Interesting. --Eli
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > In a message dated 2/13/02 4:19:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > last night's meeting, the packed room, SHCA, > > Packed? No. The room wasn't "packed" by any conceivable stretch > of the > imagination. We have 16,000 residents in Spruce Hill, the SHCA > has about 400 > members. And there wasn't even a quorum of the Board in > attendance. Also, > most of the -- what, dozen? -- non-board members who were in > attendance came > because they thought there would be more of that famous SHCA > honest and open > discussion of the Historic District issue (certainly not to hear > Seidel, > because there were no notices outside of what Jon Mourar says > were notes to > members of the Board, that he'd be there). The Historic District > was barely > discussed, of course, mainly but not entirely because the tax > reform > discussion lasted until quite late (not to mention "knit one, > perl two"). > > > > As for your assertion that I have an agenda, I'll go on record > with > > mine: > > > > I'd like to see multi-faceted tax reform in the City of > Philadelphia. > > I'd also like to see strict enforcement of City property > maintenance > > codes so that the developmental incentives behind the land tax > have the > > chance to overcome the nefarious effects of land speculating > and > > slum-landlording. > > > > > Everybody would like to see tax reform in Philadelphia, and > folks who haven't > become totally cynical about government in general and sideshows > like the > Philadelphia City Council in particular are interested in > serious proposals > like Mr Seidel's (on which you worked -- to your credit) ... > certainly in > learning more about the ideas he's espousing. But also in > hearing what a > lternatives there might be to changing the tax structure in a > way that favors > economic growth, jobs and business opportunities for people who > lack > education and skills as well as for those fortunate enough to > have acquired > them, adequate public services, and so forth. > > "... land speculating and slum-landlording"??? Harsh labels that > hardly > characterize the neighborhood and belie what you say is your > agenda. Most > people would like to see equitable enforcement of sensible > property-associated City Codes. Sensible, with an emphasis on > health and > safety and a recognition that de gustabus non disputandum est. > In a large > enough sample of the property owner/manager population, we have > to expect a > small percentage of people several standard deviations below > the mean, and > this will be offset by about the same fraction an equivalent > distance above > it. But the ~95% within two standard deviations -- or even the > ~65% within > one standard deviation should neither be punished for the few > who are below > nor be forced (certainly absent due process or just > compensation) to adhere > to the personal standards (that nasty gustabus, again) of those > who choose to > be above. The market provides the mechanism in general ... but > unless you're > from Lake Woebegone "where all the children are above average" > you'll know > that there are always distributions, that the distributions > always have > tails, and that half the cases will always be below the mean. > > To carry this loose statistical reasoning a bit further, I > believe the whole > University City area can be viewed as having a skewed > distribution with a > median well above the mean -- such that a very small and > ever-decreasing > number of exceptionally horrible examples is balanced by a large > number of > cases of responsible property owners, many of whom understand > the market well > enough to realize that the real community (the community that > includes a lot > of students supporting themselves, a lot of immigrants, a lot of > senior > citizens, a lot of blue collar people, a lot of young people > just starting > out on their own, a lot of ... well, you get the idea -- the > well-to-do and > comfortable are here, but are not exactly typical) needs solid > mid-level > rental units, structured and maintained in such a way that costs > passed on to > tenants are balanced with benefits provided. > > That's my agenda, by the way -- a balance between costs and > benefits that > tries to optimize housing opportunities for my tenants, and in > turn makes it > possible for me and my crew to make a living and also live > conscionably with > ourselves. In case its not obvious from the above, my practical > (as opposed > to philosophical) objection to this historic district elitism is > that the > costs are way out of line with the benefits. > > I'll stop here, rather than continue into a discussion of the > historic > district nomination as an especially insidious form of "economic > rent > seeking," which -- of course -- it is. > > Al Krigman > ---- 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>.
