COMMUNICATION 010629
Controlled by CITY COUNCIL
Description
October 18, 2001
TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA:
I am returning herewith as disapproved Bill No. 000629, passed by the Council on October 4, 2001. This bill is about much more than just billboards. This bill could have a negative impact on the right of every citizen and every neighborhood association that has ever appeared before the Zoning Board or might ever want to appear before the Zoning Board to have their voices heard in court on matters that affect their very own communities. Unlike many other cities in this Commonwealth, we are a city of neighborhoods, and taxpaying residents of those neighborhoods, as well as organizations of residents, play a critical role in protecting our communities from inappropriate intrusions onto the character of our neighborhoods. Because of this, what works in other towns and suburbs and communities may not work here in Philadelphia.
Bill No. 000629 would remove the longstanding right of any taxpayer in the City of Philadelphia to challenge any decision of the Zoning Board, and instead would require a taxpayer to prove that he or she has a direct, substantial and immediate interest in a zoning matter in order to have standing to appeal. Although I agree with the Council that, in some instances, this more stringent standard may be appropriate, I cannot agree to impose this standard in all cases.
In practical terms, this bill could prevent the senior citizen who lives across the street from a property from having any say in the development of that property, no matter what effect that development would have on the neighborhood, and no matter that the developer might have no connection to the neighborhood. In practical terms, this bill would require that senior citizen to prove, in court, that he or she is "aggrieved" by the development, or else he or she will be tossed out of court. In practical terms, that senior citizen may not have access to a lawyer and may not be a member of a community organization; even worse, that senior citizen may disagree with the local neighborhood organization, but may want his or her voice heard. This bill allows the neighborhood organization automatic standing but not the citizen taxpayer. Why should the rights of the taxpayer be less than the rights of the group? This bill could squelch the voice of the resident taxpayer.
Under current law, any community group, any neighborhood organization, and any concerned citizen taxpayer, has an automatic right to challenge any zoning decision affecting his or her community. This is as it should be. People who live and pay taxes in a community should have a right to have a say in that community's character and development. This bill, however, would compromise that right, even with respect to matters that affect only the most local of concerns. I believe it is wrong to deprive a local taxpayer of the right to voice his or her concerns in court regarding matters that affect his or her local community.
I recognize that, under Bill 000629, these concerned citizens would still have the right to try and prove that they are "aggrieved" by the disputed decision, and would be heard in court if they can meet the legal test by showing a direct, substantial and immediate harm to their interests. I do not believe taxpaying members of a community should have to meet this technical legal standard. I believe they should have standing to come into court, as a matter of right.
Not every citizen can afford to hire a lawyer to oppose a challenge to his or her "standing." Not every taxpayer living in a community and affected by a zoning matter in his or her neighborhood will have the legal tools to argue the niceties of the case law concerning who is or is not "aggrieved" under Bill 000629. Nor should a member of a community have to endure and respond to technical legal defenses concerning standing, when a property in the person's neighborhood is at issue. Moreover, this bill would expressly require business groups to prove they are "aggrieved" in order to have standing to appeal; I believe that a taxpaying business or business organization should have the absolute right to come into court and challenge a zoning decision concerning a matter in that business's neighborhood.
This is a Mayor who worries about little people, and small businesses in neighborhoods, taxpayers. This bill could deny those people their day in court and, therefore, I cannot allow this bill to become law.
This does not mean, however, that every taxpayer in the City should have the right to challenge every zoning decision in any neighborhood, no matter how local in character the decision and no matter how remote, abstract or geographically removed his or her interest may be. Local neighborhood residents should have the right to have a substantial say in the development and character of their neighborhoods, particularly with respect to matters of purely local neighborhood concern, without interference from those who may have other causes, or even inconsistent interests, at heart. Outside advocates should not have the right to stop local economic development projects, where there are no legitimate outside interests adversely affected. But I cannot agree that this neighborhood-centric view is appropriate in all cases.
For example, the development of properties with historical character or of significant historical value necessarily is an interest of all taxpayers of this City, and not only of those who live and work close by. I do not believe that a concerned taxpayer in North Philadelphia has to blindly accept changes to a historical building in Center City or in one of our historic neighborhoods, merely because he or she does not live or work in the vicinity. Preservation of our historical treasures is a concern of all taxpayers, and all taxpayers should have a right to be heard on matters affecting the development or alteration of these properties, which are so important to the heritage, culture and beauty of our City.
With respect to billboards, there may well be some outdoor advertising that is of no legitimate concern to anyone other than persons who live or work in the vicinity of the sign. I do not subscribe to the extreme view that all billboards are blight, and that anyone should have an automatic right to challenge any billboard, no matter where it is located and no matter where the protestant may live. But I cannot agree with those who assert that an outdoor advertising sign in a heavily traveled area or in close proximity to a major thoroughfare is of no concern to anyone other than the few who may live or work nearby. Concerns about over-concentration of billboards and visual pollution are legitimate concerns, and we should not prevent these concerns from being heard in court.
My concerns with this bill, moreover, are not limited to historical preservation and billboards. My concerns are with the rights of citizen taxpayers to come into court to challenge matters affecting the fabric of their very own communities, and without having to meet a technical legal test in order to have their concerns heard. Moreover, just as there certainly are many, many zoning issues which are of purely local concern, so too are there many zoning and development issues which substantially affect the character and nature of this City as a whole, and which can have a substantial impact on the quality of all of our lives. I do not believe that decisions of this nature should be made for all of us by a select few, and that those outside a select geographic circle should be denied a voice.
I would be pleased to work with the Council to develop a more finely tuned bill, one which would respect the rights of neighborhoods to control development in their communities when such development is of no legitimate concern to anyone other than those who live and work in those communities, but which will insure the right of all persons in those neighborhoods to have their voices heard regarding development that affects their local neighborhoods, and which will respect the rights of all taxpayers in this City to have their concerns heard in court with respect to matters that truly do concern all the citizens of Philadelphia.
I do not lightly take up the veto pen; vetoing a bill is a serious matter. I spent nineteen years as a member of this Council, and I have tremendous respect for the work that this body does and for the thought, consideration and genuine good faith that went into the consideration and passage of this bill. Nonetheless, I believe this bill has the potential to inappropriately squelch the voice of taxpaying citizens, even with respect to matters that concern their own local communities, and therefore I am returning Bill No. 000629 as disapproved. Attached please find a copy of a proposed bill which I offer for your consideration as a first step in striking an
appropriate equitable balance in the distribution of both the rights and burdens associated with this fundamental component of the democratic process.
Respectfully submitted,
John F. Street
Mayor
President of City Council
Members of City Council
October 18, 2001
Page 4
1
Actions
- Oct. 18, 2001: READ by CITY COUNCIL
Bills mentioned in this legislation
What's your opinion?
Log in to comment on the legislation.
Last action: Oct. 18, 2001
Status: PLACED ON FILE
(No supporter provided)