The City Council rules committee will hold a public hearing tomorrow (Wednesday, Oct. 16) on an ordinance that will change the zoning designations on a handful of properties, including a controversial parcel near 51st and Spruce where a developer wants to build a 33-unit apartment complex.
The ordinance (PDF) would change that property – 303 S. 51st St. – from a CMX-2 zoning designation, which allows apartment buildings and ground-floor commercial, to RSA3. An RSA3 designation would require builders of anything but a single family home to acquire a variance from the city, which requires community input.
It’s unlikely the change will prevent developer Callahan Ward to continue with plans to build 33 market-rate apartments and commercial space on the parcel, which has raised community concern because it is awkwardly positioned down a narrow alley in the middle of the block and borders several other properties’ backyards. Callahan Ward can build the project “by right,” meaning nearby residents have no official recourse.
Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell has proposed the ordinance. Foreseeing possible development on the site, community groups have long requested that Blackwell change its zoning designation. She didn’t until now, several months after Callahan Ward purchased the land.
A grassroots group has been established to fight the project. Neighbors for Healthy Community Development (NHCD) will hold its third public meeting on Monday, Oct. 21 to update residents on efforts to stop the project. The meeting will take place from 6-8 p.m. at First Corinthian Baptist Church (5101 Pine St). NHCD is pressuring Callahan Ward to reduce the number of units, release environmental reports related to the parcel, where currently an abandoned auto repair shop sits, and address concerns about emergency services access to the property and parking. So far the firm has refused.
The ordinance is one of several that will receive public hearings beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 400 in City Hall.
October 27th, 2019 at 12:08 pm
Join us on Oct 29th at 10am at City Hall (4th floor) to support Renter’s Right to Counsel, a bill that will provide low-income community members facing eviction access to a lawyer.
Our city is in a housing and eviction crisis. Every year 20,000 of our neighbors in Philadelphia face an eviction court. Home is the foundation on which we build our lives — and every day so many of us risk losing it.
When a renter has a lawyer, they have a 95% chance of avoiding homelessness. While 80% of landlords in Philadelphia have access to a lawyer, only 11% of renters do. Evictions disproportionately affect communities of color, and Renter’s Right to Counsel is a step towards ending our eviction crisis.
We have a long road ahead to winning a guarantee that home is a human right. But we can start right now! See you there!
In solidarity,
Tammer Ibrahim
(via Reclaim Philadelphia)
October 27th, 2019 at 4:27 pm
Complete and utter horsecrap. What this is blithely and purposefully ignoring is that anyone who meets certain financial criteria is offered free legal council.
So in other words, if you’re actually poor and destitute, or merely unwilling to file proper taxes and bilk the city, you’ll have council and representation.
It’s easy to throw out numbers like “80%” vs “11%”. It’s also purposefully misleading.
Try again, “Tammer”.
October 27th, 2019 at 6:09 pm
So, “goldenmonkey” you are claiming that Tammer and Reclaim are willfully misrepresenting the situation for poor tenants in this City and they actually have it pretty good?
October 28th, 2019 at 11:30 am
Yes, they are engaging in willful misrepresentation. Additionally at no point did I state that the poor “actually have it pretty good.” That’s pretty pathetic on your part.
There are no details at all about what having a lawyer means. Does it mean that they have a lawyer on retainer? That’s the only reasonable thing I can attempt to glean from that quote. And as I wrote above, it’s irrelevant as the “poor” (your word, not mine) have free representation.
October 28th, 2019 at 1:25 pm
But do you think the poor have it pretty good vis a vis landlords? In other words, are you basically good with what’s legal and what is not in the status quo?
It sounds like you oppose this bill but it’s not clear why…