Re: [UC] More perspective: [UCNeighbors] Help save Historic Mansion & help set legal precedent

Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:42:07 -0700


"The opponents appear willing to gamble to make their point - though if they lose, the mansion will be torn down.  And the opponents have lost in all of the previous venues; the original development plan (with more units, and the mansion demolished) has worked its way up to the level of the Court of Common Pleas because the opponents continue to appeal lower decisions where they have lost.  So, proceeding along this route is quite risky for the mansion's survival."



Dearest Madam President,


It was with great felicity, and dare I say, ebullience with which I heralded your triumphant return to the public listserv of the maddening masses.  Retreating from the luscious bosom of divine censorship; to rally the unanimous multitudes of the public sphere, and foreclose upon the vile wickedness of these unsanctimonious  Leatherbarrow philistines; your unequivocal retribution makes me weep with joy!


Oh dear leader, these miscreants, destroyers of all that is pure and chaste; require that your obedient servants summon the trumpets of Joshua to obliterate their unholy disobedience.  Will their disloyal treachery, disapprobation of righteous plutocracy, bring down the sacred architecture of our Victorian glory?


Nay, say I!  Their villainy will not desecrate and blaspheme the irreproachable omnipotent philanthropy of our benevolent Savior, the University of Plutocracy.  For ten long and tortured orbits of the money changers Orb, heroically; our Savior, and you; dear leader, have engaged these losers with but sling and stone, as they hurled the unholy might of the villainous darklings against your virtue.  Dissentients, questioning the righteous commandments of the One, would return our Eden to its original chaos, and unloosen the unclean savages; those prostitutes, gangs, and unmillionaires upon the Good!    


Dear Madam President, if only I were worthy to join your valiant and noble quest, I would smite this hellish brood, and defend your inviolable omniscience and omnipotence as our dear leader.  But alas, I dreamt of a democracy for the multitudes, and with the intransigence of Diogenes; failed to pay my UCHS dues.  But fear not, dear leader; the Muses will sing of Intimidation, Ad Hominem, and Melani until the extinction of humankind!


Your humble and devoted, lowly and unworthy servant,

Glenn of the public listserv

-----Original Message-----
From: Melani Lamond
Sent: Apr 4, 2014 12:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [UC] More perspective: [UCNeighbors] Help save Historic Mansion & help set legal precedent

Perhaps a little more perspective on the situation at the 400 S. 40th St. would be helpful, and as president of the University City Historical Society, I can offer this note, which I just sent to the UCHS membership (who also received the email from Lauren Leatherbarrow last night):

….Ms. Leatherbarrow has brought to your attention again, a controversial situation about which UCHS has been updating you regularly.  Ms. Leatherbarrow is a Woodland Terrace resident and a member of UCHS.

You can read about the situation at 400 S. 40th Street and a compromise proposal on page 3 of our January-February newsletter, online here:

All UCHS members were invited to our special meeting on February 19th, where the developers made a presentation and answered our questions.  They explained that in the interest of being able to move forward now, saving time and court costs, they were willing to drop their previously-approved earlier plan to demolish the mansion.  They were also willing to build fewer rental units than previously approved.  (Those approvals are being challenged in court on Tuesday, per Ms. Leatherbarrow's note.)  They were willing to make these changes IF agreement with the community could be reached, and IF the court challenges could be ended.  The mansion would be saved, with the exterior restored.  

None of the UCHS members in Ms. Leatherbarrow's group attended our February 19th meeting.  However, I read aloud their statement of opposition, so that all present would be aware of their concerns.  It includes this paragraph:

"...With regard to the current proposal, we have several concerns, such as height, the west wing, the use of the mansion, management of the tenants, design issues, operation issues and restoration issues, as well as issues regarding other Penn properties on the block (i.e., behavior of tenants and the future of various buildings).  If we can agree on density for the property, then we believe it would fruitful for us to discuss these other issues as part of a comprehensive resolution…."
After considering the limited possibilities, UCHS members present felt that the compromise plan was much preferable to leaving the mansion sitting neglected, unused, and very seriously threatened, as it is now.  UCHS members voted unanimously to support the compromise plan which preserves the mansion.  We were pleased that the opponents had brought the developers to the point of proposing the compromise, but now, we hoped that they would support the new plan, so that the compromise project could be executed.  

Unfortunately, the opponents have not met with the developers and are not offering support.  There would be no court hearing on Tuesday if the opponents were willing to compromise.  

The developers explained to UCHS in February that if the opponents would absolutely not work with them, then the developers could only continue down the path for which they have already received approvals (the plan which is being challenged in court on Tuesday).  That approved plan includes the demolition of the mansion and the construction of a greater number of rental units on the site.  (The developers' other option, clearly unworkable, would be to start all over with a new plan, already knowing that they would be opposed and eventually challenged in court for that, too.) 

The opponents appear willing to gamble to make their point - though if they lose, the mansion will be torn down.  And the opponents have lost in all of the previous venues; the original development plan (with more units, and the mansion demolished) has worked its way up to the level of the Court of Common Pleas because the opponents continue to appeal lower decisions where they have lost.  So, proceeding along this route is quite risky for the mansion's survival.  

Would Ms. Leatherbarrow like to comment further?

Would other members of the UCHS Google Grapevine group like to weigh in on this stalemate?  

How can we keep the mansion standing?  

Or should UCHS turn our back on it?

Melani Lamond, President
University City Historical Society






Melani Lamond
Associate Broker
[email protected]
Urban & Bye, Realtor
cell phone 215-356-7266
(PA law requires me to make it clear that I a real estate licensee.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren L <[email protected]>
To: ucneighbors <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Apr 3, 2014 11:26 pm
Subject: [UCNeighbors] Help save Historic Mansion & help set legal precedent

Want to help Save the Historic Mansion at 40th & Pine?
 Want to help keep a precedent that you can demolish a historic property without proving hardship or attempting to sell it from getting on the legal books in Philadelphia?
On Tuesday April 8, 2014, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas will be holding Oral Arguments on whether the Historical Commission was correct in approving the University of Pennsylvania’s request to demolish the Levy-Leas Mansion at 400 S. 40th Street on the basis of  Financial Hardship when they did not try to sell the property first.
 If they win then they can demolish the mansion – that is what they asked to do and they got permission from the Historical Commission to demolish it.  The appeal filed by a group of Near Neighbors has kept it from being demolished thus far.
 If you can make it, please attend to show you support for keeping the Mansion and the legal precedent for requiring an attempt to sell a historic property prior to demolition based on hardship. 
 Tuesday April 8, 2014 at 9:30am
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
City Hall Courtroom #232
 Arguing the case will be the attorney for the Near Neighbors, an attorney for Penn and an Attorney for the City.
 The Near Neighbors appeal focuses on the fact the Owner (UPenn) did not attempt to sell the property, as is specifically required to do by law prior to applying for a demolition permit. 
 We will also argue that the Historical Commission erred in allowing the University to refer to an expected 11% return on investment as the test for financial hardship. 
 Penn and the City are claiming that the Near Neighbors (adjacent property owners and Woodland Terrace residents) don’t have standing (i.e., do not have the legal right) to bring this appeal and try to stop the demolition.  If we don’t who does?
 The proceedings will begin at 9:30 A.M. and they should last for less than 90 minutes. 
 You will not be able to testify, but we would still like for you to attend to show your support. 
 Enter City Hall at the NE corner of the building and bring your ID to show at the security desk. 
 Thank you,
 Lauren Leatherbarrow
President Woodland Terrace HomeOwners Association
Member, Past VP and Former Board Member Spruce Hill Community Association
Member University City Historical Society
Lived on Woodland Terrace since 1985
Don’t know me – come to the UC Garden Club May Fair Plant Sale on May 10th in Clark Park
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UCNeighbors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .

Reply via email to