[forwarding this to UClist for Brian Siano] Brian Siano wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>I attended the meeting sponsored by Neighbors Against McPenntrification >tonight, and I figured maybe I ought to post a few thoughts. > >First of all, the pro- and con- issues were debated, briefly, by Matt Wolf >and Al Krieger-- apparently, representatives from the Historical Comission >and others were asked to participate, but refused. (I apologize for >misspelling either of their names.) Matt explained how the effort to have >Spruce Hill designated an Historical District has been a project of >community groups for about fifteen years, and its goal has been to >preserve the quality of the neighborhood. Al explained that the power >given to the Comission would be sweeping indeed. Al also went on to >outline hypothetical cases of renovations to porches, decks, windows, >brickwork and the like, the degree to which the Comission desired >documentation before making its decisions, and the powers it had in >enforcing such decisions. > >Two of the main examples raised, regarding the authority of the Commission >and any burdens it would place on homeowners, were windows and roofs. Liz >Campion and I mentioned the matter of replacing windows, and whether the >Comission would have the authority to force homeowners to use >expensive-but-architecturally-desired windows (wood frames) rather than >cheaper, but equally weather-resistant windows (vinyl frames). Someone >else-- it may have been Chris O'Donnell, or someone standng near him-- >cited the issue of roofing. Houses with mansard roofs will always need >replacing, and the work is always expensive. But rather than replace the >roof with cheap-but-effective asphalt shingles, homeowners would be forced >to spend more than ten times the cost of asphalt on slate shingles. > >To be perfectly blunt-- Matt didn't make much of a case. Al cited examples >and explained procedures, and the two examples above are very >bread-and-butter issues to homeowners, but Matt said nothing to counter >any of his charges. For example, if anyone went to the meeting wanting to >hear if our oft-cited example of window replacement costs was or was not >true, Matt didn't provide _any_ indication that it _wasn't_ true. (To be >fair to Matt, the people who really _should_ be answering these charges >did not attend.) > >rent from himThere was also considerable discussion of the issues of rents >in the neighborhood. Speaking as a landlord, Al said that in order to pay >for the repairs mandated by the Commission, he'd have to raise his rents-- >thus making it harder to rent his properties. Matt stated that, as he was >taught economics, rents were ruled by supply-and-demand: if the area's >rents were low, people would rent, but if the rents were high, people >wouldn't. Frankly, I thought Matt missed the point: there's a minimum one >can charge for rent that's determined by projected costs, and frankly, no >businessman wants to rent at a net _loss_. > >There was also very little rebuttal to charges that the program could be >abused-- say, if a neighbor, or a local university, decides to file a >complaint with L&I or the Commission against a local homeowner. About the >only assurance we got that this would _not_ happen was the claim that the >Commission could be lobbied-- which, given its paperwork and documentation >requirements, was far from reassuring. (For example the Commission might >be swayed if a homeowner could prove poverty. But this struck me as a kind >of Catch-22 situation. If you can't afford to do the repair, you must >prove poverty to the Commission. But, by the simple fact that you own >equity in a house that's in an Historical District, you're automatically >_not_ poor, which means you don't get the waiver, so...) > >I went into the meeting more or less against the idea of having Spruce >Hill be designated an historical district, but willing to hear good >arguments in its favor; after all, if the designation would improve the >neighborhood, I'd certainly benefit. But to be perfectly blunt, Al made a >very good case that such a designation would improve a neighborhood in >which I couldn't afford to live. By and large, Matt's case rested his >sincere desire to preserve the architectural quality of West Philadelphia, >and his desire to protect homeowners from sudden degradations of property >values from unruly and shoddy repairwork-- but frankly, that was about it. >Matt, if you're reading this, I don't mean to be hostile, but you really >didn't make a very good case. > >There's a good chance that I've misstated or left out some important >points, so consider this a Disclaimer; This was my recollection of the >meeting, and should not be taken as the Word'o'Gahd. > >In the meantime-- unless the historical-district advocates make a better >case-- I think we ought to do several things. > >1. Get our neighbors on board against this effort, > >2. Do all of your exterior repairs _now_, while it's still cheap, or > >3. _Don't_ do any exterior repairs, since you're only going to have to >sell in the next few years. ---- 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>.
