Andrew,
Actually, "hardship" was earlier alluded to at the
architectural committee by Mr. Lussenhop. To
paraphrase, he said something like, the 10 story hotel
is the only economically viable option for saving the
"dilapidated" property. Later Melani posted a figure
on the list claiming in excess of 3 million dollars to
restore the original historic structure. She appears
to be very involved with this project.
Before the building was put into mothballs 3 years
ago, it was a functioning property. With a nursing
home, it would have been subject to inspections. As
far as I am aware, it was not closed because of a
problem with the building.
If the building is safe enough for Melani to tour,
maybe Tom should let some of the residents with
questions tour it as well; before Penn Real Estate
uses its power to tower over us?
When you walk past the building, it doesn't appear
ready for colapse. If we could see inside like Melani
did, we probably could identify good alternative uses
Penn needs which could be implemented almost
immediately at a fraction of the cost. That would
solve the hardship. There appears to be a lot more
collective ability among our neighbors than among the
confused folks at Penn Real Estate
Maybe, the building could be the Amy Gutmann
Center for Deliberative Democracy. This is something
Penn needs more than just about anything else.
It seems obvious that this $3 million cost is
another manipulation which depends on secrecy. Like
saying the "absentee" owners of 115 of 120 parcels
support this hotel. (Lussenhop throws out those
numbers, but doesn't identify the actual number of
individual absentee corporate pals.)
Penn is trying to portray every penny spent outside
the 10-story hotel, but designed for the hotel plan;
as a necessity for saving the historical structure.
When data is used as support, honest and reputable
entities answer questions and help clarify the results
to the audience. Dishonest people refuse and have
their assistants make comments about the motives of
those wanting the questions answered. In the
civilized world, Mr. Lussenhop's data would be
dismissed because of the secrecy.
To date, Lussenhop is throwing out this crap but does
not convene any public forum to defend his data to
residents. It appears the claim by the architect
about SHCA conducting "2 open and public forums" was
just a bold lie. I've asked for clarification of that
lie but have gotten nothing. Tom didn't correct the
architect when he stated that to the Architectural
committee.
Glenn
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> One aspect of this project that has only been
> alluded a couple of times is
> "hardship." Some commenters to the list have
> suggested that, since de-listing
> of the historic property was denied, whatever else
> happens, the property will
> be restored. This is not necessarily the case.
> According to the historical
> commission ordinance, an owner may claim a financial
> "hardship" exemption. An
> evaluation of such an exemption, if I understand the
> ordinance correctly, would
> not have to take into account the depth of the
> owner's pockets. And if Penn
> didn't know that the property was historically
> designated, that fact might work
> in their favor if they sought a hardship exemption.
> I have not heard anyone
> suggest that the developers might seek to prove
> "hardship," but they *could* go
> down that road, in which case all bets are off, and
> the entire building could be
> demolished.
>
> Andrew
> www.malcolmxpark.org
> ---------------
> Here's the relevant text (and it's source:
>
http://www.phila.gov/historical/pdf/ordinance/ordinance.pdf)
>
> (f) In any instance where there is a claim that a
> building, structure, site or
> object cannot be used for any purpose for which it
> is or may be reasonably
> adapted, or where a permit application for
> alteration, or demolition is based,
> in whole or in part, on financial hardship, the
> owner shall submit, by
> affidavit, the following information to the
> Commission:
> (.1) amount paid for the property, date of purchase,
> and party from whom
> purchased, including a description of the
> relationship, whether business or
> familial, if any, between the owner and the person
> from whom the property was
> purchased;
> (.2) assessed value of the land and improvements
> thereon according to the most
> recent assessment;
> (.3) financial information for the previous two (2)
> years which shall include,
> as a minimum, annual gross income from the property,
> itemized operating and
> maintenance expenses, real estate taxes, annual debt
> service, annual cash flow,
> the amount of depreciation taken for federal income
> tax purposes, and other
> federal income tax deductions produced;
> (.4) all appraisals obtained by the owner in
> connection with his purchase or
> financing of the property, or during his ownership
> of the property;
> (.5) all listings of the property for sale or rent,
> price asked, and offers
> received, if any;
> (.6) any consideration by the owner as to
> profitable, adaptive uses for the
> property;
> (.7) the Commission may further require the owner to
> conduct, at the owner's
> expense, evaluations or studies, as are reasonably
> necessary in the opinion of
> the Commission, to determine whether the building,
> structure, site or object
> has or may have alternate uses consistent with
> preservation.
> -----------
> ----
> 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>.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----
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>.
