PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[1487]

Originally Posted by Nova08

Every Thanksgiving weekend (Wednesday/Sunday) for at least the past 10-15 years Amtrak borrows 1 or 2 NJT Arrow sets and ~6-8 Marc passenger cars to operate extra trains during the busy travel rush.

wow, thanks

[summersm343]

Committee delays vote on mixed-income housing bill

Read more here:
https://philly.curbed.com/2017/11/27/16704140/philadelphia-inclusionary-zoning-bill-public-hearing

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Committee delays vote on mixed-income housing bill

Read more here:
https://philly.curbed.com/2017/11/27/16704140/philadelphia-inclusionary-zoning-bill-public-hearing

I hope the building industry collectively backs maria’s opponent next election. Her races are typically close, she’s not that popular in her district and can be voted out.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by Larry King

I hope the building industry collectively backs maria’s opponent next election. Her races are typically close, she’s not that popular in her district and can be voted out.

I can't stand her. She also represents half of East Kensington (the developing part) where I live. She definitely didn't make friends in this area when she back channeled that Methadone Clinic on Front Street after the neighborhood voted against it strongly.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Larry King

I hope the building industry collectively backs maria’s opponent next election. Her races are typically close, she’s not that popular in her district and can be voted out.

I doubt that will happen. Even if they did she would probably still win. I'd bank on whatever compromise she puts before Council passing. Ive been saying for a while that the initial version was never going to be the final product so I don't understand why so many folks were in panic mode. Debating legislation that isnt close to finalized is pointless.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by 1487

I doubt that will happen. Even if they did she would probably still win. I'd bank on whatever compromise she puts before Council passing. Ive been saying for a while that the initial version was never going to be the final product so I don't understand why so many folks were in panic mode. Debating legislation that isnt close to finalized is pointless.

The panic is she is proposing to basically end the building industry in center city, it’s just such an outrageous thing to propose- any industry would panic. She would’ve lost last election if the party managed to find a competent person to run against her, i think it was still close.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Larry King

The panic is she is proposing to basically end the building industry in center city, it’s just such an outrageous thing to propose- any industry would panic. She would’ve lost last election if the party managed to find a competent person to run against her, i think it was still close.

Please, let's tone down the hyperbole. The BIA is a lobbying group that will come out against anything that could compromise the profitability of developers. Whatever they are saying is to be taken with a grain of salt. They also claim development would end if the 10 year abatement is changed in any way- another lie. It would be interesting if they end up proposing a tweak to the abatement law in order to table any potential affordable housing bill. Either way, whatever gets enough support to pass won't be close to onerous enough to stop all center city development.

Sanchez is not a product of the fading democratic machine- which is one reason why she has had tepid support from the party. In most cases I would think reform minded people would be against party picked and backed candidates. When folks come from outside the system they tend to be more likely to take risks and generate new ideas- even if you don't like them. BTW, the fact that the unions have not come out against this potential law has to be seen as a favorable sign for her.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

I doubt that will happen. Even if they did she would probably still win. I'd bank on whatever compromise she puts before Council passing. Ive been saying for a while that the initial version was never going to be the final product so I don't understand why so many folks were in panic mode. Debating legislation that isnt close to finalized is pointless.

Because the new version is worse and will both stymie development AND fail to achieve its goal of more affordable housing. And she's still still trying to shove it through without time for thoughtful assessment and amendment. So I really have no idea what "compromise" you're speaking about.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

Please, let's tone down the hyperbole. The BIA is a lobbying group that will come out against anything that could compromise the profitability of developers. Whatever they are saying is to be taken with a grain of salt. They also claim development would end if the 10 year abatement is changed in any way- another lie. It would be interesting if they end up proposing a tweak to the abatement law in order to table any potential affordable housing bill. Either way, whatever gets enough support to pass won't be close to onerous enough to stop all center city development.

Sanchez is not a product of the fading democratic machine- which is one reason why she has had tepid support from the party. In most cases I would think reform minded people would be against party picked and backed candidates. When folks come from outside the system they tend to be more likely to take risks and generate new ideas- even if you don't like them. BTW, the fact that the unions have not come out against this potential law has to be seen as a favorable sign for her.

There is little hyperbole here. Inclusionary zoning is a noble idea. But her bill is a dumpster fire. No, I don't think it will pass. And I also hope she's booted. The latter is not as unlikely as you are suggesting.

[McBane]

MQS may lose the next election, but only because of inter-party rivalries, not because of this bill or really anything having to do with her politics or decision making. If she were to lose, it would be to another (likely Hispanic) party pick, not some East Kensington progressive hipster.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

MQS may lose the next election, but only because of inter-party rivalries, not because of this bill or really anything having to do with her politics or decision making. If she were to lose, it would be to another (likely Hispanic) party pick, not some East Kensington progressive hipster.

That is probably true. Still, she is not that popular.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Thanks for leaving off the misplaced umlaut!

Büt ümläüts ärë sö äwësömë -- thëy'rë mëtäl!

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Because the new version is worse and will both stymie development AND fail to achieve its goal of more affordable housing. And she's still still trying to shove it through without time for thoughtful assessment and amendment. So I really have no idea what "compromise" you're speaking about.

compromise means that you change something in order to satisfy stakeholders. If it wasn't a compromise it would the original bill- that should be obvious. They just postponed the entire process to attempt to reach consensus. How the hell is that shoving it through without debate or discussion? As the article says, she has until 12/5 to try and get the hearing if there is any chance of passing by end of 2017. There seems to be a good chance that deadline isn't going to be met.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

That is probably true. Still, she is not that popular.

same can be said for most politicians. These council races are often low turnout-I wouldn't equate her margin of victory with being unpopular in her district at all. I'd wager she is probably widely supported.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by McBane

MQS may lose the next election, but only because of inter-party rivalries, not because of this bill or really anything having to do with her politics or decision making. If she were to lose, it would be to another (likely Hispanic) party pick, not some East Kensington progressive hipster.

She's actually one of the better council people.

She consistently voted with previous council member Bill Green when they were the only voices for tax reform in this city. She supports the proposal to change the rates at which commercial and residential properties are taxed (i.e. doing away with the uniformity clause in Philadelphia) to reduce business taxes.

She mostly gets it. And unlike most of her more experienced fellow council men, she is not a poverty pimp. I think she legitimately wants to improve the lives of her constituents (many of whom are hispanic immigrants) the old fashioned way, through improved opportunities and hard work. I don't think it's a coincidence that the QOL in most of her district is rapidly improving.

This is a miss, but she mostly gets it right.

The same cannot be said for the majority of her peers. Any "challenger" that is put up against her, I can assure you will be a plant for the building trades (i.e. old white guys from the NE and South Jersey) and Jon Dougherty and/or Bill Brady. That is, that challenger will in no way be more progressive.

Give me a break.

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Büt ümläüts ärë sö äwësömë -- thëy'rë mëtäl!

mixed use is so metal

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

compromise means that you change something in order to satisfy stakeholders. If it wasn't a compromise it would the original bill- that should be obvious. They just postponed the entire process to attempt to reach consensus. How the hell is that shoving it through without debate or discussion? As the article says, she has until 12/5 to try and get the hearing if there is any chance of passing by end of 2017. There seems to be a good chance that deadline isn't going to be met.

The changes don't satisfy any stakeholders and are not what other stakeholders proposed. They are simply her flawed responses to concerns raised. It may result in real compromise at some point with inclusion of real amendments suggested by OTHERS and a back and forth but not yet. And she's trying to push a vote through and to then fix it on the backend (maybe) after "something" is signed into law. No go. There are too many fundamental problems to work out to try and jam this through by year end and there is absolutely no reason to do so.

[mcgrath618]

I realize that this may not be entirely on topic, but I got accepted into Temple's architecture program today!
Now only if Drexel could get back to me I'd make a decision

[thisisforreal]

Well, let me be the first to say 'congratulations'! As someone who was rejected from their architecture program of choice, it's a great feeling when those acceptance letters do come.

<-- root beer until you're 21 of course.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

The changes don't satisfy any stakeholders and are not what other stakeholders proposed. They are simply her flawed responses to concerns raised. It may result in real compromise at some point with inclusion of real amendments suggested by OTHERS and a back and forth but not yet. And she's trying to push a vote through and to then fix it on the backend (maybe) after "something" is signed into law. No go. There are too many fundamental problems to work out to try and jam this through by year end and there is absolutely no reason to do so.

no actually some stakeholders (i.e. developers not working in CC and residents outside of the CC zone) were happier with the changes. You seem to be an expert on all that has happened so you should know that it's been reported numerous times that there have been meetings going on for weeks with the various groups trying to make changes/improvements to the bill. That isn't to say they will ALL be happy at the end of the day- such a goal is absurd. If no one is totally satisfied that is probably a good sign that it splits the difference. If the votes aren't there it won't pass- very simple. So if all you are saying is true it has no shot of becoming law and you can relax.