Side step the process? My interpretation is the developer didn't pay off the right politician.

If there is anything this City needs more than anything else, it is LESS approvals and say so necessary by these so-called NACs, which become tantamount to legalized extortion.

Let's just call IT what IT IS, lololol.


Ding, ding, ding.

__________________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xCiKCxfYqE

"If we can't learn from our mistakes, what's the point of making them!" ...my friend Richard.

"You are protected by the enormity of your stupidity." Mother to son Victor, in "Notorious"

where's vince fumo to point out that we don't bneed to compete with other cities like boston and chicago and that we're better off with a livable trash strewn lot than a supermarket and apartment towers.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

Hopefully choking on something or having another heart attack.

__________________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xCiKCxfYqE

"If we can't learn from our mistakes, what's the point of making them!" ...my friend Richard.

"You are protected by the enormity of your stupidity." Mother to son Victor, in "Notorious"

CBA? NAC? Please use the English Language, this is America.

Having grown up in an area that would have been raped and pillaged by Penn and Drexel decades ago were it not for a strong neighborhood association, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

What shouldn't happen is that the neighborhood associations shouldn't have the right to bargain with the developer; it should be a simple yea or nea.

And I have to say that "The developer tried to side-step the process" sounds like the neighborhood leaders didn't get their pound of flesh to me, too.

Well, to massage what HG said a bit, civic associations shouldn't be the sole dictator of what does and doesn't get built. They definitely should have their voices heard by the planning commission, but if a civic association says they won't approve of a development unless they get $1 million dollars, the planning commission should say "sorry you lose" and go ahead with the development.

Civic Associations should be advisory and nothing more.

__________________

asking a developer for money is not uncommon and i think we should all stop treating this as a philly-only phenomenon. i don't know the specifics of this particular project but "community benefits agreements" are frequent in places even as enlightened as New York City and Chicago. The difference in those places is that the process of negotiation between a community group and developer is often more transparent. But its not wrong to ask for dollars for the community to be used for infrastructure, open space or workforce training (or whatever is deemed necessary) to help support the local residents as well as new ones.

No, it isn't wrong to ask, but I think it can get excessive when it becomes required.

Also, it is contradictory to what a lot of residents in the City want. How does it make sense to scream for more affordable housing and then turn around and effectively leverage a "community tax" on developers which drives up the price of doing business and therefore property costs?

But yes, as you said, transparency is also key, hence why I asked what the issues were. This is because, when it comes down to it, which is better for a community: no money and a vacant building or no money and a rehabbed building that is paying taxes into the City that covers things like infrastructure, worker training, etc?

Does anyone here honestly think that neighborhoods in North Philly are better off vacant because it becomes too expensive to build?

Honestly, look at the housing market. Would you be happy if the developers just said "screw it, we are going to pull out now"?

__________________

Weak post. You even said you don't know the specifics. For all you know the developer agreed to pay for "community benefits."

PS. Is secretly renovating a politician's shore house a community benefit?