Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 2/17/2004 5:43:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: assuming that the intent of Jane'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 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.   My "take" on this bill is as a way to provide some sorely needed oversight on district designation. If the PHC's decisions were recommendations to City Council rather than the last word on the topic, the Commission would have to be far less cavalier about things like defining "periods of significance" (Old City -- from Colonial times to 1929 -- what a joke!) and about including structures that have nothing to do with the visual "fabric of the community" because of their style or modifications made over the years as "contributing" and therefore subject to all manner of punctilious and silly requirements. Further, factors such as the economic and social impact of designation on the stakeholders in a neighborhood would be on the table. I've attended meetings of the PHC's Designation Committee and hearings of the Commission -- and these were never considered.   Personally, I support Bill 040003 because of the oversight it provides and wouldn't support rescinding of the Preservation Ordinance altogether. I'd even support holding Bill 040003 in abeyance if the Commission took some time out from designation and did a thorough revision of its "Rules and Regulations" so its decisions were truly a means of preserving our architectural heritage and not of social engineering.   Al Krigman