Here is the problem....granted I am not an attorney or expert of any kind really!!!

Here is the applicable portion of the NCD legislation:

For the purposes of this law, a "Historic District" is one defined by 14-2007. So we must look to 14-2007 to see what defines a "Historic District" for the purposes of this legislation.

By definition, a "Historic District" is one designated by the Philadelphia Historical Commission. In other words, for the purposes of the NCD law, ONLY districts defined as Historical by PHC qualify.

According to PHC, Southwark is NOT a Historical District.

The problem is that 14-2007 is very specific in its definition of a historic district. It defines it as only one designated by the PHC. It doesn't matter whether any other municipality, group or the nation defines an area as a Historic District. If the bill had simply said "An NCD shall consist of an area of at least two blocks by two blocks, no part of which is contained within an Historic District" then it would be open to interpretation.

Calling Prudential tomorrow. I'm not living in a neighborhood dictated by overzealous neighborhood ass-ociations and overlays that were made by the seat of someone's pants to appease an asinine group that doesn't even know what is or isn't in their surroundings.

What QVNA and its minuets' claim to be protecting in this neighborhood are anomalies and not the norm. They show a handful of two story colonials and one or two all wood homes in their powerpoop presentation, and wish to claim these eccentricities as the norm in Queen Village. This alone violates the reasoning of the intended legislation, which is meant to preserve the fabric and vibrancy of the neighborhood.

Our vibrancy is not a couple of anomalies down an alley; instead, it is the diversity of home selection since artists, craftsmen, business owners, and creative thinkers moved into a downtrodden vacant area many years ago. Stucco, tile, and a unique myriad of styles were chosen to replace burnt out residences and ramshackled factories. The "norm"-the true "fabric" of this now solidified community is the very thing they protest.

Pictures can say a million words, and they can also lie. When I walked down to Cafe Fulya today, I noticed one of the homes they "approved of" in their powerpoop presentation. They liked it because of the abundance of foliage. I guess they like the tree since it covered up the barren wall and the extension that reminds me of the red roof in I stayed at in buffalo:

Maybe someone does like this home, and the owner is a pretty nice guy...which is exactly why no one should legislate aesthetics. I like ketchup, you like mustard. I have no right to tell you what's on your hotdog if I'm are not the one eating it.

In the end, all these rules will effect is the individual home owner. Developers will hire lawyers, appeal, and will eventually be granted an exemption from these laws due to the myriad of deals that go on within this city. Meanwhile, the typical homeowner will not know any better, and will do minimal patch work rather than deal with the confusing task of being denied by L&I and rerouted to QVNA then rerouted to the planning commission for the simplest of alterations or repairs.

I considered bringing to the hearing several pictures of houses that would not be approved under the NCD guidelines, but decided that it might be too much. They included pictures of 132 Fitzwater, a house on Christian that has updated itself with some nice stucco work, a modern house on Pemberton between 3rd and 4th that has what would be non-conforming window, etc.

But just looking at the above picture ... not the corner lot but the house next to it. That's stucco. I can see it from the street. However, it's not the front or the back of the house so ... is it or is it not "legal" under the NCD rules. (I dare anyone to be able to opine on this with any degree of certainty). Similarly, the entire row of homes on the south side of Queen -- you can see the backs of those homes from Christian due to the Southwark Community Garden, and the exposed portions of the rears of those houses are not consistent with the fronts. If those were being built under the NCD rules ... legal or not? Again, no real way to tell.

__________________
---Shosh

This whole paragraph shows the complexities of uncertainty. Add the public meeting comments from QVNA such as "aww, we wouldn't do that to you" when a resident asked whether or not certain things would be turned down, and its a big mess.

Here's an excerpt from my all but ignored testimony....

"Furthermore, the idea that the establishment of a “conservation district” would somehow help maintain or increase property values is absurd. As a real estate professional, and someone who works with builders, developers and investors I can assure you that the contrary is true. Putting restrictions on properties and adding additional steps to the building permit process only makes a neighborhood LESS DESIREABLE to builders, developers, investors and residents alike. Why would anyone choose to build or renovate in Queen Village and meet the ridiculous requirements set forth by the NCD and spend several extra months carrying the cost of their property while they wait for approvals? Why would a current resident choose to update their property if they know that applying for a permit could trigger the requirements of the NCD and force them to spend thousands more dollars to modify their house to meet the “standards” set forth by a few neighbors. This legislation will stifle the growth that has helped make Queen Village what it is today and will instead result in the stagnation of our housing stock and leave many of our once beautiful homes in a state of disrepair."


Also, for the record....I'm not sure why anyone thinks that our neighborhood needs the "protections' of the NCD. One doesn't have to be a REALTOR to know that property values in QV have tripled and not one house has been built with vinyl siding in the past decade. The whole NCD concept is a load of crap. As I tried to point out....in a neighborhood of houses ranging from $400,000 up to well over a million $s, you don't need legislation to stop people from putting up vinyl siding....the free market does that just fine thanks. There's not a developer dumb enough to build a house in QV with vinyl siding when he knows he can use brick and sell it for $50k more. This law is beyond stupid.

They should have titled it "Attack of the garage front homes"....and while we are fighting the evil garages we should take out the other threats vinyl monster and stucco man before they get us first.

HAHAHA...you said "load of crap" in city council testimony. You're awesome!

Your statement is too true.

I'll never forget when the condos along the riverside went up for approval. The developer was more than accomodating, and threw out his initial plans because QVNA didn't like them. What did it become BECAUSE of QVNA? The orangish stucco crap it is today. Everytime I look at it I think it is a model of the love boat made with dry angel food cake.

When the developer went to plan the second one that will be built someday, he said he would build it the same since that's what QVNA approved. What did they say since it was now different boardmembers? The one you built was ugly, we would like it built differently! He pretty much threw up his hands and gave up. When the market turns I'm sure he'll just build what was already approved and stop trying to appease the fickle nimby group.

Alesis - Don't know what's changed lately, I'm agreeing heartily with almost everything you say and even the way you're saying it. What have you done with Alesis?!?!?

You know what they say-it's not the heat but the humidity! Its making my old @ss delirious these days.

I went and bought a sugar water tropicana drink since its so hot out, so I should be bouncing off the walls in an hour.

He may not have; load of crap was outside his quotation marks.

__________________
Cheers,
Jayfar
--
“I am indeed well aware of the history of Conventional (sic) Hall, both globally and locally, and can assure you that we are carefully exploring avenues for its future.” -- Penn President Amy Gutmann 5 days before demolition began.