Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003
Brian, Couple of things: You say that "this change (the Blackwell bill) adds a much-needed element of public review to the process". I doubt it will do anything of the kind. Look at how Ms. Blackwell recently blocked Councilman Kenney's public hearings about the Historic Commission. Her bill hasn't even been voted on and already she's politicized the process AND prevented public discussion. Her bill doesn't democratize the process, it puts it solely in the hands of politicians. How many decisions do you think are made by Council behind closed doors? How many "public hearings" are merely window dressing to appease "the people" when those decisions have already been made? For further insight into why this bill was introduced at all (and why she intoduced her previous bill) see today's Inquirer opinion written by Representative Nix as to the tie-in between Blackwell's bill and the Mayor's NTI initiative in West Philly. Lots of money being thrown around for demolition (and future development) if HD and the Historic Commission are moved out of the way. I've said it before and I say it again this has nothing to do with "democratizing the process", "helping out the little people", "giving neighbors a voice" or any other spin. It's all about $$$ Now, about the tax credits: I'm not an expert but here is my understanding -- The Federal Government offers 20% tax credits to anyone who owns an "income-producing" property in a National Register District (of which Spruce Hill is one) when they perform renovations according to the Interior Department guidelines. Pennsylvania is considering a similar program (the bills currently being debated/voted on in the House and Senate). If passed, Pennsylvania's program would add an additional 20% on top of the Fed's 20%, meaning someone with a legitimate tenant apartment could potentially qualify for tax credits totaling 40%. For more info on the PA bills go to www.uchs.net Jim Lilly
Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian, Couple of things: You say that this change (the Blackwell bill) adds a much-needed element of public review to the process. I doubt it will do anything of the kind. Look at how Ms. Blackwell recently blocked Councilman Kenney's public hearings about the Historic Commission. Her bill hasn't even been voted on and already she's politicized the process AND prevented public discussion. I can't even _begin_ to describe what's wrong with the above. First of all, her bill _hasn't_ prevented public discussion: in fact it's offered a greater opportunity to debate the merits of HD and the problems of its administration here in Philly. Such issues are _inherently_ political, so you're being dishonest by saying that Blackwell's politicized the process. Otherwise, the debate'd be left between the HD advocates and the PHC--in other words, no debate at all. As for your comment about her bill hasn't even been voted on, well, what does _that_ have to do with your gaseous point? Should this happen _after_ her bill's been voted on? (Perhaps even after it's passed?) If you're trying to make a point here, Jim, you've failed. Her bill doesn't democratize the process, it puts it solely in the hands of politicians. Jim, perhaps we need a review of basic civics. In a representative democracy, decisions are placed in the hands of popularly elected officials-- or politicians, as you choose to call them. Thus, putting the process in the hands of politicians is about a tautologically democratic as can be. I mean, you couldn't make less sense if you'd said, Her bill doesn't democratize the process, it puts it solely in the hands of voters. Right now, the process is in the hands of political _appointees_. These appointees are _not_ elected, and their decisions are _not_ subject to review by citizens, voters or politicians. It is a _less_ democratic process. Blackwell's bill goes a long way towards rectifying this. How many decisions do you think are made by Council behind closed doors? How many public hearings are merely window dressing to appease the people when those decisions have already been made? And may I ask how much oversight is there over the PHC's decisions? _None_. Can we vote on who sits on the PHC board? _No_. Do homeowners have any higher avenue of appeal? _No._ But Jim Lilly insists that this is _more_ democratic than placing it under the authority of elected Council officials. For further insight into why this bill was introduced at all (and why she intoduced her previous bill) see today's Inquirer opinion written by Representative Nix as to the tie-in between Blackwell's bill and the Mayor's NTI initiative in West Philly. Lots of money being thrown around for demolition (and future development) if HD and the Historic Commission are moved out of the way. I've said it before and I say it again this has nothing to do with democratizing the process, helping out the little people, giving neighbors a voice or any other spin. It's all about $$$ There's a lot that's dishonest about this, too. For example, Blackwell's bill says nothing about the NTI. It brings Council into the decision process. But for some reason, HD advocates feel the need to insinuate some sinister effect of the bill that would spell Death, Desruction and Ruin. And Jim-- once again demonstrating a lack of concern with facts-- says _nothing_ about how this is all about . Probably, because it's always the case... but Jim certainly isn't going to spell out any details as to _why_ this is true. It enables him to dismiss any concerns about principle-- the concerns Sharrieff and I have been raising. So I doubt Jim's likely to go any further than vague insinuations. One thing that continually surprises me about HD advocates is their apparent belief that designation will put an end to urban blight. Nix's article pits the heroic, preservationist PHC against the ravenous NTI. Fine. Believe that if you like. But exactly how many homes has the PHC saved not just from non-historical repairs, but from actual _condemnation_ and _demolition_? How many blocks of condemned properties have been rescued and turned into neighborhood showplaces through the PHC's efforts? I'm sure there are a few. But the PHC hasn't had much impact on the _hundreds_ of properties in this city which are rotten, which are collapsing, which are a health risk and a danger to their nearby residents. It just doesn't have that kind of authority, nor does it have the financial resources, and it'd be interesting to see the PHC spend its time evaluating every building targeted by the NTI. Now, about the tax credits: I'm not an expert but here is my understanding -- The Federal Government offers 20% tax credits to anyone who owns an income-producing property in a National Register District (of which Spruce Hill is one) when they perform renovations according to the Interior Department
RE: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003
I don't see this as the purpose at all. If she wanted to prevent historic designation, she'd have introduced a bill to rescind Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code entirely ... and been done with it. -AK Perhaps she would have if she thought it would fly. Personally, I support Bill 040003 because of the oversight it provides ... Why would the city council try to take on more oversight responsibilities when it has enough to worry about? THERE IS ALREADY AN AGENCY formed to take on these responsibilities. That is the purpose of the Historical Commission. Councilmembers are not particularly aware of the ramifications of historic designation one way or the other, so why would they choose to take on this extra load? The only thing I can think of is that Councilwoman Blackwell has certain constituents with loud voices that she must answer to. Conceptually, this bill is not right from a city-government-efficiency standpoint and should be killed on principal. If the Historical Commission needs reform, that's one thing. Taking away any power it might have (which is not much) makes no sense. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote: I don't see this as the purpose at all. If she wanted to prevent historic designation, she'd have introduced a bill to rescind Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code entirely ... and been done with it. -AK Perhaps she would have if she thought it would fly. Personally, I support Bill 040003 because of the oversight it provides ... Why would the city council try to take on more oversight responsibilities when it has enough to worry about? THERE IS ALREADY AN AGENCY formed to take on these responsibilities. That is the purpose of the Historical Commission. Councilmembers are not particularly aware of the ramifications of historic designation one way or the other, so why would they choose to take on this extra load? The only thing I can think of is that Councilwoman Blackwell has certain constituents with loud voices that she must answer to. Conceptually, this bill is not right from a city-government-efficiency standpoint and should be killed on principal. If the Historical Commission needs reform, that's one thing. Taking away any power it might have (which is not much) makes no sense. I have a question, maybe someone can answer it: do we vote for anyone on the historic commission? if so, how long is their term? (ok that was two questions) You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003
Tony, To what do you attribute the statement, "Complying with Historical Commission requirements triples that cost, as a rule." Also, assuming that the intent of Jannie's bill is to prevent historic designation, which I think is a fair assumption otherwise she wouldn't be lobbying to take control of the process as she proposes, most people would not be able to take advantage of the tax credits as I stated earlier. Jim
Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony, To what do you attribute the statement, Complying with Historical Commission requirements triples that cost, as a rule. Dunno if it's true as a rule, but I can offer some supporting data from my own experience. About two or three Januarys ago, I had to get the three windows in my second-floor bay replaced. (The existing windows were shoddy aluminum-frame paste-ups which bled heat and groaned like banshees when opened.) My budget wasn't terrifically large at the time, but I decided to get some bids on some really nice-looking wood-clad windows from Marvin and Andersen. Those prices were in the range of $700 to $1200 _per window_, with a low-end estimate of $2100 for the whole job.. But, the vinyl-clad windows I eventually did get were between $250-300 each, with a grand total of about $700. Now, these figures are not precisely indicative of historic restoration work. For one thing, the choices of high-end windows weren't dictated by the PHC, which meant that I could select cheaper models. And this happened before I'd even _heard_ of the HD proposal, so I didn't try pricing the costs of architctural consutation, nor did I factor in the time and effort that'd be required to deal with the PHC's review process. So one could make a good case that the deluxe job I'd priced-- $2100-- may actually be a tot _low_. So I'd say that, in this particular example, Tony's triple-the-cost figure isn't to far off the mark. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
