Brian,
Couple of things:
You say that "this change (the Blackwell bill) adds a much-needed element of public review to the process".
I doubt it will do anything of the kind. Look at how Ms. Blackwell recently blocked Councilman Kenney's public hearings about the Historic Commission. Her bill hasn't even been voted on and already she's politicized the process AND prevented public discussion.
I can't even _begin_ to describe what's wrong with the above. First of all, her bill _hasn't_ prevented public discussion: in fact it's offered a greater opportunity to debate the merits of HD and the problems of its administration here in Philly. Such issues are _inherently_ political, so you're being dishonest by saying that Blackwell's "politicized the process." Otherwise, the debate'd be left between the HD advocates and the PHC--in other words, no debate at all.
As for your comment about "her bill hasn't even been voted on," well, what does _that_ have to do with your gaseous point? Should this happen _after_ her bill's been voted on? (Perhaps even after it's passed?) If you're trying to make a point here, Jim, you've failed.
Her bill doesn't democratize the process, it puts it solely in the hands of politicians.
Jim, perhaps we need a review of basic civics. In a representative democracy, decisions are placed in the hands of popularly elected officials-- or "politicians," as you choose to call them. Thus, putting the process in the hands of politicians is about a tautologically "democratic" as can be. I mean, you couldn't make less sense if you'd said, "Her bill doesn't democratize the process, it puts it solely in the hands of voters."
Right now, the process is in the hands of political _appointees_. These appointees are _not_ elected, and their decisions are _not_ subject to review by citizens, voters or "politicians." It is a _less_ democratic process. Blackwell's bill goes a long way towards rectifying this.
How many decisions do you think are made by Council behind closed doors? How many "public hearings" are merely window dressing to appease "the people" when those decisions have already been made?
And may I ask how much oversight is there over the PHC's decisions? _None_. Can we vote on who sits on the PHC board? _No_. Do homeowners have any higher avenue of appeal? _No._ But Jim Lilly insists that this is _more_ democratic than placing it under the authority of elected Council officials.
For further insight into why this bill was introduced at all (and why she intoduced her previous bill) see today's Inquirer opinion written by Representative Nix as to the tie-in between Blackwell's bill and the Mayor's NTI initiative in West Philly. Lots of money being thrown around for demolition (and future development) if HD and the Historic Commission are moved out of the way. I've said it before and I say it again this has nothing to do with "democratizing the process", "helping out the little people", "giving neighbors a voice" or any other spin. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$
There's a lot that's dishonest about this, too. For example, Blackwell's bill says nothing about the NTI. It brings Council into the decision process. But for some reason, HD advocates feel the need to insinuate some sinister effect of the bill that would spell Death, Desruction and Ruin. And Jim-- once again demonstrating a lack of concern with facts-- says _nothing_ about how this is "all about $$$$." Probably, because it's always the case... but Jim certainly isn't going to spell out any details as to _why_ this is true. It enables him to dismiss any concerns about principle-- the concerns Sharrieff and I have been raising. So I doubt Jim's likely to go any further than vague insinuations.
One thing that continually surprises me about HD advocates is their apparent belief that designation will put an end to urban blight. Nix's article pits the heroic, preservationist PHC against the ravenous NTI. Fine. Believe that if you like. But exactly how many homes has the PHC saved not just from non-historical repairs, but from actual _condemnation_ and _demolition_? How many blocks of condemned properties have been rescued and turned into neighborhood showplaces through the PHC's efforts? I'm sure there are a few. But the PHC hasn't had much impact on the _hundreds_ of properties in this city which are rotten, which are collapsing, which are a health risk and a danger to their nearby residents. It just doesn't have that kind of authority, nor does it have the financial resources, and it'd be interesting to see the PHC spend its time evaluating every building targeted by the NTI.
> Now, about the tax credits:
I'm not an expert but here is my understanding -- The Federal Government offers 20% tax credits to anyone who owns an "income-producing" property in a National Register District (of which Spruce Hill is one) when they perform renovations according to the Interior Department guidelines. Pennsylvania is considering a similar program (the bills currently being debated/voted on in the House and Senate). If passed, Pennsylvania's program would add an _additional_ 20% _on top of_ the Fed's 20%, meaning someone with a legitimate tenant apartment could potentially qualify for tax credits totaling 40%.
People, read the above carefully. Please take note of the requirement that a property be "income-producing" to be eligible for these "tax credits." That's very important, beause it means that we homeowners are _not_, repeat _not_, eligible for these tax credits. Landlords (like UCH, or Barry Grossbach, or Al Krigman) would be eligible. Shop owners (like Jim Lilly) would be eligible. But most of us would _not_ be eligible. And apparently, the legislation proposed in Harrisburg-- which John Gallery and other HD advocates are hailing as reason for HD designation-- merely adds to the rewards to investment-property owners. But there's one problem that the HD advocates never seem to mention, or make clear.
Homeowners do _NOT_ get these tax credits. Our repair bills would be higher, we'd have a greater bureaucratic burder, and we would get _not_ relief from city, state or federal agencies. We would be expected to pay extra (beyond the usual issues of taxes) for the privilege of living here. In other words, homeowners would be _penalized_ for living in an HD.
I'm amazed that Jim even _mention_ this "tax credit" phantom as a reason for designation. It's a clear example of how homeowers are penalized. But the HD advocates never mention it.
---- 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>.
