Fail to plan, plan to fail (The Next Mayor)

Amid all the hoopla about T-Mil, there was a candidate out there shouting into void about issues.

Michael Nutter released his plan for zoning and planning reform. I did a little experimenting with Macromedia Flash Paper in case you're wondering why it's posted like that.

We can talk about the guts of the paper if you want but it seems to be pretty standard stuff. Most people that use this site have already been told about the antiquated zoning code, the unprofessional ZBA and the ignored Planning Commission. None of that is necessarily new and not too much of Nutter's plan would seem to be a point of contention between him and his opponents. He gets points for bringing it up but that and a buck will get him a cup of coffee.

What I'd like to focus on is why there has to be reform. Why has the zoning code not been upgraded? Why is the planning commission shut out? Why are the folks who are on the ZBA not more qualified to be making those decisions? Clearly, the status quo is benefitting someone. It doesn't seem to be the builders since they complain more than anyone about how hard it is to navigate the process. It's clearly not the community groups or the neighborhoods. So who benefits from the way things are right now? If we can find out the answer to that question, we can figure out why things haven't changed in so long.

If we can find out who benefits and then see which candidate those people are supporting (by checking contributions or endorsements, etc) then we have a better sense of who is for the status quo - on zoning or any other issue - and who really wants change.

So if you have a theory, feel free to share it. If you have personal experience dealing with ZBA or L and I, I really want to hear about it.

Comments (13)

Dave

Didn't Bob Brady defend the unprofessional ZBA during the sustainability forum? If I remember correctly, he said they should remain there because they're "hardworking," which seems to be the standard excuse for keeping people in patronage jobs (or re-electing people to office time and time again).

My theory is that city council (or at least certain members of city council) benefit from the current state of the ZBA through councilmanic prerogative on zoning decisions and having sympathetic people on the ZBA.

One recent example of ZBA inconsistency is the Dock Street pub that tried to open at 50th & Baltimore in West Philly. It took an enormous amount of pressure from Cedar Park residents on David Auspitz before their zoning request was approved. Even then, they were only given some sort of "temporary" 5 year approval that ended up precluding them from receiving financing from any lenders (what I heard is that, normally, zoning is either granted or not. Not "temporary" about it). It took yet another letter writing campaign to get the minimum 10 year zoning approval that Dock Street's creditor(s) were demanding.

Other people may know more about what went on with Dock St than me, though. Maybe they'll find this.

Posted by Dave | March 1, 2007 6:32 PM

Anonymous:

I don't know enough about how housing regulations and the city code work. I do know this. When a home is sold, the home inspector for the buyer often has carpenter union friends. The home inspector will then insist on certain "necessary" modifications. The work is done by a carpenter who then gives the home inspector a thank you gift. Illegal, yes. Uncommon, no. Like I mentioned, I have no idea whether its fair housing or city regulations that govern this behavior but it is all too common. It happens to small business owners who make modifications to their properties too--and it doesn't do much for Philadelphia's reputation.

Posted by Anonymous | March 1, 2007 10:39 PM

seand:

The Dock St. Brew Pub near-fasco is a perfect example of the the problem with Zoning, as often as not. You had the local neighborhood organization gather several thousand signatures ONLY FROM NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA in support of the proposal as opposed to about 300 signatures raised by parishoners of a nearby church opposed to the sale of alchohol - with less than 100 of those signaures being from West Philly as opposed to surrounding suburbs and New Jersey and only a few dozen from the immediate neighborhood. The ZBA's job is to regulate matters relating to zoning and exceptions to code - like the number of seats available to patrons, will the pizza oven have sufficiant venting, etc. They have no legal authority over whether a business gets a license to sell achohol or not - that's the sole jurisdiction the state Liquor Control Board. Yet somhow the ZBA almost killed the project twice - precisely because of the blanket oppostion to alchohol sales - on a block that already hosts a notorious nuisance after hours club, another bar and a state liquor store. Despite the fact that its not the ZBA's mandate to regulate such matters.

And when they suddenly reversed themselves little justification except a political recalculation was given.

Zoning rules should be updated, fair and implemented equally accross the board. The ZBA decision making process is all to often "case b case", arbitrary and influenced by who knows who - not fair standards imposed across the boardl

Posted by seand | March 1, 2007 10:39 PM

The Zoning Code in this city is needs to be reformed, but not just because Auspitz runs it in an inconsistent manner that only serves his personal judgement. Legally speaking, the zoning code has great potential to provide social equity in a way that has been consistently thwarted via other claims. When local governments use changes in public zoning laws to address progressive reform, courts have allowed them discretion to do so (even when it somewhat conflicts with individual property rights).

The current process serves no one aside from those that are currently employed in the Zoning Office. It is time consuming and expensive for builders and developers. The overly complex process is ripe for fraud and further dampens the enthusiasm for outside investment in the city.

The city needs a change that Philadelphia residents need the courage to implement. Mandatory inclusionary zoning that raises property values without forcing out current residents. The trade off for developers is a zoning board/planning commision that operates by clearly stated guidelines and works to actually facilitate responsible development. You cut city jobs when your intent is to minimize the bureaocracy, but the payoff is a much improved tax base. It's the single best way to improve Philadelphia.

Posted by Anonymous | March 2, 2007 9:49 AM

sj:

How could everyone forget LAWYERS! They benefit because they rack up billable hours as cases languish in front of the board. The more disputes and appeals you have to more money lawyers make. The ZBA itself and lawyers have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Posted by sj | March 2, 2007 11:33 AM

Every big firm in town that practices real estate law must deal at times with zoning and land use issues. Although they obviously get work from how cumbersome the process is, I have yet to read of any prominent local real estate attorneys that endorse the current zoning system. Even if they get more business from the current setup, it doesn't mean that it's the type of work that they'd prefer to take on.

It's much more profitable for everyone involved to have less government hurdles. At the same time, that governmental control is required to defend common public interests. But this elemental function gets degraded to a slogan when that control is used as capriciously as Philly's present system. We need a new zoning code that works and is respected.

Posted by Anonymous | March 2, 2007 3:49 PM

I haven't heard of any particular lawyers, either. To me, if mostly looks like a way for city council members to win favor with individuals and organizations that can help get them votes.

The church mentioned in connection with Dock St is a possibility. There's also the proposed 44th & Sansom homeless shelter from a while back where it was alleged that the property's owner was exchanging political contributions for an $800k/year lease from the city.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are some lawyers/lawfirms involved, though.

Posted by Dave | March 2, 2007 4:33 PM

There are only 10 people that we need to focus upon folks:

There are only ten people that we need to focus upon folks. It is not the laywers. It's not even the people who sit on the zoning board.

It's the district council people. Zoning contol is the primary source of their power. They have more to loose from zoning reform than anyone else.

Take the Dock Street incident, Janie Blackwell used her influence iniaitlly, no doubt at the request of that particular church, to prevent Dock Street from getting the zoning they needed. This is because her power in West Philly is ENTIRELY dependant on the support of the African American Church Leaders, and thus, she must put their interest above all other constituants. It was only after such extensive organizing on behalf of Cedar Park neighbors that she had to cave, and actually defer support to the majority of the people who live in the affected area(and have no affiliation to the church)

Another example with Blackwell, (my councilwoman, so I know more about her) is how she is holding up the building of the new Barnes museum, because it requires the moving of the Youth Study Center to a site in her district. She had agreed to the move years ago. But now that the mayor wants to reorganize the housing agencies (which she has filled with alot of patronage jobs that would be lost)she is using her powers over zoning to hold the project hostage.

A third example could be the aformentioned after hours bar that provides a constant habitat for drugs and violence to an otherwise safe area. I personally wittnessed a shooting two feet outside its' door last summer in Broad Daylight! Althought the neighbors have been trying to get this bar shut down for years, why is it still open? Ask the council woman!

If someone would ever run against people like Blackwell, then we would get the zoning reform we need. But people are afraid to run against her, and say that "her goons will break your knees if you do" As I have been told by over a dozen people who have been in West Philly for so long that they thik this is acceptable.
Where do these myths come from? Why do we perpetuate them? This is government, not the Mob, last I checked.

There is not alot of research we need to do to uncover the corruption in this city. District council people very openly flaunt who their patrons are and who they are indebted to with the decisions they make. What needs to happen is more constant critical coverage of these acts in the News, HINT, HINT, HINT. It is not enough to talk about the vague issues of corruption and ethics reform. Start shining a light on the details of these shady practices already.

Posted by There are only 10 people that we need to focus upon folks | March 2, 2007 4:41 PM

Phaedrus:

How can you possibly rue that Nutter, of all candidates, is trying earnestly to discuss issues but being drowned out by the Milton Street side-show? Nutter was the one who engaged Milton Street, and so he is more responsible for that side-show than anyone other than Milton himself.

Posted by Phaedrus | March 3, 2007 9:22 PM

What are you talking about, Phaedrus? What does that have to do with zoning? Are you working for a candidate or something?

Posted by Dave | March 3, 2007 10:04 PM

Dave K:

Zoning laws, theoretically, are intended to protect and benefit property owners by fixing the land use/allowable building specifications of a piece of property over time. Generally, zoning laws are poorly restrictive. (Not overly restrictive, but restrictive in the wrong ways...) A few facts: 1. It is easier for the zoning officials AND the current property owners to write zoning laws which are extremely restrictive and then grant exceptions or variances to the law based on hearings. This is equivalent to a parent saying "Because I said so." It simply allows the zoning officials and the owners to retain "unarguable" power. 2. Most zoning codes were written originally by civil engineers. While civil engineers serve many extremely valuable purposes in our society, creative brainstorming is generally not considered to be a forte. Most zoning codes did not even attempt to be inclusive of potential future changes and so have been amended repeatedly. Amending the law is always tricky. It requires a lot of adminsitrative headaches. Thusly, most times officials will just fall back on "Because I said so" rather than changing the zoning code to reflect those changes. 3. Most building codes, and zoning laws in other cities are beginning to reflect a "performance" rather than "prescriptive" code. This means that the laws are based on a point system. You get points for good things like only using up a certain percentage of the lot area. You lose points by building more stories on your building than the surrounding neighbors. The sum total of points is required to fall within a certain threshold. The benefit is that it gives people more freedom but still protects the rights of other property owners. One negative, as seen by zoning officials, is that it pretty much renders your plan reviewer jobless. (See Energy Conservation Software like Rescheck and Comcheck for this type of thinking. They eliminate the need for someone to review a building very closely. The building produced in accordance with these programs is both energy efficient AND allows the owner to choose between the view he wants and the extra space he wants. Ultimately, a zoning official has no choice but to stamp approval on a building developed with this software. It basically eliminates his purpose.)

Posted by Dave K | March 5, 2007 2:14 PM

Those are some good points. However, the system you describe sounds like it's geared toward encouraging suburban development. IMO, it would have to be tweaked a bit before using it in a city like Philadelphia.

Posted by Dave | March 5, 2007 7:25 PM

Sandy Sorlien:

The Nutter Plan for Zoning and Planning Reform is the most exciting thing I've heard or read from a Philadelphia politician in some time. He actually gets the connection between form-based coding and walkable, sustainable neighborhoods. No one wants to walk a streetscape riddled with curb cuts, surface parking, and snout houses. In addition, there is no walkability without mixed use, but separated use zoning (in many parts of the city) makes mixed use illegal.

In other areas, too much is allowed. I just reviewed the existing zoning for Francisville in lower North Philadelphia. The C2 zone along Ridge Ave there does allow mixed use and zero setbacks, important for a good main street, but it also allows deep setbacks. Worse, it encourages deep setbacks, because it gives developers more height in exchange for setting the building back from the lot lines. Sporadic deep setbacks are destructive to the continuity of the street wall, the spatial sense of the "outdoor room," and the vitality of a neighborhood. And the non-contextual extra 25 feet in height is not a good thing either.

Nutter seems to understand this. I look foward to a mayor who gives a damn about the form of the street. As the street goes, so goes the neighborhood. As the neigborhood goes, so goes the city.

Posted by Sandy Sorlien | March 12, 2007 11:23 PM

Comments (13)

Post a comment