Point Breeze Construction Permit Moratorium - No more new 3 story homes

[torts]

Will the City bust out the "All-Star" team for the hearing?

Will we see Marcia "V" Wilkoff, President, 30th Ward, Philadelphia, PA, USA 19146???

[dr_gingivitis]

Will the City bust out the "All-Star" team for the hearing?

Will we see Marcia "V" Wilkoff, President, 30th Ward, Philadelphia, PA, USA 19146???

That's not the 30th ward, so I doubt it. I forget the ward number, but I'm pretty sure their democratic ward leader is Anna Verna.

[Sean]

Cool trees! It's just the area i guess. Still I ask how could ANYONE object to trees?

Gladys, these are the complaints I've heard about trees: They create trash (when the leaves fall in the fall), they drip sap onto parked cars, they ruin sidewalks with their roots, who is responsible for a tree (especially when it has problems like a broken branch) and on and on. Most of these can be addressed by choosing "city friendly" trees that grow roots mostly straight down and don't drip sap. All this said, I love the tree in front of my home and take care of it best I can.

[friendlynerd]

Gladys, these are the complaints I've heard about trees: They create trash (when the leaves fall in the fall), they drip sap onto parked cars, they ruin sidewalks with their roots, who is responsible for a tree (especially when it has problems like a broken branch) and on and on. Most of these can be addressed by choosing "city friendly" trees that grow roots mostly straight down and don't drip sap. All this said, I love the tree in front of my home and take care of it best I can.

I think most of the anti-tree sentiment comes from people who associate neighborhood trees with either invasive species that destroy walls and pavement or ginkgo trees that drop their stink bombs.

The trees going in recently do not pose this kind of a problem. It's really an education issue at heart - the differences between different kinds of trees and their impact on the surrounding area.

[friendlynerd]

I will definitely be there on March 23rd...with smoke coming out of my ears.

BUT, is something also happening next Tuesday? I see a post on Point Breeze Pioneer's FB page that says "Please come help us fight THE POINT BREEZE CONSTRUCTION MORATORIUM - Tuesday March 15th - 1:00pm at the Planning Commission 1515 Arch St."

Unless I'm missing it, I don't see anything about Tuesday March 15th on the Master Detail Report.

Just want to make sure we don't miss a meeting/hearing

As I understand it there is the planning commission meeting, which is on the 15th, and the other hearing on the 23rd. Word of mouth tells me that the planning commission already thinks this is a joke, so I think the place to show up would be on the 23rd, if you have to pick one.

[Sean]

I think most of the anti-tree sentiment comes from people who associate neighborhood trees with either invasive species that destroy walls and pavement or ginkgo trees that drop their stink bombs.

The trees going in recently do not pose this kind of a problem. It's really an education issue at heart - the differences between different kinds of trees and their impact on the surrounding area.

I agree 100% that it all boils down to an education issue, so long as the proper tree is selected in the first place.

[phishnet]

As I understand it there is the planning commission meeting, which is on the 15th, and the other hearing on the 23rd. Word of mouth tells me that the planning commission already thinks this is a joke, so I think the place to show up would be on the 23rd, if you have to pick one.

I think this is all about the Save Point Breeze camp trying to slip one by us since we're busy with real jobs. Back before the information age this type of stunt would have passed without anyone really knowing. They assume no one would really know if they tried to pass a "Save Point Breeze moratorium".

We all know how much the Save Point Breeze camp hates roof decks and this bill targets roof decks directly. Seems like they are gaining traction.

[Gladys]

that's another thing i don't understand. I can see where a 3 story building in a two story area would be disconcerting. But what's wrong with a roof deck. Wouldn't the people living there enjoy one if they had it? Maybe to make the way clear for development we should have a roof deck building party and let those people see what they are missing. I'm only half kidding.

[phishnet]

that's another thing i don't understand. I can see where a 3 story building in a two story area would be disconcerting. But what's wrong with a roof deck. Wouldn't the people living there enjoy one if they had it? Maybe to make the way clear for development we should have a roof deck building party and let those people see what they are missing. I'm only half kidding.

I think it's a pride thing for them. Some ghetto folks don't like others (the white man) higher then them in anyway. They get like that with parking, so if your building is taller then mines, I ain't havin it.

THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. Last time I checked PHA did not provide roof decks for section 8. So that means you can't have them ethier.

[gren]

that's another thing i don't understand. I can see where a 3 story building in a two story area would be disconcerting. But what's wrong with a roof deck. Wouldn't the people living there enjoy one if they had it? Maybe to make the way clear for development we should have a roof deck building party and let those people see what they are missing. I'm only half kidding.

Especially in an area that already has a bunch of three story buildings. But then again, I guess that's the problem?

[friendlynerd]

I think this is all about the Save Point Breeze camp trying to slip one by us since we're busy with real jobs.

I'm hoping we surprise them with turnout. I know I'm taking a half day on the 23rd, and I'm grateful that I'm able to.

[nostradamamamos]

It's not debatable who owns the land. The city owns the land. Period. As a homeowner you are required to do certain things on that city-owned land adjacent to your property.

Life does gone on and we will both give our positions to our elected officials and since it is public land. Public resources are always open to debate about their uses. I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. I'm just stating my view that curb cuts on residential streets with large numbers of pedestrians are often dangerous and unseemly and as a member of the public I will make my views on the use of public land known.

Yeah, well I make my view that you think you own the land public too. Get off your high horse, you do not hold the moral high ground. Your position is only supported by a single BS piece of City Hall legislation, which bears a remarkable resemblance to this new 3-story moratorium BS, and is anti-property rights and anti-growth. I'd much rather have a loading zone in front of my house, because then I could actually park there sometimes too when I need to load/unload. But your parking there is much more important, and is a god given right, and you own that "public" land for yourself, because you say so.

****ing idiots, why not spend your money for a parking space, instead of going around making life miserable for home owners (do you own your home? have you invested in this community?) who want their own parking. Do something meaningful for your community instead - like preventing long time residents from getting taxed out of their homes. This is the same issue as a 3-story moratorium. It's a bunch of bull****. Property owners should be able to develop their properties with (1) garages, (2) 3-story additions. THIS IS WHAT THE ZONING REALLY ALLOWS, and it was set up this way to encourage building in these busted ass areas. It's only because of the special "street parking" zone created later by Verna et al., that we now have this confusion where, (a) developers can't easily build houses with garages, despite that being what most buyers want, and (b) every little ****head and his mom who drives a car thinks they have some entitlement to a parking space in front of your house. Time to pull your head out of your ass and support property rights, as well as growth and prosperity, in our community.

[gren]

nostradamamamos, why do you the need to assume you know the position I'm coming from and then repeat that first assumption multiple times. I will try to make it clear

1) I do not think public land for free ($35 first year for a permit) parking is a right.
2) I do own my own home
3) I do not own a Philly parking permit
4) When I (rarely) park in Philly I park under visitors' rules.
5) I don't think free parking (especially unlimited) for visitors is a right either.
6) If they took that parking away from me for a public use agreed upon by the community I would not complain.
7) The key is public consensus on the use of public land--not a single home owner wanting land outside of their property lines for their sole use.

Spending your own money for parking:
This is the point. Building a garage in your house that necessitates the use of public land is not "spend[ing] your money for a parking space". I'm not saying neighborhoods don't have the right to allocate public land for such a purpose, but it's still private use of public land no different from a renter parking on it. And as with all public land decisions it's a voter issue which includes renters and homeowners. You seem to think publicly own land in front of your house is your right to use. It's public land. It's not your property. And that's the whole point.

And if I'm not being clear enough: It's not building a garage door I have a problem with--that's your home that should be your right. It's thinking you have the right to drive your car across the sidewalk (public land) and reserve the space in front of your home (public land) solely for your right. That is not a private property right. It's not even private property.

Edit: I should add for the record if we're going to posit the view that a homeowner has the right to any parking spot in front of their home it should come with the parallel right of being able to build a patio or garden in any parking spot in front of your home.

[Swinefeld]

Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze believes that Point Breeze residents deserve a say in what goes up in their neighborhood. They are calling for a moratorium on the construction of buildings that are three stories or higher, as well as 3rd story additions and decks. These new buildings change the look of Point Breeze, which has historically had two story homes, and their construction has caused damage to adjacent homes. They are also trying to find ways to force the Zoning Board to be accountable to the community.... While creating a Public Advocate for Philadelphia certainly wouldn’t solve all of Philly’s development woes, it would be one step on the path to making city government accountable to the people who live here.

Point Breeze residents fight for fair zoning « Voice of Philadelphia

So there you have it. Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze is behind this whole mess.

[torts]

You know, developers should be held accountable if they're causing damage to adjacent homes and giving the finger to those homeowners because they may be unsophisticated, poor, etc. But this bill isn't the answer.

[Gladys]

You know, developers should be held accountable if they're causing damage to adjacent homes and giving the finger to those homeowners because they may be unsophisticated, poor, etc. But this bill isn't the answer.

if they have their homes already why are they worried that the new homes aren't there to provide for them? new homes are never there to provide for the current residents.

When the neighborhood get's fixed up the rent and taxes go up. This is what should be addressed. No one should be forced to leave their home because other built around it. I know that's the way it is in this country but it's not right.

So i get why they would be concerned and they should be, but changing the laws so they are not suffering an increase in property taxes and thus are able to stay in their homes. That seems like a better solution for everyone. The people who are already there will have a better neighborhood to live in.

This will not be easy to defeat since the people entrenched against development are organizing. Good for them. If i were them i'd be looking for ways to insure that the development would not raise the taxes so I would not have to move.

Banning rooftop decks is just silly.

[devilspocket]

I would wager that this is a strawman. How many owners have been displaced from their homes in Southwest Center City because their taxes have gone up? I would bet that the number is zero. Philadelphia has not wholesale re-assessed these neighborhoods in a very long time. Look at some of the tax assessments in Point Breeze. Some homeowners pay as little as $50 per year. This is not a sufficient amount to sustain city services. I assert that if you own a home in the city, your fair share of the tax burden should be higher than this by several magnitudes.

Apart from that, what exactly does a roof deck have to do with any of this? Two-story homeowners can apply for roof deck permits if they want them.

This is a horrible bill stinking of racism and anti-gentrification. If peoples' homes have been damaged by developers, they have a valid claim to pursue the developers, but to declare a portion of the city off-limits for development is just assuring that that section will remain sub-par and ghetto. Who in their right mind would want to perpetuate a depressed ghetto rather than replacing it with a thriving community? This can happen without the 'original' residents being displaced. Speaking as a 25-year-resident of Southwest Center City, and I haven't been displaced yet.

[Gladys]

Ok then i take it back, giving people the benefit of a doubt is my downfall.

I wonder, if the tables were turned and it were a predominately white neighborhood and the developers were black would this even be discussed? And if so wouldn't it make the national news?

[Malloy]

I would wager that this is a strawman. How many owners have been displaced from their homes in Southwest Center City because their taxes have gone up?

This can happen without the 'original' residents being displaced. Speaking as a 25-year-resident of Southwest Center City, and I haven't been displaced yet.

While you make some good points, let not ignore the obvious. SWCC was mostly black. In the last 10 years, 50% of the blacks are gone.

[raider.adam]

You know, developers should be held accountable if they're causing damage to adjacent homes and giving the finger to those homeowners because they may be unsophisticated, poor, etc. But this bill isn't the answer.

That is already covered under existing laws.