On October 4, 2003, The Philadelphia Inquirer published an editorial urging Michael Sklaroff to resign his position as Chairman of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. The reason was what the newspaper considered an ongoing conflict of interest. That editorial, entitled Razing issues: Juggling too many roles stated, in part:

"Michael Sklaroff is a smart, skilled fellow who knows a lot about historical preservation. But it's become obvious that he has no business being chairman of the Philadelphia Historical Commission and should step down from that role.

"Sklaroff is the head of the real estate division at the clout-laden law firm of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll. And he is the attorney for the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which, among other things, functions as a major developer in the city.

"Too often Sklaroff's clients end up before the Historical Commission seeking permission to do something - often tearing down old buildings - that it is the commission's job to review. Sklaroff always does the proper thing and recuses himself. But does it help a commission to have a leader who is routinely forced to absent himself from some of its most controversial decisions?"

On November 11, 2003, Mr Sklaroff responded in the Inquirer as follows:

"There is an ongoing battle over who may speak for 'preservation.' On the one hand, self-appointed strict-constructionists claim the exclusive right to speak for our architectural heritage. They see the world narrowly and in absolutes. These are the zealots, paraphrased in the editorial, who contend that the commission has 'become too permissive in the Rendell-Street years.' They disregard principled commission decisions that conflict with their orthodoxy.

"The other, broader view is expressed by public officials, union leaders, developers, community groups and ordinary citizens who value our architectural treasure but believe that the larger preservation issue is the rebirth of Philadelphia. They remember that without demolition of older buildings we would not have the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, the Franklin Institute or Logan Circle.

"The zealots stereotype those with whom they disagree. For example, they cannot conceive of a lawyer active in Center City projects also representing communities in defending historical resources such as Historic Bartram's Garden in Southwest Philadelphia, Greenwood Cemetery in the lower Northeast and the Pelham neighborhood in Mount Airy. To them, you are either for preservation or against.

"In questioning whether people active in development in the city should chair the commission, The Inquirer misconceives the basic premise of the ordinance and the role of chair. The commission has 14 members. Some are ex-officio city officials, others are appointed by the mayor. The ordinance requires membership of historians, architects, community representatives and the real estate development community. Many of the members are active in their neighborhoods. Each is a leader.

"The chair assures that all sides are heard and, when necessary, tries to focus the debate so that citizens appearing before the commission are not overwhelmed by technical jargon. He votes only after others have voted. The vice chair is a highly regarded University of Pennsylvania professor of history, Tom Sugrue.

"The spirit of the ordinance is balance. No faction owns preservation. Philadelphia's historical treasure is the joy of the present and the patrimony of our children's future. It serves no one to make these issues an all-or-nothing proposition.

Where was the balance when the proposed National Products Building development came before the Commission?

In November, 2002, Mr Sklaroff seemed to show a lack of balance between development and preservation, when he cut off testimony about the sentiment of the community by Carl Primavera, attorney for the property owner, in the matter of the National Products Co building. The owners were requesting that only the facade of the building on North 2nd Street be designated as historic. This would have allowed them to preserve the visual integrity of the property, while developing the buildings behind it as a condominium apartment house. Click here to read an editorial from The Philadelphia Daily News of November 21 2002, discussing the unwillingness of the PHC to be flexible in its position.

Commentary by Alan Krigman

Even assuming a legitimate reason for opposing the application of Mr Primavera's clients for the National Products Building while supporting that of developers represented by his own firm for a controversial project involving the demolition of three previously-designated "significant" buildings on Sansom Street to make room for a parking garage, there seems to be another important contradition here. It would be great if Mr Sklaroff believed in and practiced this balance, not only at the level where it affects major developers, but individual residents of Philadelphia as well. Unfortunately, decisions of the Historical Commission under his persuasive leadership, about the designation of districts as historic and the subsequent rulings with respect to work on properties by owners within districts so designated, seem to suggest otherwise.

This is not to imply that Mr Sklaroff is being disingenuous. Perhaps the "disconnect" between his deeds and words is that Mr Sklaroff thinks big. That is, he may consider balance in terms of allowing the demolition or substantial modification of some buildings thought to have historic significance, or to contribute to the historic character of an area. This, to balance preservation with economic growth and development. Of more concern to the little guys, who don't hire one of the city's powerhouse "clout-laden" law firms to facilitate major projects, is the quality of life they enjoy in their homes as well as the possibility of displacement, the burdens of red tape and costs of needed or desired repairs or enhancements, and the denial of permits to make even minor and easily-reversed or barely-noticeable changes the owners consider desirable. These folks comprise the majority of the individuals affected by "district designation" Balance is sorely needed in this area, too.