Presentation by Alan Krigman at an open community debate in March 2002 to inform Spruce Hill and other University City residents of the plans to have the neighborhood designated as "historic" and to explain the negative consequences of such an eventuality.

1. We probably all agree we've got to have laws. But, sometimes, laws are manipulated to achieve ends for which they were never intended.
1. This includes instances where parties who were supposed to benefit instead are hurt.
2. And, because the special interests perverting the system to their own purposes are cloaking themselves in the righteousness of the very laws they're exploiting, the disempowered and disenfranchised may find themselves with little recourse.



2. I believe that's what's happening now. Here. In Spruce Hill. With what's known as the Philadelphia Preservation Ordinance, Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code.
1. The objectives of the law are commendable enough.
1. Preserve and protect buildings and districts of historic, architectural, and aesthetic merit in the interests of the people of Philadelphia.
2. Encourage restoration and rehabilitation of buildings without displacing residents.
3. Strengthen the economy of the City by enhancing its attractiveness and stabilizing and improving property values.
4. Foster civic pride in our architectural, historical, and cultural heritage.
2. Who could disagree?
3. Were this what the pending nomination of Spruce Hill as a historic District was all about, I'd be for it. I wouldn't be spending time and energy on this issue. And we wouldn't be here tonight.
1. But I don't believe it. And I seriously doubt whether you do, or will, either -- regardless of which side of the issue you end up taking.
2. I believe it's about a small but vocal, politically-connected, clique which is trying to use the enforcement powers of the city to control what their neighbors do and, ultimately, who their neighbors are.
3. I believe they're attempting to do it in a manner that deliberately ignores the vast majority of the 16,000 residents of this community whom they consider nuisances rather than neighbors.
1. They're forgetting that it's people, not bricks and mortar, that make a community.
2. They're alleging or implying that those who disagree with their tactics or goals somehow favor blight, deterioration, and decay.
3. They're scheduling what they call information sessions of which the community at large would be totally unaware were they not brought to light by those of us who are opposed to the process.
1. How many here, who aren't connected with the organizations who are spending upwards of $25,000 to get this thing through, have heard about these sessions? Know how to sign-up?
2. And, anyway, they aren't sessions meant to help anyone understand the pros and cons of the issue, but rather to detail the procedures which would be mandated were the designation to be implemented.
4. They're pretending that the "hearings" which the Historical Commission is legally required to hold, and at which affected parties can register to "testify," are actually public meetings where the issue can be debated so people can decide for themselves whether to support or oppose it.
1. How many people here have ever been to a hearing?
2. Is there anybody who thinks that a hearing could possibly be confused with an open discussion?
4. It's more than just the approach being used to get Spruce Hill designated as a historic district by purporting to forward the nomination in the name of the community while snooking the majority of the stakeholders altogether -- neither trying honestly to inform them of the costs and benefits nor surveying their views.
1. It's the fact that the law, if applied to this neighborhood, will increase the cost of living for all of us, while providing little or no tangible benefit for any of us. The only thing it will do is further the agendas of those who would shape the community in some idyllic image of their own devising.
1. Not through education, incentives, or even some kind of peer pressure.
2. But by means of highly restrictive regulations
1. Regulations which deprive others of their rights by preventing certain alterations which the sponsors do not deign to hold worthy.
2. And, as bad if not worse, a raft of incidental regulations which don't substantially further the overt objectives of the Historic Preservation ordinance, but do impose frivolous and arbitrary financial and other burdens on property owners.
1. Burdens which have been documented to make property worth less rather than more.
2. Burdens which may keep owners from doing perfectly acceptable maintenance and upgrading jobs they might otherwise have been able to justify and afford.
3. Burdens, in the case of leased units, which you can be sure will be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents, cutbacks in other amenities, or both.
1. One consequence would be that the neighborhood gets beyond the reach of at least some of the rental base that makes it the diverse vibrant community it is.
2. Another might be that more affluent folks, not perceiving the value received for the rent paid, look elsewhere -- creating a vacancy situation and all that implies.
5. Let me give you some specifics.
1. What does a property owner or manager have to do in a district under the control of the Historical Commission before proceeding with any -- and I mean any -- job involving the exterior of a building?
1. Submit a letter to the Commission outlining a proposed project.
2. Submit a completed building permit, presumably even for work that does not now require a permit from the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
3. Submit dated and labeled photographs showing the existing condition of the proposed project.
4. Submit an indication of the proposed materials and design.
5. Except on very small projects, submit scaled drawings or plans.
6. Do you get the feeling that some people will say "the hell with it, why bother?"
2. The Commission says you won't have to wait more than 60 days for it to go through all of this and give you its decision -- yes, no, or OK but our way and not your way.
3. You'll be happy to know, though, that if you're thinking about a little do-it-yourself work over the weekend, or if the kids run in and say that the banister on the outside stairs has split, or if a tenant calls to report that the outside light fixture is broken -- and if you're not planning to or can't match what was there before exactly, or maybe even if you are -- "some types of alterations are approved by the staff within five working days."
4. And, if you're unhappy with all this rigmarole for something simple like a light fixture, you'll really be distressed if you're thinking about replacing those drafty wooden windows with new thermopanes, or if you want to point the brickwork on the rear of your house where the mortar is crumbling, or if you have to replace the worn asphalt shingles on your pitched roof.
1. You can't just use any kind of outside light fixture, like those you can buy at Home Depot for $20. They'll tell you what kind you can use -- something you probably thought was absurd when you saw it on This Old House and their Master Electrician mentioned what it cost.
2. You can't just use any kind of thermopane. The kind you can buy at Northeast Aluminum for $200 or $250. You have to use windows with just the right setbacks, mullions, profiles, whatnot -- the $500 or $600 kind.
3. Brickpointing? Watch it. Certain kinds of mortar and certain kinds of pointing tools -- which, of course, not every mason wants to bother with.
4. And, say your house was built with a slate or terra cotta tile roof, long since replaced with asphalt shingles. No, you can't just put on new shingles. They can require that you use slate, tiles, or some reasonable facsimile thereof -- raising your cost from something like $2,000 or $2,500 to maybe $15,000 or $20,000 or more.
1. There are roofs in this neighborhood that obviously leak and need replacing. I can tell from the street.
2. Why do you think the owner hasn't done it yet? He or she likes water damage? Hasn't noticed the puddles? How about can't afford it? And if $2,500 now is too much now, what about $15,000 under the Historical Commission's authority?



3. All this for a neighborhood, parts of which have evolved drastically over the past century to meet the changing needs of the population -- don't look anything like the way they looked then, and have virtually zero prospect of ever doing so again.
1. Houses originally built for single families.
1. The first few -- and I mean few -- for upper middle class people, many of whom built pretentiously to imitate the country homes of the wealthy. Except that, as true bourgeoisie. they usually built "twins" which looked twice as big as they are.
2. The majority for what we might now call white and blue collar workers, mostly the latter. These houses were also twins, or -- increasingly row houses -- the latter because the speculators who developed the neighborhood could divide the land into more but smaller lots and cover larger percentages of the ground to make them more and more affordable to the less and less financially secure.
2. Houses, many of which were converted to multifamily in the 1940s and 1950s, for few of which there are foreseeable incentives to be reconverted to private owner occupancy.
3. Houses the exteriors of which have been modified over the years to create an eclectic -- some find interesting, others ugly -- but for most practical purposes irreversible prospect along the street. Or "streetscape" to use the fashionable $5 word.
4. We have blocks that, by and large, look much as they did when originally built and some which, recently, have been made more so by the choice of residents interested in spending the money it took because they perceived the associated personal benefits.
5. We have other blocks that have been so extensively changed, including those originally comprising all residences but now converted to storefronts and other businesses, for which historic preservation is totally meaningless and restoration absolutely out of the question.



4. So, we've tossed a compromise proposal on the table, as a starting point to try to hammer out a plan that would give those truly desiring historic preservation in the immediate vicinity of their properties much of what they want, while not burdening others in and of the community with costs not contributing in any way to their reasons for selecting this as their homes.
1. It involves prequalification of the general area.
2. The idea is then that on a block-by-block basis, petitions of stakeholders showing some percentage in favor and no more than some other percentage opposed, can get the designation they desire.
3. If historic designation is as good as the proponents say, the initially designated blocks will set such good examples that others where it is appropriate will want in.
4. And, clearly, blocks where it doesn't make any sense -- historically, architecturally, aesthetically, culturally, or perhaps most importantly economically -- can stay out.
5. And, general prequalification might include at least some overall restrictions -- to be negotiated with inputs from the community of course -- which could range from fencing or signage to additions not now covered by zoning ordinances.



5. The trouble is that the small minority advocating historic designation in the name of but without the participation of the community have declined to consider a process of negotiation.
1. They seem to want it their way, regardless of what the majority might want.
2. They want it all and are not willing to entertain the notion that there's a middle ground.
3. I'm truly sorry that they haven't yet seen that framing a proposition this way really means all or nothing.
1. Because this might mean they get it all and the rest of us get nothing.
2. Or they might get nothing. And the community as a whole suffers this way, too. Because those of us opposed to the nomination, as it is presented, wanted to protect ourselves but not impose our tastes and priorities on everyone else.

shhd215