Well, yes, but QVNA, DiCicco and a majority of City Council don't seem to think this is a problem.

And Tim, thanks for clarifying. I'm wondering if there's any way to further object on the ground that QVNA dissuaded people from voting against the proposal and/or attending and speaking today by promising them that existing properties would be grandfathered in, and then not actually putting that in the amended ordinance. I think that's really huge.

__________________
---Shosh

Well, one would think that the full council hearing will be open to the public....

I just confirmed that first reading will be tomorrow for final passage on the 19th.

It will be open to the public, but it will get zipped in and out with no public comment.

I just emailed all council members a copy of the QVNA e-mail and noted that the amendment that was distributed today did not contain that promised language.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

__________________
---Shosh

It probably would have been equally effective to have printed it out, shredded it, climbed up onto your roof and and scattered it into the wind.

At this point, I really think the only hope is that someone can convince council that they really cannot legally enact this legislation due to the existence of the Southwark Historic District. I kind-of doubt they care though.

I was talking to our equivalent associate last night and we were discussing the possibility of making flash cards and sending them to city hall since they can't seem to understand common sense.

I think the problem is the way the legislation is written:



The problem as I see it, is that the Southwark Historic District does NOT appear to have been designated as a Historic District by the City. 14-2007 allows for the Designation of Historic places and Districts in Philly. Those places are recorded by the Historical commission. The Historical Commission does not designate Southwark Historic District as a Philadelphia Historic District even though it is a National Historic District.

http://www.phila.gov/historical/register.html

If someone can point me to a place where Southwark was designated by the City as a Historic District that would help.

In my opinion, 14-2008 doesn't do this, it only offers sign protection for a National Historic District.

This is correct; it's an issue I looked into a couple of months ago when it was suggested by, um, another PBer. The Southwark designation is a federal and mostly ceremonial designation, and carries no protections for properties within the designated district. Local zoning ordinances will always "trump" this kind of federal designation.

The ordinance that prohibited billboards was based upon the federal designation; the City did not, itself, designate it as a historical district ... NOR DO WE WANT IT TO. If you think the NCD legislation is burdensome and restrictive, you really can't imagine what burdens come with true, local historic designation. Much as I hate the NCD, I'd rather have that then the historical designation.

__________________
---Shosh

14-2008 was made from the opening made by 14-2007; the same way the QVNA NCD was made by its enacting legislation nearly two years ago.

It doesn't matter what 14-2008 prevents; the simple fact is that its a Historic District made by the city to enforce a zoning overlay. A historic district zoning overlay cannot be trumped by a Neighborhood Conservation District.

If the federal government calls front to 5th, lombard to Catharine a historic district-it doesn't mean squat. People can build, demolish, and anything else.

When a city takes that demarcation and creates their own overlay with that designation-it now becomes a historic district zoning overlay.