Tony, When you miss both my point, and the purpose of Zoning Regulation, by a mile, I read your response as "advocating". I will continue to "point out" that the Zoning Codes, Historic Designation, Building Regulations and Height Restrictions all existed BEFORE the purchase. The Buyer - Owner has the burden of "Due Diligence". The codes are designed to protect neighborhoods from 800# gorillas, whether they be Meat Packers, Soap Makers, or Universities. They are designed to protect neighborhoods from the arrogance or abuse that can follow money or overly aggressive ownership.
The system is not intended to dictate business plans, but it is designed to prevent bad plans from being imposed upon unwilling neighbors. Neighborhoods CAN "dictate" what can NOT be done. It seems a shame that SHCA has not had the stones to resist "hale-fellows-well-met" or to send a strong message in support of existing codes, neighbors and our 'hood. People who make bad decisions lose money. Ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff. Skipping "Due Diligence" or planning to impose institutional will upon human neighbors, despite known restrictions, is a bad plan-decision. Institutions using such a business model deserve the losses they might incur. People, good, long time neighbors, contributors to our Arts Leagues and Children's programs and Gardening initiatives, folks such as the Goldmans and O'Donnells and neighbors on Woodland Terrace deserve to keep, undiminished, the bundle of rights that existed when they purchased their homes. "... just pointing out." I can not fathom SHCA's failure to act more assertively. I don't yet have the words to properly express the depth of my disappointment and sense of betrayal that some SHCA Community Leaders are willing to cede the character of the neighborhood, near the Trolley Portal, while guaranteeing inconvenience and risking catastrophe. I am fairly certain the urgency in this matter is not the possible loss to a huge organization that oft-times appears only nominally nonprofit, but the promised gain for some profiteers and their attendant lackeys. I don't have the head for the economics of greed. I don't want to fight this battle. My instincts are to look away, and pray, as if it is two cars skidding toward each other on ice, but a wreck that might still be avoided. But there is too much at stake. If this precedent succeeds, where will the next multi-story be planted? My guess is the SE corner of 43rd and Baltimore. I am not ready for our park to be in the shadow of rent-seeking development. I believe there are neighbors, still on the fence, who are willing to imagine additional undisclosed or ill considered consequences of inserting a super-sized monolith on a lot with no setbacks. And I hope they will add their voices and insights to the discussion. Sincerely, Liz -- Anthony West <[email protected]> wrote: Liz, If Penn owns and retains the real estate, no matter what is built, then Penn is the developer to some degree. So it's ultimately Penn's call if any particular proposal would work or not. The world can attempt to persuade Penn to favor one business plan over another, but it can't dictate that business plan until it ponies up the monies that will relieve Penn of some of the burden of investing. Neighbors in the immediate environs of this proposal have every right to defend their existing zoning, regardless of whether it helps or hurts Philadelphia as a whole. If they can force Penn to abandon Plan A and move to Plan B, more power to them. When the City is wallowing in new growth and new revenue, it is easy for the City to assign top priority to neighborhood preservation. When decay is outpacing construction and revenue is declining, it is hard for the City to assign top priority to neighborhood preservation, in that rare case where someone actually wants to risk a big new business in any Philadelphia neighborhood. If it were up to me, I'd choose neighborhood preservation because I'm already comfortable here with things much as they are. But I don't cut City checks, and those who do may have a different take on this case than I have. Once again, not advocating ... just pointing out. If you want libraries, you want revenues. If you want revenues, you want growth. -- Tony West > Guy has provided some thoughtful writing on the 40th Street Hotel plans. > > Tony, I think the profits / volatility argument is more a > consideration for the developers. > > We neighbors have every right to continue to defend our existing > zoning, building codes and height limitations against rapacious > developers. > > If the Hotel fails the neighborhood is stuck with a monolith and 100+ > units that can be easily converted to use as a Homeless Shelter, > Dormitory or Condo. An 11 story building is a dramatic and > permanent anomaly within our Victorian Street Car Suburb. The > neighborhood will bear the risks and annoyances of construction and > the ultimate use. The precedent could than be used to attempt hi-rise > construction on the se corner of 43rd & Baltimore, or any other lot, > existing or to be razed, in our neighborhood. > > Liz > ____________________________________________________________ Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by filing for bankruptcy. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw22U6WhHnLbtldiLxqYSpkNfZMMxH48VcqPHYJABCHlrKhdH/
