financially ready for, just to beat the deadline for historically
unacceptable work, i.e., replacing my porch roof and porch floor, both
of which are in bad shape, and both of which can be seen (and therefore
disapproved of) from a public right of way.

Another question: If review by the Historical Commission only takes
place when an owner makes a change to your property, or applies for a
permit to make one, what will stop property owners who are already
neglecting their properties from letting them fall completely apart?  If
homeowners who want to improve their properties have to follow stringent
guidelines, and pay the inflated fees set by the City of Philadelphia,
it seems like the slumlord types are getting off scot free, and lower
income homeowners who can't afford to make repairs are faced with the
knowledge that they'll never be able to afford to do anything.

As an aside, even though I believe it will have a negative impact on me
as a homeowner, I have a hard time taking the proposal for historic
designation seriously.  The biggest problem on my plate right now is
getting the patrons of the Watutsi Pub around the corner to stop
urinating in and having sex in my alleyway.  I've spoken to the police
and the UCDistrict, and hopefully something will be done to remedy this
situation.  (Somehow this does not strike me as a suitable activity for
a historic district.  Do they do that in Society Hill?)  

Karen Heenan

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see .
Archive is at .

Re: [UC] Historic Designation

[R. Hotchkiss]

"Karen E. Heenan" wrote:

>
> urinating in and having sex in my alleyway.  I've spoken to the police
> and the UCDistrict, and hopefully something will be done to remedy this
> situation.  (Somehow this does not strike me as a suitable activity for
> a historic district.  Do they do that in Society Hill?)
>

Yes.  I lived in queen village before moving to ucity. Public urinating was the
#1 problem (prior to south st riots).  I did not buy in queen village because
the queen village neighbors assoc. was too intrusive an organization (get the
poor "element" out, don't paint you house that color, etc.).  I do not want that
same type of intrusiveness in ucity. Ucity is and should remain, a diverse
neighborhood in all ways.

There is nothing wrong with having a safe but ugly house. Remember, beauty is in
the eyes of the beholder.


--
Richard Hotchkiss
http://www.hotstrings-inc.com



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see .
Archive is at .

[UC] Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:29:33 -0500

[Knight, Sandra (US - Philadelphia)]

Karen:  The stories in Society Hill are legend of the South Philly punks and other drunken loiterers relieving themselves in alleys after closing time.  It's always been one of the most distressing parts of living there, that and the tourists peering / peeking in windows of colonial houses situated on street level, so common there.  When I lived in Society Hill, it was just beginning to be chi-chi.  Scaffolding was going up everywhere, and those who lived in street level houses suffered the most from the gawking tourists.

Sande Knight
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Assurance & Advisory Services
215-246-2424
215-448-2233 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message.  Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

Re: [UC] Historic Designation

[Samuel Nicolary]

I agree.

If you want a pretty house - make it pretty.

If you want a pretty neighborhood - pick up the trash laying about or 
sweep the sidewalks, ask people not to urinate wherever they happen to be 
standing, plant flowers, etc.

If you are too poor to fix your property up at all but can afford to own 
it - so be it - that should be your right.

If you are too poor to fix your property up but can afford to make it safe 
and habitable - so be it - that should be your right.  Should this make 
someone "sick" as one of the posters wrote about earlier?  That is just 
silly and snobbish.

If you want to paint your house chromakey green - so be it - that should 
be your right.  Do your neighbors have to like it?  No - that should their 
right.

Should neighbors be able to implement laws that tell you you can't paint 
your house whatever color you want or put in whatever style of window you 
want?  I don't think so - and I think it is just silly for people to waste 
time on such things when there are such larger issues for UC - need I even 
outline them?  i.e. drug dealing, sexual assault, murder...

I am so glad I am not in the confines of the proposed area - yet it gives
me little comfort.  I have to wonder when these people who can't seem to
mind their own business turn their eyes on my block and start proposing
these types of changes.

I think it would be interesting to proposed the opposite of what this 
effort is trying to accomplish through the same channels - something 
explicitly stating that denizens of this area _can_ by law paint their 
houses whatever color they like, etc.

What happens, I guess, is that these people move in and fix up their own
properties - usually this means they have resources of time and money that
are at the very least uncommon to most who live here.  Once they have
finished their own properties they can't seem contain their energies so
they want all the surrounding houses to appear as their own.  You get a
few of these Martha Stewart archetypes together and this is the result.  
Either that or they are chiefly interested in seeing their investments
flourish but couch it purported goodwill for the community.  Not very
different in result from above except that in the first case the
motivation is a neurotic need to control their surroundings on an atypical
scale.  I don't know which is worse.  I think these people even delude
themselves into thinking their intentions are good regardless of the
driving factor.

I'm done.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, R. Hotchkiss wrote:

> 
> 
> "Karen E. Heenan" wrote:
> 
> >
> > urinating in and having sex in my alleyway.  I've spoken to the police
> > and the UCDistrict, and hopefully something will be done to remedy this
> > situation.  (Somehow this does not strike me as a suitable activity for
> > a historic district.  Do they do that in Society Hill?)
> >
> 
> Yes.  I lived in queen village before moving to ucity. Public urinating was the
> #1 problem (prior to south st riots).  I did not buy in queen village because
> the queen village neighbors assoc. was too intrusive an organization (get the
> poor "element" out, don't paint you house that color, etc.).  I do not want that
> same type of intrusiveness in ucity. Ucity is and should remain, a diverse
> neighborhood in all ways.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having a safe but ugly house. Remember, beauty is in
> the eyes of the beholder.
> 
> 
> --
> Richard Hotchkiss
> http://www.hotstrings-inc.com
> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see .
> Archive is at .
> 


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see .
Archive is at .

[UC] Fwd: CEC New York Dance Exchange 1/12 @ 8 PM (fwd)

[Sheila Dickson]

> >
> > THE CEC HOSTS ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS AND WONDERFUL ARTISTS EXCHANGE WITH NYC'S
> > NEW DANCE ALLIANCE:
> >
> > THE NEW YORK DANCE EXCHANGE
> > WITH SPECIAL GUEST PERFORMANCE BY
> > LISA LEWIS FROM THE FIELD CHICAGO
> >
> > JANUARY 12, 2002 @ 8 PM
> >
> > WHO:  CHOREOGRAPHERS (NYC):
> > Nicholas Leichter/nicholasleichterdance
> > Nami Yamomoto with bassit Matt Heyner
> > THEATRE ARTISTS (NYC):
> > Tory Vazquez with dancer/choreographer Johanna S. Meyer.
> >
> > With Special Guest Chicago Performance Artist:
> > Lisa Lewis - Sponsored by The Field, NYC.
> >
> > WHAT: An evening of rich and contrasting styles in dance and theatre will
> > yield a glimpse of the scope what New York artists are creating.  NDA
> > Curated by Karen Bernard, New Dance Alliance, NYC.
> >
> > Lisa Lewis's theatre work Working My Way Back to You Babe is a special
> > treat. Curated by Renee Banson, Field Philadelphia.
> >
> > WHEN: SATURDAY, JANUARY 12 AT 8 PM.
> >
> > WHERE:THE CEC'S MEETING HOUSE THEATRE
> >   3500 Lancaster Avenue
> >
> >
> > TICKETS:Suggested Donation: $10, $8 Students/Seniors
> > PAY WHAT YOU WISH!
> >
> > CONTACT:For further information and/or reservations call
> > Jamie Merwin, Performing Arts Coordinator-215 387 1911
> >
> > --=_NextPart_000_000F_01C19908.FA2680E0
> > Content-Type: application/msword;
> >   name="nyx fax listing.doc"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> > Content-Disposition: attachment;
> >   filename="nyx fax listing.doc"
> >
> > 
> 0M8R4KGxGuEAPgADAP7/CQAGAAABJQAA
> > 
> EAAAJwEAAAD+ACQAAAD/
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> ///s
> > 
> pcEATSAJBAAA8BK/EAAABAAAfwgAAA4AYmpiauI94j0A
> > 
> AAAJBBYAHhIAAIBXAACAVwAAfwQAAAD//w8A
> > 
> AAD//w8AAAD//w8AAGwCAAIC
> > 
> AAIAAgACAAIAABQAADQC1AUA
> > 
> AADUBQAAANQF1AUAAAwAAADgBQAAFDQCBQ4AALYABgAA
> > 
> BAQGBAYEBgQGBAYEBgQG
> > 
> hA0AAAIAAACGDQAAAIYNhg0AAACGDQAAAIYNhg0AACQA
> > 
> AAC7DgAAIAIAANsQAACOqg0AABUAAAIEBgAA
> > 
> AAAEBgQGBAYEBgAAAKoN
> > 
> EgcAAgACBAYAAAQGvw0AABYS
> > 
> BwAAABIHEgcEBgAACgACBAYAAgQG
> > 
> hA0AABIH
> > 
> BAYAAACEDQAAABIHAAByBgAAEgcA
> > 
> AIQNAAIAAgAA
> > 
> hA0EBgAAAPQFAAAMAAUK0iuZ
> > 
> wQE0AgAAoAMAANQFDgYAAAoAAACEDQAAhA0AAADVDQAAMAAA
> > 
> AAUOhA0AAABpEQAAgAEAABgGAAD66RIAAACEDQAAABIH
> > 
> FAIAABImAgAADgACAAIAAgACAgDZDUV4
> > 
> dHJhISBFeHRyYSEgRXh0cmEhDQ1USEUgQ0VDIEhPU1RTIEFOT1RIRVIgDU9VVFJBR0VPVVMgQU5E
> > 
> IFdPTkRFUkZVTCBBUlRJU1RTIEVYQ0hBTkdFIFdJVEggTllDklMgTkVXIERBTkNFIEFMTElBTkNF
> > 
> Og0NVEhFIE5FVyBZT1JLIERBTkNFIEVYQ0hBTkdFDVdJVEggU1BFQ0lBTCBHVUVTVCBQRVJGT1JN
> > 
> QU5DRSBCWSANTElTQSBMRVdJUyBGUk9NIFRIRSBGSUVMRCBDSElDQUdPDSANSkFOVUFSWSAxMiwg
> > 
> MjAwMiBAIDggUE0NDQ0NV0hPOglDSE9SRU9HUkFQSEVSUyAoTllDKToNTmljaG9sYXMgTGVpY2h0
> > 
> ZXIvbmljaG9sYXNsZWljaHRlcmRhbmNlIA1OYW1pIFlhbW9tb3RvIHdpdGggYmFzc2l0IE1hdHQg
> > 
> SGV5bmVyIA1USEVBVFJFIEFSVElTVFMgKE5ZQyk6DVRvcnkgVmF6cXVleiB3aXRoIGRhbmNlci9j
> > 
> aG9yZW9ncmFwaGVyIEpvaGFubmEgUy4gTWV5ZXIuICANDVdpdGggU3BlY2lhbCBHdWVzdCBDaGlj
> > 
> YWdvIFBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIEFydGlzdDoNTGlzYSBMZXdpcyAtIFNwb25zb3JlZCBieSBUaGUgRmll
> > 
> bGQsIE5ZQy4gIA0NV0hBVDoJQW4gZXZlbmluZyBvZiByaWNoIGFuZCBjb250cmFzdGluZyBzdHls
> > 
> ZXMgaW4gZGFuY2UgYW5kIHRoZWF0cmUgd2lsbCB5aWVsZCBhIGdsaW1wc2Ugb2YgdGhlIHNjb3Bl
> > 
> IHdoYXQgTmV3IFlvcmsgYXJ0aXN0cyBhcmUgY3JlYXRpbmcuICBOREEgQ3VyYXRlZCBieSBLYXJl
> > 
> biBCZXJuYXJkLCBOZXcgRGFuY2UgQWxsaWFuY2UsIE5ZQy4gIA0JTGlzYSBMZXdpc5JzIHRoZWF0
> > 
> cmUgd29yayBXb3JraW5nIE15IFdheSBCYWNrIHRvIFlvdSBCYWJlIGlzIGEgc3BlY2lhbCB0cmVh
> > 
> dC4gQ3VyYXRlZCBieSBSZW5lZSBCYW5zb24sIEZp

Re: [UC] Historic Designation

[steph99]

Instead of concentrating on historic designation, could SHCA focus on
incentivizing the kind of projects they would like to see?  Is there money for
such incentive programs available through the city's anti-blight program?
There seems to be a lot of energy for that.  The city's strict rules and lack of
incentives has been mentioned many times in this discussion.  What are the
possibilities for building incentives locally?  I don't have any idea what kind
of budgets exists or would be needed.  Maybe incentives would not have to be
strictly monetary, but instead/in addition include rebates or discounts from
local contractors, etc...  What about a continuation of the block cleanups and
greening projects, which often offer to lend equipment and advice to people who
need it.

Just a thought.



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see .
Archive is at .

[UC] FW: [nolphiladelphia] Come to the 1st PA Green Party Convention January 13 in Harrisburg

[J. Matthew Wolfe]

 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002
9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [nolphiladelphia] Come to
the 1st PA Green Party Convention January 13 in Harrisburg

 

The Green Party of Pennsylvania is
pleased to announce its 2002 Nominating Convention. The Convention will be held
at the Wildwood Conference Center at Harrisburg Community College on January
13th.

The Green Party of Pennsylvania is the fastest growing political party in the
state. After unexpectedly electing 14 candidates to office in PA last November
and scoring better than expected in high profile races, the party has emerged
as a vital new force in Pennsylvania politics. The Green Party candidate for Governor
will doubtlessly alter the dynamics and dialogue of the statewide contest.

In addition to nominating a Gubernatorial candidate,  Lt Governor,
Congressional and State level  candidates will also be considered and
voted upon. 

The keynote speaker will be Elizabeth Horton Sheff, who currently serves as the
President of City Council of Hartford, CT. Ms Horton Sheff, an African American
council member serving her second term as a Green, was recently promoted to
promoted to president of that body.

Additionally, Pat Humphries, a well-known recording artist, will provide a
cultural context.



Convention Schedule

1:45 p.m. Reception with musical entertainment by recording artist Pat
Humphries
2:30 p.m. Opening Remarks by Brian Laverty, Blossburg borough council member
and first Green Party elected official in Pennsylvania
2:40 p.m. Presentation and Formal Nomination of Congressional and State
Legislative Candidates (presenters to be announced)
3:00 p.m. Keynote Address by Elizabeth Horton Sheff, Hartford, Connecticut City
Council President and long-time Green Party member
3:30 p.m. Party Development Presentation by Thomas Alan Linzey, Esq., 2000
candidate for Pennsylvania Attorney General
3:45 p.m. Lieutenant Gubernatorial Nomination Speech by candidate Vicki Smedley
4:00 p.m. Gubernatorial Nomination Speech (presenter to be announced)
4:15 p.m. Vote for Governor and Lieutenant Governor with a musical interlude
with Pat Humphries
4:30 p.m. Gubernatorial Acceptance Speech

updates available at:  http://www.pagreenparty.org/convention.html

Michael Morrill
Contribute
to the Friends of Michael Morrill
P.O. Box 7571
Reading, PA 19601
www.michaelmorrill.org 
Join my email list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 




 
  
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  
 
 
  
  
  
   

ADVERTISEMENT


   
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 



To Post a
message, send it to:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To check out or post events to the Calendar, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/calendar/nolphiladelphia
To access Neighborhoods Online-Philadelphia go to: http://phillyneighborhoods.org
Also check out the following related web sites: 
http://phillyblocks.org for block
issues.
http://phillyyouth.net for programs
and services for young people in Philadelphia.
http://phillyworks.net for services related
to economic and workforce development.



Your use of
Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.