Once again, Al is using scare tactics instead of the truth in an attempt to make his case
Perhaps Melanie would bother to read 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code before lashing out so angrily at me. Painting is obviously covered under the definition of "alter or alteration." I pointed this out in a reply to a letter Kathy Dowdell wrote to the US Review a while back -- and it was acknowledged at the time that the difference between what's done by policy and what's allowed by law was true.
And, yes. I more than anyone would like to see a large attendance at the UCHS public meeting this Wednesday. And at any open discussion or debate that may be held subsequently, including a possible Town Meeting organized by Councilwoman Blackwell's office. This, because I firmly believe that the more people find out about the pros and cons of historic designation under the Philadelphia Code, the more shocked they'll be at the costs and constraints imposed, at the loss of property rights with neither due process nor "just compensation," and the scant as well as highly subjective and discriminatory "benefits" it offers.
"Scare tactics?" I'm scared, all right. By what an analysis by three professors at Temple called the "confiscatory" nature of the Philadelphia Preservation Ordinance, and the very thought that anyone would want to impose this on him or herself.
Al Krigman
