- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
Standing Up for Ourselves
Submitted by Dan U-A on Fri, 06/22/2007 - 8:51am.
In New York City in the mid 1980's, a developer was building an apartment building, and under New York's zoning code for the area, could have built as high as 19 stories. He decided to go ahead and build 31 stories instead. There is that saying that is easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission... I guess he figured, "Hey, I will tack on an extra 11 stories, make myself a boatload of additional money, and cut whatever deals I need to cut afterwards."
After all, it’s not like anyone will make him actually remove stories from his building, right?
Demolition crews are cutting an Upper East Side apartment tower down to size -- the size required by New York City's zoning rules.
The removal of the top 12 floors from the 31-story building at 108 East 96th Street, which has never been occupied, ends a seven-year battle that pitted the developer, Laurence Ginsberg, against city officials and local leaders who noticed that the tower plans exceeded zoning limits.
"It marks the first time that a skyscraper in New York City has been reduced in height due to a zoning violation," said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat who has represented the neighborhood both in the City Council and now in Congress.
"It serves notice to every developer that the zoning laws of our city will be enforced," she said.
The example New York set was pretty darn easy to see. After 1993, you had to have quite a lot of hubris to spend money building in violation of their zoning code.
I am thinking of New York today because of Inga Saffron’s article about a developer on South Street who has decided that he is going to reach out, and take the public's sidewalk for his building, and his tenants:
Samir Benakmoume has found what may be the most novel way yet to stretch the capacity of his South Street building lot. Unfortunately for city residents, it involves annexing a 6-foot-wide strip of public sidewalk.
Without waiting for Streets Department approval, the city says, Benakmoume constructed a broad raised-concrete platform that runs the entire length of his new condo building - 1352 Lofts - leaving only a stingy ribbon of sidewalk for pedestrians. The platform was intended as a handicapped ramp, but more closely resembles a terrace. Benakmoume freely admits he plans to set up tables there for his restaurant tenants.
The platform takes up so much territory on the 1300 block of South Street that pedestrians may feel as if they are navigating a tightrope. Just east of Broad Street, a major subway juncture, South Street's normal 12-foot-wide sidewalks contract to a 3-foot-wide sluice, just enough room for adults to walk single file past the building's $1.3 million duplexes.
The sidewalk is now so narrow that you have to walk single file, and people with strollers or who are in wheelchairs have to cross over to the other side of the street. The City acknowledges that the platform is violating the law, and that the developer changed the building plans from those approved by the City:
The wide platform is clearly "unacceptable," said Streets Department engineer William P. Mautz, who is the guardian of the city's rights-of-way. The only question is what to do about it.
…
When Mautz inspected the platform, he said, he discovered that its dimensions differed radically from Benakmoume's approved architectural drawings, done by Granary Associates.
We know how New York would have responded to that, right? If they can make a skyscraper come down, they would sure as heck get rid of this guy’s attempt to just take our public places for himself. So, how do we respond in Philly?
First, Frank DiCicco tried to pass a law (geez, this wouldn’t be spot zoning, would it?) to simply make the land grab legal. On a completely unrelated note, this developer donated at least $1,500 to the re-election campaign of DiCicco. But, neighbors protested what he was doing, and DiCicco backed off.
Second, the project’s final approval has been halted. Halted to allow time for the developer to undo what he did? Nah, just long enough so that the developer can cut a deal with some people in the neighborhood. It is certainly good that people in the neighborhood will be somehow compensated, but this is a completely ridiculous way to do businesses.
The article says that whatever the solution- the land grab will survive. It is time for Philly to take a little pride in itself, for Councilmen not to be changing laws so that their campaign contributors can make a little more cash at the public’s expense, and to tell this jackass to get out the jackhammer, and start wailing away.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I completely agree. Very
I completely agree.
Very simple solution. Fine him every day for zoning violations and put a lein on his property. There should be no tolerance for this.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Simple solution, I agree
Unfortunately, it would take political will to make it happen. Does said will exist?
That is the sad thing, it
That is the sad thing, it shouldn't take political will. I am sure L&I is completely within its power to handle this and punish the person.
I have many stories where people have renovated rooms in their house with no building permits and L&I has come in and made the person tear up the room so they could inspect the plumbing and electrical.
This would be a nice topic to have Councilman Kenney and Councilman Goode to offer their insights on and if they think this is acceptable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Adam is right
He should have to tear it up just like anyone else. This really shouldn't be an issue. L & I has the authority to act on their own. They should act immediately, and not wait for anyone to persuade them to do the right thing.
Sidewalk encroachment
Guys (and Gals), I wouldn't worry about this. The guy is screwed. He's committing a trespass on a public right of way. He's going to pay somehow. My guess is if he does not resolve the situation satisfactorily, the City will file an equity action to force him to remove the encroachment. He will have no defense to such an action.
My gut says...
... that he greases a few palms + suddenly the problem vanishes.
Sad, but likely,
-Z
Dan
This developer donated about 1/100th of the money Dicicco raised for this campaign. Does it really mean that he took this developers concerns over that of the neighbors? Considering he "backed off" b/c of the neighbors, I'd guess that he took their concerns over this small contribution.
On a completely unrelated note, people do donate money in campaigns. What Dicicco did I'm sure was completely unrelated to a small contribution he recieved.
I didn't say it was some
I didn't say it was some explicit quid pro quo.
However, we have a developer who donates money to a District Councilman, does something blatantly illegal and against the public interest, and then said Councilman introduces a zoning bill to help make this illegal act legal. That doesn't concern you?
The point is that someone with access to power was going to get what he needed, at the expense of the the public. What about when this happens in less organized parts of the City?
but
you clearly intended, by dropping the info about Dicicco that something less than honest was going on. Dicicco is just one member of council so I think your point about quid pro quo would be vaild if more members of council recieved substantial sums of money, not 1/100.
Your issue about this development raises a lot of questions but I don't think it has anything to do with access to power. It has to do with Philly's disregard, in general, to zoning laws. Developers, property owners, etc do things like this because they know they can get away with it. They can get away with it because L & I does not have the manpower to enforce all of the cities zoning and building codes. I agree with you, this needs to change. I'd also like to point out that this isn't a problem because local politicians turn a blind eye to zoning issues. Citizens share a large share of the blame for this because of our lack of concern when it comes to zoning.
Now, I think what this guy is doing is jacked up. But mainly because he lied about what he was building (a wheelchair ramp). Am I mad that people use the public sidewalk for their business purposes? No. Not at all. If he was upfront about it I don't think this would be a problem. I used to live on the 1200 block of South Street. I used to walk past this block everyday and everynight. It sucked. It was dirty sidewalks and empty/worn down buildings. Kater street, which runs behind this area was a breeding ground for drug deals, drug use, car theft and prostitution. I can't count the number of times I would be drinking my morning coffee and witness people shooting up in building behind me on Kater Street. Or the time that a crackhead came into my garage and offered me sex for some cigarette's and cash. That area used to suck, which is why I am excited to hear about it being redeveloped. I think its encouraging that area's that were once and eyesore and nuisance to neighbors are coming up. Condo's and an outdoor resturant in this area is just what it needs.
Unfortunatly, crowded sidewalks are part of living in a big city. Every night I like to walk up Passyunk Street towards Tasker. Last night my girlfriend and I were walking and decided to eat at an always crowded resturant, one that has outdoor seating. During our meal I watched as people walked by and sometimes had to head into the street or walk single file to get by the crowds and the table. Should the owner, developer and anyone else be fined or shut down because they are using the public sidewalk for their own purpose? Not in this case and not in the case of using a bit of sidewalk to boost the revitilization of a city block, such as that area on south street.
I'd also like to add that I'm concerned that developers think they are smarter than the public or local laws. Take Joel Harden for example. A quick google search revealed he is not only a slumlord but also a contributor to????
No, you are right.
No, you are right. Because DiCicco yanks in so much money, he is ethically pure. That is an interesting idea though- the more contributions someone gets, the less we have to worry about impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.
If you want to defend DiCicco here, that is your business. Most of the post was not about him- you chose to bring that up. I stand by everything I wrote: he 1)introduced a bill to 2)help a connected developer, who donated money to his campaign, 3)make legal something he did that was clearly illegal. That doesn't mean there was a quid pro quo, but it does mean that is a really crappy way of doing business. Why do you think he introduced the change? He didn't study it right, because if he did, then he would have seen community opposition, seen that it was clearly against the law- he introduced it, and pulled back only when people protested? Do I think this means DiCicco is a crook? No. But, notice what the post was about? About Philadelphia standing up for itself? The reaction of DiCicco to it was emblematic of everything that is wrong about how development is done. (Notice the comment about spot zoning, for example?)
And seriously, if what you would like to instead do is try and compare it to the actions of my dad (for onlookers, that is what Mike is doing), who is not in office, then you are both delusional, and barking up the wrong tree buddy.
the majority of my response
(the long one) was not about Dicicco. It was agreeing what much of what you said, that the city (politicans and citizens) have a desire to not want to enforce certain laws.
Regarding contributions. What I was pointing out was that this guys contribution didn't make or break Dicicco's campaign funds. You tried to make the connection that b/c he got a bit of money from this guy he was willing to change the laws. I was pointing out that this Joel guy is a documented slumlord who owns property in Germantown, an area your dad was running to represent.
If you want to claim that because Dicicco got 1500 from this guy and that was the reasoning behind his actions, then wouldn't that sort of logic imply that your dad would be willing to help out a slumlord because he donated to his campaign?
Now, I don't think your dad would do that. Its not an attack on Irv, who I don't believe would act on this guys behalf just because of the contribution. But if you want to make Dicicco out to be some sort of sleezeball for taking in 1500 from a guy who broke the law, why is it ok for Irv to get the same amount from a guy who has also broken the law (regarding zoning and tenant rights).
The issue, again, was how
The issue, again, was how Philadelphia responded. I don't care that a developer gave him money. I do care that the developer who gave him money got a bill introduced to make this legal.
I was, and still am comparing the response of two cities- New York, and Philly. In New York, they forced a developer to lop off the top of his building. In Philly, the District Councilperson introduces a way to legalize this. Again- what happens in places where people are not as organized?
Personally, yes, I feel it
Personally, yes, I feel it would still be a problem if he initially told the truth or if it was really a handicap ramp. As mentioned, everyone else gets by doing the ramping on their own property lien without infringing on the sidewalks.
But it is as you said, Philly seems to have a big problem with enforcement across the board.
Also, crowded sidewalks are part of the City ... the thing is, they should be crowded by people, not by concrete extensions of buildings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Who has standing to compel enforcement?
The Streets Department engineer is probably speaking from years of experience when he says that it's unlikely that the terrace will have to be jackhammered out. Back in 1995, Anna Verna attempted to have an illegal check cashing establishment shut down. The City Solicitor filed an opinion at the time, stating that the City was under no obligation to enforce, but that enforcement was the discretion of the City, or at the discretion of the particular department responsible for enforcement. (See City Solicitor Opinion 95-11 for details.)
If the City declines to compel the removal of the terrace, it may take years of legal action to compel enforcement. Here's another example of the practice of building first, and then relying on the City's history of inaction to escape enforcement. The example intersects with a previous thread about taxpayer standing to appeal decisions of the Zoning Board.
In 2003, a builder was granted variances to build two rowhouses, each with 4 stories, and 19.5% open area (the Code allows a maximum of 3 stories, and requires 30% open area). The variances were appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. While the appeal was pending, the builder requested foundation permits to begin construction, acknowledging in writing that they would be proceeding with construction at their own risk. The Court of Common Pleas upheld the variances, and that decision was appealed to Commonwealth Court. In April 2004, Commonwealth Court reversed the variances, finding that the builder had not satisfied the requirement of demonstrating hardship that would have justified the variances. By the time of the April 2004 Commonwealth Court decision, the builder had erected most of the shell of the buildings, and had clearly committed himself to building two structures that were larger than allowed by law.
When presented with the Commonwealth Court order reversing the variances, the Department of Licenses and Inspections revoked the bullding permits, but they declined to take enforcement action to compel the removal of the nonconforming portions of the buildings. L&I's stated goal was to forego enforcement, and instead to "work with the builder to achieve a code-compliant plan".
On the same day the building permits were revoked, the builder submitted new applications, which no longer included a fourth story, but included the same reduced open area as before. The Zoning Board declined to apply the One-Year Rule, which would have prevented the builder from submitting a substantially similar plan until one year after the final decision by Commonwealth Court. The Zoning Board found that the new application for reduced open area was not substantially similar to the identical reduced open area in the previous plan, because the new plan no longer included a fourth story. The variances for open area were again granted by the Zoning Board, and the builder resumed building -- again at his own risk.
The new variances were again appealed, but this time the builder had access to Act 193, in which the Pennsylvania Assembly purportedly eliminated Philadelphia's authority under home rule to grant standing to "any taxpayer" to pursue an appeal of a zoning decision. The Court of Common Pleas quashed the new appeal, because the person who had successfully appealed the previous variances no longer had standing to appeal them this time. Commonwealth Court upheld the quashal, finding that the Assembly had eliminated Philadelphia's authority to grant standing to "any taxpayer". (See http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1425CD06_4-4-07.pdf)
The builder of these properties took the same kind of calculated risk that Mr. Benakmoume took by building the terrace. I'm hoping that both builders find that Philadelphians are learning to take a stand for themselves, even if the City is too wimpy to do so, and even if the Assembly doesn't want us to.
And a bit of moral advice: Always take the high road. If you're walking along South Street -- as long as that ramp is there -- why not make it a point to take the high road? Make the other shops on South Street wish they had so many people passing right by thier front door. And if you happen to trip over the wall at the other end of the sidewalk, you can sue the pants off the builder...
Its more than "stealing land"
Whats the point of passing building codes at all if compliance is merely volluntary? Why even bother with reforming zoning? While we are at fire code is big pain- let's just toss that out the window too. How could it possibly bite us in the ass?
And then besides that whole pesky "rule of law" thing, where this walled off sidewalk patio is next to one of South Street's decorative street lamps it goes so narrow that some wheel chairs won't fit. A paraplegic guy on Phillyblog posted that he went by on his power chair and that it scraped between the lamposts and the wall. Modern electric wheel chairs are quite expensive and several inches narrower then the traditional non-powered variety that many of the poorer or only temporarily handicapped use. If the electric shair scrapes, then the traditional chair likely won't pass at all.
So lets review - this guy applies for zoning variance for a "handicapped ramp", illegally expands that "ramp" into an enclosed private patio or deck for future restaurant patrons dining al fresco to take over so much of the public sidewalk that now a sizable percentage of the handicapped can't even travel on that side of the street anymore. Brilliant.
. . . and the developer's solution in the Safron article. "Take down the street lights." That's right - he illegally uspurp's land specifically designated for public access for private gain and its up to the taxpayers to foot the bill for the problems it creates. Brilliant.
I say not to just avoid patronizing the businesses he leases to. I say you go after his leasing office, wallpaper it with information on how the guy ignored the code on the sidewalk. "Do you really want to trust that the work was up to code inside?"
This guy also wants to build a 30-story plus tower a few blocks away at Broad and Washington. He especially should not be going out of his way to flout the law and in effect "steal" a public resource. I mean is this the developer we want to trust to build the first giant hi-rise south of Center City?
Great post, Dan
Good stuff, very impressed. Keep on!
---
BradyDale OnLine
The R.I.I.C. Blog
The Philadelphia Unemployment Project
You Can Help!
The Design Advocacy Group (DAG) launched an email campaign to convince the City to take action and reclaim its sidewalk. Please visit http://www.designadvocacy.org/advocacy/sidewalks.asp
Please use the DAG site to
Please use the DAG site to write letters or call DiCicco's office. I just found out that the developer has unleashed his attornys against Phillyblog, and as a result they have pulled down any threads related to this topic, so spread the word and don't let him get away with this. It is time for this city to stand up for itself.
I sent my letter in. Still
I sent my letter in.
Still trying to think of something to do more proactive.
Well, I thought of several things, but I don't know where my ski mask is.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
deleted
dup
First the zoning code, then the First Amendment
So the developer Rimas Properties and its president Samir Benakmoume has now threatened a "slap" libel suit against the discussion forum Phillyblog, for posters there basically discussing exactly the same issue being discussed here, in more or less exactly the same terms (perhaps more bluntly, less eloquently but substantively exactly the same issue, similar range of opinions).
And he chose to do it on July 5, the day after we celebrate our nations founding and the principles it stands for including our First Amendment rights to free speech. Lovely.
Facing a lawsuit that the web developer who hosts the discussion forum, Wil Reynolds, can neither afford the time nor legal costs to fight in court he immediately pulled down the threads in question. Reynolds among other things does google optimization professionally so it is likely that the only reason Rimas Properties went after Philly Blog and not this forum is simply because Phillyblog googles exceptionally well.
I hope I am not alone in finding this action by Rimas Properties an abuse of our legal system in its lowest form. I do not like the precedent this action establishes for squashing the free online discussion of political and civic affairs in this fine city of ours.
I also know that there may be some folks who read and enjoy this discussion forum who might be qualified to offer some legal advise to Mr. Reynolds in regards to First Amendment protections for discussion forums like Phillyblog and this one.
The URL below leads to a new Phillyblog thread discussing the threatened lawsuit from Mr. Benakmoume and Rimas properties.
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=39759
The owner and host of Phillyblog, a bright and talented young African-American entrepeneur, the founder of SEER communications - the exact type of civic-minded small hi-tech start-up company this city should be working to maintain and encourage - Will Reynolds can be emailed directly at
wilr@thinkseer.com
Truly Disgusting
What on earth makes Benakmoume think he can shut down discussion of his building and its encroachment on the sidewalk? I'm livid. What a coward.
He's just earned himself a mountain of bad PR. This attempted strangulation of first amendment rights will give the initial story about his sidewalk grab more exposure in the press, and I expect may get picked up nationally as well.
I for one plan to blog the story on DailyKos tomorrow, if it has not already been done.
'Sidewalk Grab' Post at DailyKos
Ok, in my fit of rage, last Thursday I said I'd post about it on DKos "tomorrow." In real life, I didn't get to it until today.
Anyway, feel free to take a look, and if you're a DailyKos member make some comments or rec it up.
Don't know how much play it will get, but it was worth a try to spread the story further.
Approval of Handicap Ramp Was a Mistake
A key part of the reason for the taking of the sdiewalk by Benakmoume was the design approval by the City that allowed for the entrances to retail spaces in a new building to not be at grade level. This falls on L and I and whatever other agencies approved the building design. Except in unique situations, under ADA brand new building with ground floor retail should never be approved by the City if based on bad design or a thoughtless developer the building needs a ramp to the ground floor retail spaces. Building a new building on a flat street like South Street is not a unique situation that would justify approval of a design that called for ramps to ground floor retail spaces. Just do the right and common sense thing and only approve and build the building so it can be entered on the ground floor without steps and a ramp. This is not to endorse of approve of Benakmoume's actions, only to point out that the City played a key role in enabling and approving his actions.
L&I reported that the plans
L&I reported that the plans Benakmoume submitted ARE not what he actually ended up doing. His original plans that L&I approved had the grade on his property, not the sidewalk.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I spoke with Brian Abernathy
I spoke with Brian Abernathy from Councilman DiCicco's office and found out the following:
The Streets Department is taking Rimas to count at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, July 11th in room 426 of City Hall. The case is absolutely public and anyone can attend, although there probably wouldn't be an opportunity for us to testify.
Looks like the city might have some balls after all!
I hope the result is
I hope the result is enforcement and not compromise.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Update on the court
Update on the court appearance. Head to the end of the thread. Basically, the terrace will be coming down.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin