The nomination of Spruce Hill as a local historic district under Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code has been tabled by City authorities for the foreseeable future. The reason given by Philadelphia Historical Commission chairman, Michael Sklaroff, is that budgetary constraints are already stretching the limits of what the staff can administer. Proponents of the nomination are understandably disappointed. However, those who were really interested in preserving architectural heritage as opposed to social engineering may be able to obtain many of the benefits they sought through a voluntary program, while not denying the rights and priorities of residents wary of the process and bureaucracy associated with designation by fiat.

1. The documentation supporting the nomination, and any casual glance around Spruce Hill, shows that some blocks have their original architectural integrity essentially intact, while others have not. The latter, notwithstanding the labeling in the submitted nomination of almost everything in the area as "contributing" to the original architectural character of the neighborhood.
2. Some blocks comprise almost entirely owner-occupied housing. In certain but by no means all or even most of these cases, owners as a group appear willing to give up certain of their individual property rights in return for what they believe to be the benefits of some kind of historical restrictions.
3. Other blocks partly or wholly comprise structures that have been drastically altered since they were built, or which were erected long after the original development of the neighborhood. These include single-family homes as well as multi-family and commercial buildings. By and large, the owners of these buildings envision historic designation as adding to the cost and regulatory burdens of ownership without offering anything in return. Similarly, most rental tenants in these buildings would not want to pay a premium for gingerbread that does not necessarily translate into quality of life, and in fact may divert owners' dollars from improvements that may enhance safety, comfort, and appearance.
4. Where blocks retain the integrity of the original development period, arguably through the first decade of the 20^th century, and a preponderance of property owners are so inclined, covenants can be formed through a democratic process. These covenants would not only cover participation, but would specify the categories of exterior work which it is agreed will conform to certain standards. The categories could be determined on a block-by-block basis. They would likely include more or less permanent items with strong visual impact, and might exclude features such as windows in alleys or rear decks that can only be seen from particular vantage points, or that can easily be replaced in the future such as spindles or top rails on stairway banisters.
5. Covenants can be done on a blockface by blockface basis, with a vote by property owners based on some formula to be worked out (e.g., at least 60% for, no more than 30% against, with the percentages based on assessed value or lineal footage). Some kind of legally binding "easements" might be associated with any such covenant -- so that people buying a house on a block which had opted-in would know what they were getting into. A reasonable way to start would be through a campaign to have individual owners on such blocks register their houses through the existing federal "Streetcar Suburb" designation and install the "date markers" offered by the University City Historical Society. When a designated percentage of the properties on a block had such markers, it might then be appropriate to circulate a petition for a covenant.
6. The program would rely for its success on incentives and not on penalties and denial of rights associated with property ownership and due process. For instance, blocks opting-in could get "historic" signs giving points of interest such as years of construction and architect or developer. These blocks might also be eligible for special treatment such as priority for tree planting, block grants, and funding in the form of low-interest loans. In addition, the Philadelphia Preservation Alliance has proposed an incentive-based law that the groups sponsoring the original nomination might advocate through Councilwoman Blackwell and State Representative Roebuck to provide tax incentives for property owners on blocks that opted-in to the voluntary program. The Preservation Alliance's proposal included: a) an exemption from the realty transfer tax, b) an exemption from sales tax for materials used in rehabilitation, c) an exemption from the capital gains tax for the seller of the property, d) a credit on the Pennsylvania personal income tax.
7. The Historical Commission staff could be invited to provide free consultation to people on these blocks seeking advice on how to do what, who to contact, and so forth. The demands on the staff would be much lighter than the detailed analyses and enforcement functions performed for districts and buildings officially designated as historic under the Philadelphia Code, yet would be effective in furthering the preservation charter of the Commission.
8. Voluntarily designated blocks would have a nominal status under the aegis of the neighborhood being on the Federal Register of Historic Places as a Streetcar Suburb.
9. No time limits would be imposed on this voluntary designation. Therefore, if even just a handful of the most appropriate blocks joined at the outset, and it proved to be a good idea, more would be able to participate in the program later.
10. A block which opted-in to the program might agree to participate for some minimum period, such as five or 10 years, but would be able to opt-out by a vote according to some prescribed formula thereafter.

Note: This proposal is my own and does not necessarily represent the views of any other persons on either side of the Spruce Hill historic designation controversy. Nor has the Philadelphia Historical Commission been consulted with respect to their willingness to participate in such a voluntary program. I would welcome debate and comments, publically through any open forum and privately in person, by fax at 215-349-6502, or through e-mail at krfapt@aol.com. In sending comments by e-mail, please indicate whether you would be willing to have them posted at this website (no anonymous comments will be posted).