Hmmmm... I think you'd have a difficult time getting this "bill of rights" passed - or even accepted by the people it is intended to "protect".

No developer will ever be legally required to design their construction site to protect the health of a variety of individuals based on their verbal, or written assertion that they have specific health conditions that require such planning.

John Doe states that he suffers from severe asthma. How can a builder of a 50 story office tower prevent dust from blowing off the site during a windstorm and potentially impacting his asthma? Would you wrap the site in some sort of membrane and expand it as it rose to it's ultimate height?

Furthermore, how can a developer reasonably be expected to accommodate a need stated by an individual without requiring that individual to provide medical proof of his or her condition? How can the developer be expected to re-mediate unless he or she has proof that construction dust will exacerbate it? The burden of proof resides with the resident who asserts he has asthma? If that's the case, a lot of neighbors will opt to accept what the developer does rather than invest their time (and potential money) into something that likely will have no benefit to them in the long run.

I also agree with Tim K that to expect the city or the developer to absorb costs for inspecting properties that are owned by individuals is absurd. If I'm taking down plaster in the bedroom of my rowhome, I am certainly not going to pay to have my neighbor's home inspected prior to my demolition on the off chance that my demolition may impact my neighbor's house. If it does, my neighbor can request reparations or take me to court.

As much as I hate lawsuits, they are what force people (and developers) to do the right thing. If developers were as reckless as your proposed "bill of rights" implies, we'd see far more developers being sued by individuals or attorneys representing groups via class action lawsuits.

Finally, unless your "bill of rights" is adopted by the entire region, it will likely succeed ONLY in stifling development in the city since developers will simply develop in places where there are fewer restrictions placed upon them. This proposal would seal Philly's fate as business UNfriendly, just as Michael Nutter is trying to convince business leaders that Philly is turning over a new leaf and making the city more inviting to business and development.