PHILADELPHIA | 1001 S. Broad Street Phase I | 180 FT | 14 FLOORS

[Baconboy007]

[Flyers2001]

What an absolute joke the city board is. The whole process to build in this city is crazy.

[Philly Fan]

^ You ain't seen nothin', yet:

Moratorium on construction at Blatstein's tower site introduced in Council

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

^ You ain't seen nothin', yet:

Moratorium on construction at Blatstein's tower site introduced in Council

I saw that headline and shot over here to read more. I can't take it. Let's make up rules as we go along.

[McBane]

THIS is the solution????

Does the city need money so bad that it has to come up with idiotic soda taxes? Or is the city so flush, it can say no to mega projects that are sure to put money in the city's coffers? I can't tell.

The saddest part is that City Council will no doubt rubber stamp this because of Councilmatic pejorative. The only hope is that Blatstein greased Kenny's wheels and this gets vetoed. But I doubt Kenney will go to war with council over this, especially as he tries to pass his soda tax.

Also, I agree this end around BS totally defeats the point of a zoning code. I mean, you jump through hoops with all these committee and neighbor meetings and then in the end, a councilman can make it all for nothing?

[eixample]

I am not sure this Kenyatta Johnson bill will fly legally, if challenged. But what are the odds Bart will build this monstrosity or is this whole thing just a bait and switch so he can build something equally unpalatable, but more likely to get tenants and financing?

[jjv007]

Retarded. If a developer wants to get anything done, he has to follow the regulations to a tee then hope for a non-forward thinking committee/board/community to approve his project. If Kenyatta Johnson, however, decides he wants to delay a project for a year just...because, then he can do that coz why?

[Randomguy34]

I'm expecting a shit storm from both the city council and Blatstein over the next couple of weeks. Make sure to bring your umbrellas everyone

[summersm343]

Kenyatta Johnson continues to prove time after time how much of an idiot he is. There is no way this will get approved in City Council. Purposely holding up a projects construction, creating construction jobs, and creating tax dollars, and more jobs upon the developments completion?

[Cro Burnham]

Can't be bothered by any of this.

Blatstein essentially wants to build a multistory garage here and need variances (rightly) to do so. Pretends he's going to build some adjacent highrises.

Gets shot down by a moronic councilman.

Who cares?

If he had just proposed something reasonable with in the very permissive zoning envelope the site comes with, none of this would have been a problem.

He proposes something offensive and arouses offensive responses.

What's surprising about all this.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Can't be bothered by any of this.

Blatstein essentially wants to build a multistory garage here and need variances (rightly) to do so. Pretends he's going to build some adjacent highrises.

Gets shot down by a moronic councilman.

Who cares?

If he had just proposed something reasonable with in the very permissive zoning envelope the site comes with, none of this would have been a problem.

He proposes something offensive and arouses offensive responses.

What's surprising about all this.

I would generally agree with you in thinking Blatstein doesn't either plan on or have the stones to build the whole project in one go, but the high rise part of this project is not what he needs the City's OK to build, so why bother with even showing any thing beyond the big boxes and his roof top village.

The surrounding neighbors might be more approving if the high rise parts weren't part of the plan

Sure some of us in the public get teased by the idea of a big development but I don't think the zoning board of adjustment, or whoever has to sign off on his plans, is going to either agree or disagree with his request based on some drawings showing a tower or two (esp. since its not even a particularly creative or special tower).

So, I really don't know what he is up to. But I certainly don't think the present plans are what we will see built there hopefully in the near term future.

[philatonian]

Ugh, I never liked Blatstein's Monolith and Tiny Town, but this isn't the way to block it.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Kenyatta Johnson continues to prove time after time how much of an idiot he is. There is no way this will get approved in City Council. Purposely holding up a projects construction, creating construction jobs, and creating tax dollars, and more jobs upon the developments completion?

I don't think so. Johnson is using his councilmanic pejorative, that no councilperson is going to upend. Anyone voting against it will be seen as a traitor to a fellow colleague and, more importantly, the longstanding tradition of councilmanic pejorative. Voting against his bill would put the tradition in jeopardy and significantly diminish one of council's most powerful tools. Why would any councilperson want to do that?

If there is a majority in support of Blatstein (and surely he has political connections), Johnson will be pressured in backroom dealings to withdraw the bill to avoid embarrassment and to keep the tradition intact.

Also, how is a one year moratorium going to resolve anything? What incentive does that give either side to compromise and move forward? And how does that help the city's finances? It's just a awful idea and another example of why city council and zoning/development must be kept far away from each other.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by McBane

I don't think so. Johnson is using his councilmanic pejorative, that no councilperson is going to upend. Anyone voting against it will be seen as a traitor to a fellow colleague and, more importantly, the longstanding tradition of councilmanic pejorative. Voting against his bill would put the tradition in jeopardy and significantly diminish one of council's most powerful tools. Why would any councilperson want to do that?

If there is a majority in support of Blatstein (and surely he has political connections), Johnson will be pressured in backroom dealings to withdraw the bill to avoid embarrassment and to keep the tradition intact.

Also, how is a one year moratorium going to resolve anything? What incentive does that give either side to compromise and move forward? And how does that help the city's finances? It's just a awful idea and another example of why city council and zoning/development must be kept far away from each other.

I'm not quite as cynical as you about this yet. It doesn't happen often, but popular backlashes can and do defeat councilmanic prerogative. The trick is that you have to get the media to make the councilman look like an idiot for introducing it, to the point where all the other councilmen look just as foolish if they allow it to go through anyway. See, councilpeople are sensitive about their image (even if not in the same way you or I might be), and they are aware that if they do enough embarrassing stuff they might eventually face a backlash in their own constituencies.

Essentially, the trick is to stick your hand on the optics lever. Politicians are really sensitive to media optics, so much so that it can be used to override councilmanic prerogative.

[Flyers2001]

City make its own rules as it goes along. Similar to Sheriff Green creating his own moratorium on Foreclosures several years ago. That office was an utter disgrace.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Kenyatta Johnson continues to prove time after time how much of an idiot he is. There is no way this will get approved in City Council. Purposely holding up a projects construction, creating construction jobs, and creating tax dollars, and more jobs upon the developments completion?

That and it's nigh unto a bill of attainder. You can't basically declare Blatstein an outlaw because you don't like his crap project.

[eixample]

Many of these community groups get upset over stupid stuff like density and high rises, but I understand (some of) their complaints here. The high rise seems like it was specifically placed to keep CAPA and the public pool behind it in the shade and the super block will likely have an awful effect on Carpenter. I am sure some are just pissed there is not enough parking, which is ridiculous because there is too much. I hope they appeal but if it was only special exceptions Blatstein needed (the media reports have also mentioned variances but they might just be confusing the two terms) then it is unlikely they will prevail.

[Larry King]

Either way I'm sure Kenney would veto this

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Larry King

Either way I'm sure Kenney would veto this

Again, why would Kenny poison his relationship with council so early into his term and disrupt this longstanding council tradition? Over a (relatively) trivial development matter? While he's trying to get his soda tax passed and needs votes? Kenney witnessed first hand the toxic relationship with council that doomed Nutter. Why would he want to go down that path?

Johnson's bill will be dealt with in private. Not by a floor vote or a veto.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Who cares?

If he had just proposed something reasonable with in the very permissive zoning envelope the site comes with, none of this would have been a problem.

He proposes something offensive and arouses offensive responses.

What's surprising about all this.

There are two separate issues here. I agree with you completely that Blatstein's proposal is a pile of crap and I also hope for an outcome in which he's either required to build something good here or sells the property. But the legislation being proposed is not the way to go about doing that. This legislation sets a horrible precedent and could have a negative impact on development in Philly on the whole. This is exactly the type of thing that zoning code reform was supposed to get rid of. This legislation is essentially giving a council-member the power to completely stop a development he doesn't like. To make matters worse, this is a council-member who has a vested interest in blocking new market-rate developments in his district since that's essentially what he needs to do to maintain power.

Originally Posted by McBane

I don't think so. Johnson is using his councilmanic pejorative, that no councilperson is going to upend. Anyone voting against it will be seen as a traitor to a fellow colleague and, more importantly, the longstanding tradition of councilmanic pejorative. Voting against his bill would put the tradition in jeopardy and significantly diminish one of council's most powerful tools. Why would any councilperson want to do that?

I have hope, albeit slight, that some of the new blood on the council might push back. One of our new council members, Allan Domb, was a major developer before joining council after all.