Philadelphia 2035 (Knox: real estate, renter, new home)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

Yes, good point, in my mind the two streets are similar and should be zoned and designed similarly. In 2022, imo, the two streets make up the borders of what could be called 'greater center city'. In a similar vein, I think of Girard and Snyder to be similar too.

I don't quite agree about Washington Avenue west of 15th, which is why I brought up the light-industrial stuff.

There are still several building-materials companies operating along that stretch of the avenue, and my recollection walking past them is that they actually use the sidewalk and adjacent parking spaces as extensions of their business when they are open, moving pallets of materials in and out. I understand that the road-diet advocates engaged in community outreach, but in this case, I think they should have personally visited each business on the street to get input on how any redesign might affect their operations.

Spring Garden, OTOH, is entirely residential and neighborhood commercial west of Broad, and as noted already, the commercial and light industrial uses east of it do not intrude on the street itself. That's enough of a difference to call for slightly different approaches to accommodating all modes of transport.

[cpomp]

Looks like the encampment was removed today...

At University City Townhomes, officers dismantle encampment as residents protest

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philad...-20220808.html

[thedirtypirate]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Looks like the encampment was removed today...

At University City Townhomes, officers dismantle encampment as residents protest

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philad...-20220808.html

Just about as strange and dumb of an ending as you would expect.

Ed Rendell said it best in his op-ed the other day. There are going to be a lot of people who will resist change at every single step, and you need to tell those people you did as much as you could, and if you feel I didn't, feel free to vote against me lol.

[Flyers Girl]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Looks like the encampment was removed today...

At University City Townhomes, officers dismantle encampment as residents protest

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philad...-20220808.html

I sincerely doubt it was residents of the University City Townhomes who were protesting. Everyone's a NIMBY, but not for the homeless issue? Yeah, I don't buy it.

I just have to crack up at their signs. "Housing is a human right." Someone should tell them that if something requires the labor of other people, then it's not a right.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I sincerely doubt it was residents of the University City Townhomes who were protesting. Everyone's a NIMBY, but not for the homeless issue? Yeah, I don't buy it.

I just have to crack up at their signs. "Housing is a human right." Someone should tell them that if something requires the labor of other people, then it's not a right.

Many protestors in the pictures were white people... go figure.

My 2 cents... Jamie Gauthier managed to gaslight the residents and "activists" into blaming the land owner / developer. When in reality they followed all protocols, and it was no surprise they planned to sell. If blame is needed for this mess (if we want to call it that), it should be placed solely on the city and Jamie Gauthier.

In the end, all this noise will do nothing for the ~70 families affected. Another missed opportunity for a city leader to work as a middle person to ensure a good outcome for all parties...

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Many protestors in the pictures were white people... go figure.

My 2 cents... Jamie Gauthier managed to gaslight the residents and "activists" into blaming the land owner / developer. When in reality they followed all protocols, and it was no surprise they planned to sell. If blame is needed for this mess (if we want to call it that), it should be placed solely on the city and Jamie Gauthier.

In the end, all this noise will do nothing for the ~70 families affected. Another missed opportunity for a city leader to work as a middle person to ensure a good outcome for all parties...

Right? How about step in to find them a suitable landing place rather than to stoke this fire.

She's a piece a work. She's damn lucky this protest didn't get out of hand.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I sincerely doubt it was residents of the University City Townhomes who were protesting. Everyone's a NIMBY, but not for the homeless issue? Yeah, I don't buy it.

I just have to crack up at their signs. "Housing is a human right." Someone should tell them that if something requires the labor of other people, then it's not a right.

Let's not get caught up in the semantics. I'm not sure why you'd see humor in that. Access to affordable housing is critical; that's really what the "human right" language is getting at, even if it's not legally codified.

You may be lucky enough to own the property where you live, but not everyone is. And you can't fault anyone for fighting to stay in their home after a landlord sells a property. Just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean its the right thing to do.

I'm not sure why folks would be perplexed that there would be protesting for something like this. There are plenty of things that are done in the city for political pandering--I get it--but I just don't think fighting to keep low-income residents from being displaced falls into that category.

[ilovephilly79]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Let's not get caught up in the semantics. I'm not sure why you'd see humor in that. Access to affordable housing is critical; that's really what the "human right" language is getting at, even if it's not legally codified.

You may be lucky enough to own the property where you live, but not everyone is. And you can't fault anyone for fighting to stay in their home after a landlord sells a property. Just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean its the right thing to do.

I'm not sure why folks would be perplexed that there would be protesting for something like this. There are plenty of things that are done in the city for political pandering--I get it--but I just don't think fighting to keep low-income residents from being displaced falls into that category.

Property rights are also rights. Legally, why shouldn't somebody be able to sell a property and do something different with it? I think the frustration from those here is that the protest was not aimed at anything that would tangibly help the situation. Why should the answer be that the owner can't sell the property? Why wouldn't the protesters aim to do something more meaningful such as helping people find alternative housing?

And while the right to housing is theoretically a human right, it doesn't mean that housing anywhere and forever is a right. Places get more expensive or less expensive and as a part of that, everyone is forced to adjust. That's just the way the world works.

[thedirtypirate]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Let's not get caught up in the semantics. I'm not sure why you'd see humor in that. Access to affordable housing is critical; that's really what the "human right" language is getting at, even if it's not legally codified.

You may be lucky enough to own the property where you live, but not everyone is. And you can't fault anyone for fighting to stay in their home after a landlord sells a property. Just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean its the right thing to do.

I'm not sure why folks would be perplexed that there would be protesting for something like this. There are plenty of things that are done in the city for political pandering--I get it--but I just don't think fighting to keep low-income residents from being displaced falls into that category.

This wasn't the first or second part of this story though. And we have talked about this before on the forum.

IBID owned two properties. The older is the University City Townhouses which is an affordable housing complex with a deal with HUD. The other property is at 50th and Warrington. IBID was going to build 70 new affordable units, along with a ton of market-rate apartments, to replace the others. Gauthier BLOCKED the new development over neighbor's concerns about parking. So instead of a building built to the curb that fits the character of the neighborhood with 70 affordable units, we are getting a new building with no affordable units and a massive parking lot adjacent to it.

Why is West Philly trading 70 affordable homes for a parking lot?

That's not even where the story ends. Gauthier and her clueless staff decided to "help" the current residents of the UC Townhomes by passing an illegal spot zoning bill through city council that would have prevented IBID from selling their property for what it is worth. Well, IBID took the city to court and easily won back in May because what Gauthier did was blatantly illegal.

So when they chant "Housing is a human right", just remember they're the bozos who are 100% against actually building enough housing for people unless it's given away free because in their entitled and privileged world they were raised in is completely disconnected from reality. It's nonsense.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by ilovephilly79

Property rights are also rights. Legally, why shouldn't somebody be able to sell a property and do something different with it? I think the frustration from those here is that the protest was not aimed at anything that would tangibly help the situation. Why should the answer be that the owner can't sell the property? Why wouldn't the protesters aim to do something more meaningful such as helping people find alternative housing?

And while the right to housing is theoretically a human right, it doesn't mean that housing anywhere and forever is a right. Places get more expensive or less expensive and as a part of that, everyone is forced to adjust. That's just the way the world works.

For the record, I don't disagree inherently with anything you've said. I'm not calling property rights into question. I think it's just a very emotionally fraught situation when anyone has to find a new home, obviously, so no one should be shocked when the protest signs go up--even if it's not necessarily the most productive thing to do. It's just trying to bring awareness to the situation.

Change happens, of course, and yes, properties get sold and are redeveloped. But even if it's technically not the property owner's responsibility, it would be nice if they were more proactive to work with their tenants to find an alternative place to live. You're describing the free market of real estate--and no one has denied that's how it works. But the point is that it shouldn't have to work that way.

It's a textbook case of gentrification. The outcomes are not always great, and they could often be handled much better by everyone involved.

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

So when they chant "Housing is a human right", just remember they're the bozos who are 100% against actually building enough housing for people unless it's given away free because in their entitled and privileged world they were raised in is completely disconnected from reality. It's nonsense.

I agree that there is another extreme here that should be acknowledged. I get that there's much more nuance to this story, because it appears to involve an outcome that was nearly entirely preventable. And a City Councilor that seems to have been her own worst enemy did not work pragmatically for her constituents.

But I also know that property management companies/landlords--more often than not--do the bare minimum to prevent or ameliorate displacement, as well. That would have happened regardless of the construction of new affordable housing, which would have still forced the residents somewhere else at least temporarily.

Bottom line--there's lessons to be learned all around from this situation.