I voted no because I have sources that I trust that said this is a bad idea. However I am still having trouble understanding what this is. Is someone able to eli5?
My understanding is it entitles RCOs, recognized community organizations that serve to oppose construction, to legal representation funded by city tax money in the event the RCO gets sued.
Developers can target RCOs with frivolous lawsuits to waste time and money. RCOs pick a lot of stupid fights in the name of a nimby minority by stalling zoning changes with demands that can get pretty absurd. The problem is that this change would allow RCOs to appeal decisions almost infinitely, giving them effective veto power over construction
> recognized community organizations that serve to oppose construction
Can you get a source on this one? It's a pretty popular narrative I keep seeing go around, but I don't think it's actually based on anything. My understanding is that often RCOs push developers for equitable building and for actually following through on things like affordable units when getting things like zoning variances. Are there instances of RCOs blanket "opposing construction"?
Btw, I voted no for this bill, because even if I don't agree with the narrative around RCOs, I'm still not interested in having the city fund endless lawsuits they might get wrapped up in.
[Here's](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/1/19/zoning-regulations-are-choking-philadelphias-art-scene) one about an RCO opposing a structure on the grounds that it was 20 feet too tall. The RCO incidentally caused the destruction of a lovely mosaic that the developer was trying to preserve while keeping the building fiscally sound
[This](https://whyy.org/articles/zoning-board-approves-apartment-complex-in-west-philly-despite-gauthier-opposition/) one opposed a large development with a bunch of affordable units, with a majority of members seemingly opposing any development out of some misguided fear of gentrification
[Here](https://whyy.org/articles/why-is-west-philly-trading-70-affordable-homes-for-a-parking-lot/) an RCO removed a third of possible units due to height restrictions and parking requirements
I'm not going to claim that RCOs have never done anything good, they certainly should be advocating for affordable units, quality attractive buildings, and street level beautification. But too often the complaints I hear from them are about "preserving neighborhood character", with other "equitable" demands acting as a method to make development more expensive
Thank you for those sources, I will look into them. I'm more more concerned with the lack of governance and transparency of RCOs than that they're all working to fight development. Even in that second link it looks like there were several RCOs at play, some pushing for the development and other pushing against it.
An RCO can’t reflect their neighborhoods wishes if it is silenced by a lawsuit and forced to shut down like Old City RCO. Voting no means that RCOs who give communities a voice can easily be silenced by lawsuits.
Also there may be fewer lawsuits if big developers knew that the city is backing the community. Then we can actually hear what the community wants. RCOs simply let the community know what development is happening in advance so they have time to share their opinions
Greater Busleton Civic League is denying good jobs in the northeast. They are A LOT more harmful than "letting people know what happens". It's an avenue for disgruntled neighbors to stunt the development of the city for years to come, and I live in busleton so miss me with community concerns bullshit.
That’s a good argument but I don’t think that would be the result. Most working people don’t have the time so retired Boomers (sadly, I am one) will run the show and often those are the people who want ZERO change. And that’s not good for a community either.
> It would give community organizations a blank check to fight every proposed development project, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the legal bills
Basically whenever someone wants to build something, a community org will now be able
to hire a fancy law firm to try to stop it. Then you as a taxpayer get the joy of paying that law firm’s bill.
Voting yes is essentially paying to stop developing in the city.
But the ordinance seems to be saying that the city would pay the RCO's legal bill when the RCO is sued by developers; not when the RCO is the one doing the suing.
I don't understand how this comment with patently incorrect information is upvoted to 65 upvotes. The city will not fund filing lawsuits under this ordinance, only when the RCO is a defendant getting sued. I wish people would be smarter about subscribing to narratives around how shit works in this city.
RCOs sometimes get dragged into legal battles for participating in zoning variance process, question is asking if the city should set up a system to pay to defend/protect them in those cases.
The city should set up an arbitration system between developers and RCOs to shield the RCOs from SLAPP lawsuits and other legal shenanigans as opposed to paying for one side of useless litigation
Fucking finally someone actually offered a good solution instead of slinging mud at RCOs. Everyone parroting anti-RCO narrative in this thread probably also parroted John Oliver's anti-SLAPP talking points in other threads. If you have a good reason to oppose an RCO I'm all for it, but jesus this thread reeks of "someone told me I shouldn't like this".
It’s exactly this. RCOs do Council’s dirty work for them, so it makes sense that Council would move to shield them. Everything about the RCO process stinks.
Dude you’re allowed to participate in RCOs. They are a democratic channel for you to have a say in your neighborhood. If you don’t like them you don’t have to take away the voice of everyone else.
The democratic channel for me to have a say is in my local elections. That's literally the codified process. My address exists in one State rep district, one council district, one ward, and one division. The boundaries for these divisions are fixed and do not overlap. I get mailers from my state reps and councilperson in my mailbox delivered by government officials. I get emails from my District ward leader updating me on upcoming meetings and events. My block captain reminds everyone to vote, updates the voting location if it changes, and organizes our block cleaning activities with the City. Each of these activities are advertised, organized, and everyone is informed and included. If I'm unhappy with any of these people or the actions of their office, I know who to talk to, and there are elections where I can reward or punish their actions at the ballot box if I choose.
I have never, not once, ever heard or spoken to any of the RCOs that supposedly represent my neighborhood, of which there are six with overlapping boundaries and areas. I have never received an email nor received any mail from them inviting me to participate. I have never been asked my opinion, asked to complete a survey, invited to a meeting, nor invited to cast a vote in their organizational elections, if they even have them. I don't know their agenda, who runs them, or where their offices are located, or who funds their activities.
The RCO process is a sham and a channel for special interests to wield influence outside of the proper democratic processes. Council has intensely atomized and obfuscated this process because it makes it easier for them to influence the system without having them to put their name on the outcome. We have a democratic channel already; RCOs operate outside of that channel and the entire system needs to be dismantled.
What I can't understand, and this gets me somewhat upset, is WHY the weird language?
It's SO HARD to understand WTF they're even talking about.
I've seen this before on ballot questions. A-hole lawyerly phrasing that seems deliberately intended to confuse people.
I mean LOOK AT IT:
Should the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended
to require the City to provide for the indemnification
and defense of registered community organizations in
connection with claims made against them arising
directly out of their lawful participation in the
City’s zoning variance process?
I already voted by mail and tossed it but I thought there was an insert with plain language translations when there’s ballot initiatives? I agree the legalese is too confusing.
I understand the point you're making, but if the people voting on the question don't understand the question then that is a bigger problem. A plain language translation should be available -- just note that it's paraphrased.
The *law* should be written like that. The *ballot question* shouldn't. People can't be expected to cast an informed vote if it's not written in a way the average person can understand.
>... if the ballot question is overly simplistic, then there's ambiguity to allow the final law to be written inconsistent with how voters understood the simple ballot language
And if the ballot question is confusing, many people will get the wrong idea and vote (or not vote) against their own interests. The question could have been phrased better and used better wording while being "specific enough".
The committee of 70 has a nice "translation" on [their website](https://seventy.org/2024-voter-guide/2024-primary-ballot-question-philadelphia). It's 4 paragraphs and includes the original legal jibberish as the first paragraph.
>**Ballot Question**: Should the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to require the City to provide for the indemnification and defense of registered community organizations in connection with claims made against them arising directly out of their lawful participation in the City’s zoning variance process?
>**Plain English Statement:** Rules about how land and buildings can be used and built are called zoning. Registered community organizations, or “RCOs,” are community groups that provide input on how those zoning rules are applied in their communities. For example, RCOs provide input when a landowner requests an exception from standard zoning rules, called a variance. Sometimes lawsuits are brought against RCOs related to their participation in the variance request process, which can be costly and limit community input.
>If you vote “yes” on this ballot question, that means you approve of requiring the City to devise a system to help RCOs pay for the costs of defending against such lawsuits, which may include the costs associated with losing or settling the lawsuits.
>If you vote “no” on this ballot question, that means you do not want to require the city to devise a system to help RCOs pay for the costs of defending against such lawsuits, which may include the costs associated with losing or settling the lawsuits.
But it's not the law. It's a ballot question for the general public. As such, it smells like intentional obfuscation to me.
I suppose they could have written it in Latin, Would that be even better from a lawyer point of view?
The only thing confusing is the phrase “lawful participation in the City’s zoning process”. It implies the RCOs are being “wrongfully” sued by doing something “lawful”, and it was designed to elicit a “yes” vote from the casual reader who isn’t familiar with the issue. And it was absolutely purposefully drafted that way.
It was interesting and maybe I’ve just missed it but this was the first time on the voting machine that I saw the option to see the plain language text when I clicked see the full thing-that should be better labeled but I was just glad it was there at all
All legal text is like that and it annoys the hell out of me because it's basically a different language you have to have training to comprehend properly. Ballots are for everyone and the text should be required to be written at a grade school reading level rather than a law school one.
To honest this one isn't as bad as some others. In addition to the jargon and two-dollar vocabulary words, some of these have used double-negatives and far too many clauses in ONE sentence.
If anything, the turgid legal wording should be referenced in explanatory flyers and articles that discuss the ballot question. The ballot question itself needs to be written plainly-- even if that means 3 or 4 extra sentences.
But if it is not precise, people get a very different meaning--and many may be upset when they didn't vote for what they thought they were.
It would take many paragraphs to break it down for everyone in super simple language.
I honestly can't decide who is worse: NIMBY's preventing legit development or wealthy developers doing whatever the F they want.
It really depends on the specifics. But if you think about it, getting sued is a pretty cynical way to shut-down an organization with very limited funds. I suppose one of these days a developer will sue the wrong obsessed RCO and end up paying through the nose when the RCO gets lawyered-up and fights back. In the meantime many more will just have to fold-up and hand-over the neighborhood.
I voted "no" because I was advised to, but I don't feel confident about it.
Except the "something" is usually super low quality and ugly, but absurdly priced "luxury" condos, the developer is usually a borderline or even outright criminal organization or individual, and the "NIMBYS" are usually just regular people that bought into a nice neighborhood and are commiting the unspeakable crime of wanting it to stay nice.
Almost any housing development is a good thing. What do you think happens when wealthy people move into those luxury places? The homes they came from are now empty and landlords are desperate to fill them…this is basic supply and demand economics now. You can’t generalize housing developers while claiming that “NIMBYs are all nice regular people who just want things to stay nice”. It’s exactly that selfish attitude that has perpetuated a housing crises across the entire country…
Do you think white flight and a mass exodus of residents are in our economic future? That's what "helped" to make that neighborhood cheap, disinvestment. We're on a long term trend towards recentralization of metro areas. Unless something drastic happens, affordability for most homes won't be a thing. I don't believe that trickle down housing helps the working and middle class as much as this subreddit thinks. I'm not against building more housing, but I don't believe the market is supply and demand, it's artificially inflated.
>I don't believe that trickle down housing helps the working and middle class as much as this subreddit thinks.
Thank you for putting into words something that I haven't been able to put my finger on for quite some time. I have leaned more pro development over the years, but something in the narrative still hasn't sat well with me, and this is exactly it.
Those are just words and feelings though, there’s no actual data this person is using to describe the situation. While market rate and luxury housing also should be built with more affordable constructions as well, the reality is it quite literally is a supply and demand question. this is an article written by an economist explaining this exact situation, and I highly encourage you to read it
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-your
Just like most of our economy, it's not simple supply and demand. Especially when corporations hold so much power in the housing market. It's artifically inflated and corporate profits are telling us that. That includes housing! For instance, Large developers can hold their priceshigh and wait it out, especially if they received a tax abatement. [Algorithms](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-estate-apartment-rent-price-setting-landlords-realpage-lawsuit-illegal-2023-11) have had an effect on pricing across the country as well. [PPP loan fraud](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/26/ppp-loan-fraud-drove-home-price-inflation-in-certain-markets.html) has also contributed spillover effects into the housing market. Unreported seller consession are also propping up the prices of homes, especially new constructions.
On a larger scale, even mobile home parks, once the cheapest non-subsidized housing in our country, are [being bought up by corporations](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/rents-spike-as-large-corporate-investors-buy-mobile-home-parks) and jacking the prices up. Additionally, speculative buying and house flipping is a huge contributor to skyrocketing prices of homes and has help to created another bubble that isn't purely supply and demand.
We certainly need more housing, but what we really need more is enforcement of the law and regulation of the market. And yes, high end and market rate housing should, in a perfect laissez-faire world, make housing cheaper. However, that's not the world we're currently living in. We're living in a corporate controlled hellspace instead!
You forget that a lot of Philly development historically is displacing low income people. Just a few weeks ago families were evicted from low income University City townhomes to make way for condos.
And each household got thousands of dollars in cash and the city got $3.5 million to build an affordable housing complex on that site. I agree that it's important to ensure that long-term residents aren't priced out of the city and its neighborhoods, but making sure that the land surrounding a major MFL station near a major job center stays low-to-mid density for eterntiy is just going to lead to young professionals buying up a slew of nearby rowhomes and vacant land and renovating them, bringing up prices and displacing way more people in the long-term. There is no way to keep everyone in the exact same spot for eternity, but there are sensible compromises we can make in order to ensure that those displaced still have a place to go, hopefully not too far away. It's not realistic to say that all middle class and wealthy people should live and work in the suburbs while our city goes back to being disinvested and crumbling.
People will move to Philly. They will live in whatever housing stock is available. My millionaire aunt lives in a shitty apartment in NYC and puts her window AC unit in every year. They'll just live in what exists already if nothing new exists.
When you come across RCOs that say they don’t want a development because they don’t want a certain race moving in, they absolutely should be the ones who put up the funds if they get sued for racial discrimination.
So confident “no” vote on that one.
come to think of it, it's a strange law to even have on the books. i doubt it's even constitutional because indemnifying someone to that degree almost makes them a public agent, which these RCOs are not, and thus it could essentially circumvent due process.
As a separate, probably silly question, why is there a ballot question on primary voting day? Shouldn't that be on general election day? What if you're not registered for a party?
Because this is Darrell Clarkes last "Fuck You" to the City before he rides off to that corner store in the sky. Putting the question on the ballot for the primary and not the general means less voter turnout, which means less votes needed to get it to pass.
RCOs are orgs that give a voice to neighbors. they shouldn't be the only voice in a development decision, but it is something wild that developers are able to sue simply to put these orgs out of business and remove impediments to their projects
Yeah, having been to RCO meetings and seeing firsthand the total disregard developers have for neighborhoods makes this a tough call for me.
The RCOs are absolutely necessary. But if the developer thinks an RCO is out of line it should 100% get kicked to a city agency for review or something, anything other than RCO members having to pool resources.
I voted No. RCOs can do good but many are poorly run and do a poor job representing their neighborhood.
Making them more pseudo-governmental by funding their legal protection strikes me as a bad idea.
All RCOs are allowed to do is share info to the community and give the community a voice. Voting no just silences free speech.
Also YOU are allowed to participate in your community meetings and learn about developments, if an RCO exists. If you’re not a NIMBY, you can go and speak in favor.
RCOs simply give people a channel to have a voice in what happens in their cities. Our tax dollars SHOULD go to securing the few rights common people have in the face of billionaire developers and their expensive lawyers.
RCOs are often great for people with tons of time.
My local RCO doesn't publish meeting minutes, a charter, how their elections work or when the elections are, and in general does a poor job with transparency. They pressured our councilperson to successfully pass a restrictive overlay without consulting with another nearby RCO that also overlaps that likely would have objected.
While I'd like to have a relationship with an RCO where I can perhaps email someone my position or show up to the occasional meeting I don't want to routinely tune in to every zoning meeting and argue with every NIMBY.
>My local RCO doesn't publish meeting minutes, a charter, how their elections work or when the elections are, and in general does a poor job with transparency. They pressured our councilperson to successfully pass a restrictive overlay without consulting with another nearby RCO that also overlaps that likely would have objected.
This is exactly the problem! They're not representative nor responsive nor beholden to anybody but themselves. It is entirely anti-democratic, and seeing so many people parrot the pseudo-progressive hogwash that they "represent neighborhoods" when no one knows who they are or how they work because they not forced to share that information with the people they "represent" is insane.
Likewise, seeing everyone parrot the hogwash of "all they do is block development" is equally insane. I'm glad there are comments discussing the *real* issues with RCOs in this thread, I had been on the fence about them from previous threads where it was just all comments like I mentioned. I was pretty skeptical considering I didn't find any evidence of that being the case, but the anti-democratic/anti-transparent angle is something I can firmly stand behind.
Voted no.
The city should not be bankrolling lawsuits with self appointed NIMBYs who claim the power to represent people who didn't vote for them and have no way of removing them from power.
NIMBYs hold this city back and are driving up the cost of housing by blocking buildings over bullshit like not wanting competition over free street parking, or other bullshit like try to keep new people out of the city.
Fuck them.
I voted yes since I thought the language was clear. It was about protecting RCO's from being sued into oblivion. In the process an RCO's input is pretty largely considered but the ZBA always has the final say anyway. It doesn't sound like this amendment gives any further power than they already have, just gives them a layer of protection from ill-intended developers bearing grudges.
RCO's input are very important to construction projects. I encourage everyone to start to get involved in your local RCO to help your local community.
Edit: I work in architecture and we regularly present to both the RCO's and ZBA. The language was clear to me since I normally have to read legalese.
The reason I voted No was because this gives them city funding but without city oversight. If the city wants to officially involve them in the zoning process so much, they need official oversight and regulation.
WRONG, vote YES.
If you want your community to be able to fight huge conglomerate developers who want to turn your block into a construction zone for a year just to build their 12th ugly boxy luxury condo building, then you want to vote **YES**
Insane that Inquirer would suggest voting No, unless you realize they're owned by these interests.
I personally think "Yes" is the right take. RCOs don't necessarily have power to shut down development wholesale. It's just an organization that informs the community. Even if that community is full of NIMBYs, its still worth letting their voices be heard. But, developers have destroyed RCOs in the past with slap suits. There isn't even an RCO in center city anymore because of that! So, I'm voting "Yes" to avoid the slap suits.
I voted yes - RCOs do sometimes have anti building tendencies which is terrible. But the solution is to get good people on RCOs that are anti-NIMBY, not have it so developers have carte Blanche to sue RCOs and intimidate them into supporting big time developments that may not meet standards.
I voted yes. Philadelphia SHOULD ban lawsuits against the RCOs (like in other cities and states) but this acts as a stop-gap and paying for some legal fees may push the city to ban them in the future.
Big developers know that RCOs are volunteer organizations with next to no budget and have taken advantage of that by threatening legal action. (An example: [https://hallmonitor.org/did-the-city-of-philadelphia-turn-its-back-on-a-civic-group/](https://hallmonitor.org/did-the-city-of-philadelphia-turn-its-back-on-a-civic-group/) )
Community zoning meetings are the only place the neighborhood can weigh in with developers and try to block or make changes to plans that are bad for the neighborhood and approve good plans that simply don't meet our sometimes wacky zoning laws/maps.
Thank you for providing the first example of RCOs actually doing something instead of just saying 'they protect community!'
That example shows me they protect NIMBY interests, and voting No seems to be the way to go.
Until it’s your own backyard that you are looking to protect from a developer with large pockets. The neighborhood association will not be able to help you.
A vote for No is handing more power for wealthy developers to exert their will over the development process and sue your neighbors for voicing their opinion. I say this as someone very pro development and very anti parking-obsessed NIMBYs.
Let's be clear: RCOs have no official power in the zoning process but are deputized by L&I to convene public meetings and provide feedback on developments that the ZBA takes into consideration when making their decisions.
The ZBA is under no obligation to rule either way based on RCO vote results. In fact it is their legal duty to rule *solely on the basis of hardship*.
Even so, developers who propose projects with no hardship which the ZBA rightfully rules against can just sue your neighbors into submission and force the groups that also do volunteer parks beautification projects, street tree planting, and street cleanups out of existence.
If you want big projects to happen, the underlying zoning needs to be changed, and that's on city council. I don't get why people are so eager to throw their neighbors to the wolves when the balance of power will still remain in favor of developers.
Everything you just said reinforces arguments to vote NO. You described problems with the system at the moment, and identified where reforms need to happen. Putting taxpayers on the hook to cover RCO legal fees doesn't solve any of it.
Vote NO for sure.
Don’t know about other RCOs but I’ve been a regular attender at civic meetings since I’ve been in philly and most (not all) developers are lying deceitful condescending vultures. The RCOs are volunteers and resource poor citizens vying with well funded assholes. This is good legislation.
So your solution is no solution at all.
This solution is to throw a lifeline to neighborhood groups that the City has exposed to major legal liability, and maybe that incentivizes everyone to fix the broken process zoning so they're not in that position in the first place.
Have fun shining Mo Rushdy's shoes.
It’s a place of privilege for you to not be effected by developments. You likely aren’t going to be evicted from public housing because some asshole developer wants your previously undesirable block (see UC Townhomes). But other people are and might want to know about it beforehand and at least have a channel to protest.
RCOs don’t have much power but what they offer is democratic. All they can do is get info about developments in advance to share with the community and provide an opportunity for community to comment and talk to developers about their concerns. They are volunteer-run organisations and host meetings open to the public.
Democracy shouldn’t be silenced by billionaire developers and their fancy lawyers.
Not that it really matters because this shitty law passed, but you got everything backwards.
>It’s a place of privilege for you to not be effected by developments.
Quite the opposite. It's a place of privilege to be comfortable with the status quo, and happy to block new developments to bring more housing or jobs to an area.
NIMBY boomers love to block everything, and when housing gets in short supply, their home values surge. They profit from hurting the city and future generations. This pattern has been repeated all over cities in the US. Philadelphia has actually done a better job of allowing development and staying affordable. Unfortunately, we just took a step backwards.
>RCOs don’t have much power but what they offer is democratic.
RCOs are fundamentally undemocratic. They don't have to tell you when their meetings are. They don't have to hold meetings when normal people can attend. Some retirees can just set one up and claim they represent your area. Then they interfere with laws and rules put in place through actual democratic processes.
>All they can do is get info about developments in advance to share with the community and provide an opportunity for community to comment and talk to developers about their concerns. They are volunteer-run organisations and host meetings open to the public.
>Democracy shouldn’t be silenced by billionaire developers and their fancy lawyers.
If this was all they actually did, they couldn't even be sued. The instigator for all this is one RCO doing it's normal NIMBY bullshit. They gave feedback for a UPS development that met all the rules of the long standing zoning for the site. When they didn't get what they wanted, they appealed to the zoning board and common pleas court and were rejected. Then they took to the commonwealth court.
The developer rightly sued them back for frivolously abusing the court system to block a fully legal development. Now RCOs will be able to use *tax payer money* to abuse the court system to block development and hurt the city.
I’m honestly torn. Some development and affordable housing projects in particular are necessary for the greater good of the city, even if a particular neighborhood might not like it. But developers are driven by money alone, and they can plow into a neighborhood and residents could have no say or method to fight it.
Edit: grammar
In simpler terms: When a community organization participates legally in decisions about how land and buildings in the city can be used (like giving input on whether a variance should be allowed to permit something normally not permitted by zoning laws), should the city help protect and defend them if someone sues them because of their involvement? This change would help ensure that these organizations can participate in the zoning process without worrying about the cost of legal battles if they are sued.
I voted YES. For Northern Liberties Community neighborhood assoc. (NLNA)
Frivolous lawsuits against community groups are all too common and a very real problem. The NLNA has had to defend against them over the years, and these suits also typically name individual neighbors as well. At least one longtime Philly RCO had to shut down because of these suits. The NLNA believes it will be beneficial to the association and to all the neighbors who participate in the zoning process, if this ballot question passes.
Of course the Inquirer will post this opinion. They’ve been bought out by big developers so that newsworthy stories critical of them can be disappeared. https://twitter.com/apipennsylvania/status/1699900778201354612?s=20
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2023/09/11/philadelphia-inquirer-deletes-article-critical-of-controversial-sixers-arena/
I'm more of a YIMBY than a NIMBY but I still voted yes on this one because suing is not the solution. Why even have the feedback process if it can be simply bypassed by the rich? If RCOs have too much veto power, regulations should instead be changed to limit that power, and then they would not be able to enforce unreasonable demands even with this support but would be able to shut down frivolous, undemocratic lawsuits.
Vote yes. The city should protect these community orgs from claims during variance process. The community orgs represent the residents of these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are compelled by the city to comply, and shouldn’t be priced out and squeezed by private capital interests with bottomless coffers through a protracted process for lack of legal services. The city should protect its own.
They don't represent the members of the community they claim to. They're self appointed and many are notorious at blocking out anyone they don't like from participating in the process.
The city should not be bankrolling lawsuits with self appointed representatives of an arbitrary area that were never elected or even able to held accountable by the very people they claim to represent.
For those not aware and thinking of voting "yes", this was brought on because OCF( shitty builder, but thats not the point)
Wanted to build apartments on yorktown neighborhood (think 13th and girard area).
he had the RIGHT to do it by zoning, and not only that, the only way to stop unaffordable housing is to INCREASE SUPPLY...like oh idk building more.
[But darryl the cockroach clark and his goonies held it up in ZBA, and got sued](https://www.phillytrib.com/news/local_news/developer-sues-council-president-over-development-residents-oppose/article_07edcc11-661c-5bfb-8a9f-07d2b7230490.html)
"the community had opposed the project, along with several apartment buildings surrounding the community because they are not affordable for most neighborhood residents, change its character and lack sufficient parking." is the most Philly RCO complaint ever. First the housing isn't cheap enough for the people who already live nearby, and then the developer has to make it more expensive by including more parking, too.
What a joke.
> First the housing isn't cheap enough for the people who already live nearby, and then the developer has to make it more expensive by including more parking, too.
if you know anything about philly realestate, these are just poverty pimps hawking any shit that sticks until they get their ~~bribes~~ donations for their totally legit charity.
Darryl the cockroach clark is the biggest poverty pimp in philly, are you that surprised his cronies will try to eliminate housing?
Allow development but make the developers contribute to the community. Transit station access, streetscape improvements, parks and plazas, street trees, etc. And make their stuff be open after 5 PM! Glaring at you, Comcast!
How dare you, mere citizen, have the temerity to oppose a development project in your neighborhood? We will sue you to into oblivion! Something is wrong with you if you can't bear the constant noise, 24/7, from that Bitcoin mining facility (Granburg, TX). Stop complaining your lungs hurt - EV & lithium battery plants have fires all the time! (numerous fires at numerous locations). We'll use the courts to force you to sell - we are rich and we are building a development here on your land whether you like it or not! (Solano County, California). Profit uber Alles!
I voted yes. Theres a reason RCOs exist, and majority of the time they don’t have the financial resources to legally compete with developers. By voting no, you are providing developers the power to steamroll over RCOs and members of the community and build shit AGAINST the will of the community. Our city will look like NYC in 5 years if we allowed developers to have their way. Personally, I don’t think that’s a good thing.
"Our city will look like NYC in 5 years if we allowed developers to have their way."
Exactly what someone who votes yes on this would say. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but Philly is still 25% below its peak population and the poorest big city in the country - I assure you nothing could make us into NYC anytime soon.
Affordability aside, how would being more like NYC even make us worse? It's incredibly safe, diverse, has the country’s best transit, better schools, many employers, and has the money to continuously invest in projects that improve QoL for its residents. And blocking development will make Philly LESS affordable btw.
bro if you like high rises and shitty condos so bad why don’t you move to NYC? Below 25% peak population? To whose standards? NYC is horrible, overpriced apartments, live in a closet for 2200 a month, you can’t see the sky, no backyards, pollution is horrible, never can own a home, it’s a rat race, etc.. NYC a shithole of a city. Just look at Fairmount, grays ferry, and Bella vista now. 4-5 unit condo-rowhome bullshits being mass built. Philadelphians are losing the opportunity to own homes at an exorbitant rate, but you just want us to hand over the legal ability to convert our city into a massive apartment complex? No thanks.
What? Philly is 25% below **its** peak population of over 2 million in 1950. I am saying we have plenty of room to grow, and the city needs to grow its tax base. Also Grays Ferry is not overbuilt... at all. I chose Philly over NYC because I wanted to buy a home but there is a middle ground between being the poorest big city in the country and the richest.
We aren't "handing over the legal ability to convert our city into a massive apartment complex" by keeping things how they are now. Stating that we could become NYC in 5 years (or 20) is just laughable. North Philly has endless vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. We can't even fill in Market Street in Center City. There's no reason to further empower NIMBYs.
As a member of an RCO in North-ish Philly, and after hearing some of the racist/classist exchanges from RCO members when making decisions (I use neither of those terms lightly), you absolutely should vote NO on this.
Far too often are NIMBYs running the ship and it sometimes feels like the suburbs even though we're in the middle of a metropolis... because, again, these decisions are made with undertones of exclusion that frankly should sometimes result in lawsuits with those making said decisions being held accountable.
Just my two cents. 🙃
"Yes" won.
Hard to say what the impact will be. Certainly ROC's get more protection.
On the positive side, at least developers will think twice about using lawsuits to silence or neutralize community opposition.
I am on the fence about this one. I don't think a crazy ROC group will get very far with or without this. So it's not like a carte-blanche for NIMBY's.
It COULD BE very helpful to ROC's that have legit problems with a variance. Depending on what your definition of "legit" is.
I voted no because I have sources that I trust that said this is a bad idea. However I am still having trouble understanding what this is. Is someone able to eli5?
My understanding is it entitles RCOs, recognized community organizations that serve to oppose construction, to legal representation funded by city tax money in the event the RCO gets sued. Developers can target RCOs with frivolous lawsuits to waste time and money. RCOs pick a lot of stupid fights in the name of a nimby minority by stalling zoning changes with demands that can get pretty absurd. The problem is that this change would allow RCOs to appeal decisions almost infinitely, giving them effective veto power over construction
This is how the plaintext read to me. I also thought about how dumb it is utilizing city funds for RCOs in the event of lawsuits
> recognized community organizations that serve to oppose construction Can you get a source on this one? It's a pretty popular narrative I keep seeing go around, but I don't think it's actually based on anything. My understanding is that often RCOs push developers for equitable building and for actually following through on things like affordable units when getting things like zoning variances. Are there instances of RCOs blanket "opposing construction"? Btw, I voted no for this bill, because even if I don't agree with the narrative around RCOs, I'm still not interested in having the city fund endless lawsuits they might get wrapped up in.
[Here's](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/1/19/zoning-regulations-are-choking-philadelphias-art-scene) one about an RCO opposing a structure on the grounds that it was 20 feet too tall. The RCO incidentally caused the destruction of a lovely mosaic that the developer was trying to preserve while keeping the building fiscally sound [This](https://whyy.org/articles/zoning-board-approves-apartment-complex-in-west-philly-despite-gauthier-opposition/) one opposed a large development with a bunch of affordable units, with a majority of members seemingly opposing any development out of some misguided fear of gentrification [Here](https://whyy.org/articles/why-is-west-philly-trading-70-affordable-homes-for-a-parking-lot/) an RCO removed a third of possible units due to height restrictions and parking requirements I'm not going to claim that RCOs have never done anything good, they certainly should be advocating for affordable units, quality attractive buildings, and street level beautification. But too often the complaints I hear from them are about "preserving neighborhood character", with other "equitable" demands acting as a method to make development more expensive
Thank you for those sources, I will look into them. I'm more more concerned with the lack of governance and transparency of RCOs than that they're all working to fight development. Even in that second link it looks like there were several RCOs at play, some pushing for the development and other pushing against it.
I voted no because I didn’t want bad RCOs being protected. I appreciate their importance but they also need to reflect their neighborhood’s wishes.
I voted no because I didn’t understand the question.
An RCO can’t reflect their neighborhoods wishes if it is silenced by a lawsuit and forced to shut down like Old City RCO. Voting no means that RCOs who give communities a voice can easily be silenced by lawsuits. Also there may be fewer lawsuits if big developers knew that the city is backing the community. Then we can actually hear what the community wants. RCOs simply let the community know what development is happening in advance so they have time to share their opinions
On the other hand, RCOs may feel less inclined to play by the rules if the City foots the bill for their mistakes.
Greater Busleton Civic League is denying good jobs in the northeast. They are A LOT more harmful than "letting people know what happens". It's an avenue for disgruntled neighbors to stunt the development of the city for years to come, and I live in busleton so miss me with community concerns bullshit.
Old city RCO deserved to be shut down, only thing is the RCO that replaced it is just as bad imo
there's an argument to be made that if RCOs had less quazi and more recognized power, then people would actual show up, vote, attend and so forth.
That’s a good argument but I don’t think that would be the result. Most working people don’t have the time so retired Boomers (sadly, I am one) will run the show and often those are the people who want ZERO change. And that’s not good for a community either.
> It would give community organizations a blank check to fight every proposed development project, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the legal bills Basically whenever someone wants to build something, a community org will now be able to hire a fancy law firm to try to stop it. Then you as a taxpayer get the joy of paying that law firm’s bill. Voting yes is essentially paying to stop developing in the city.
But the ordinance seems to be saying that the city would pay the RCO's legal bill when the RCO is sued by developers; not when the RCO is the one doing the suing.
This is blatantly wrong. The money can only be used for indemnification and defense.
I don't understand how this comment with patently incorrect information is upvoted to 65 upvotes. The city will not fund filing lawsuits under this ordinance, only when the RCO is a defendant getting sued. I wish people would be smarter about subscribing to narratives around how shit works in this city.
RCOs sometimes get dragged into legal battles for participating in zoning variance process, question is asking if the city should set up a system to pay to defend/protect them in those cases.
The city should set up an arbitration system between developers and RCOs to shield the RCOs from SLAPP lawsuits and other legal shenanigans as opposed to paying for one side of useless litigation
This. Stop feeding the damn lawyers and make the broken process make more sense.
Fucking finally someone actually offered a good solution instead of slinging mud at RCOs. Everyone parroting anti-RCO narrative in this thread probably also parroted John Oliver's anti-SLAPP talking points in other threads. If you have a good reason to oppose an RCO I'm all for it, but jesus this thread reeks of "someone told me I shouldn't like this".
It lets city council have a slush fund to sue the city when the ZBA allows a variance without kissing council's ring.
It’s exactly this. RCOs do Council’s dirty work for them, so it makes sense that Council would move to shield them. Everything about the RCO process stinks.
Dude you’re allowed to participate in RCOs. They are a democratic channel for you to have a say in your neighborhood. If you don’t like them you don’t have to take away the voice of everyone else.
The democratic channel for me to have a say is in my local elections. That's literally the codified process. My address exists in one State rep district, one council district, one ward, and one division. The boundaries for these divisions are fixed and do not overlap. I get mailers from my state reps and councilperson in my mailbox delivered by government officials. I get emails from my District ward leader updating me on upcoming meetings and events. My block captain reminds everyone to vote, updates the voting location if it changes, and organizes our block cleaning activities with the City. Each of these activities are advertised, organized, and everyone is informed and included. If I'm unhappy with any of these people or the actions of their office, I know who to talk to, and there are elections where I can reward or punish their actions at the ballot box if I choose. I have never, not once, ever heard or spoken to any of the RCOs that supposedly represent my neighborhood, of which there are six with overlapping boundaries and areas. I have never received an email nor received any mail from them inviting me to participate. I have never been asked my opinion, asked to complete a survey, invited to a meeting, nor invited to cast a vote in their organizational elections, if they even have them. I don't know their agenda, who runs them, or where their offices are located, or who funds their activities. The RCO process is a sham and a channel for special interests to wield influence outside of the proper democratic processes. Council has intensely atomized and obfuscated this process because it makes it easier for them to influence the system without having them to put their name on the outcome. We have a democratic channel already; RCOs operate outside of that channel and the entire system needs to be dismantled.
[удалено]
Rule 1: Please refrain from personal attacks, and keep discussion civil.
What I can't understand, and this gets me somewhat upset, is WHY the weird language? It's SO HARD to understand WTF they're even talking about. I've seen this before on ballot questions. A-hole lawyerly phrasing that seems deliberately intended to confuse people. I mean LOOK AT IT: Should the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to require the City to provide for the indemnification and defense of registered community organizations in connection with claims made against them arising directly out of their lawful participation in the City’s zoning variance process?
I already voted by mail and tossed it but I thought there was an insert with plain language translations when there’s ballot initiatives? I agree the legalese is too confusing.
Council of 70 offers the plain language versions. Ill link it once I find it
[Committee of 70 Ballot Questions](https://seventy.org/2024-voter-guide/2024-primary-ballot-question-philadelphia)
Yes, there was an insert did a better job of explaining the initiative.
[удалено]
I understand the point you're making, but if the people voting on the question don't understand the question then that is a bigger problem. A plain language translation should be available -- just note that it's paraphrased.
The *law* should be written like that. The *ballot question* shouldn't. People can't be expected to cast an informed vote if it's not written in a way the average person can understand.
[удалено]
>... if the ballot question is overly simplistic, then there's ambiguity to allow the final law to be written inconsistent with how voters understood the simple ballot language And if the ballot question is confusing, many people will get the wrong idea and vote (or not vote) against their own interests. The question could have been phrased better and used better wording while being "specific enough".
[удалено]
The committee of 70 has a nice "translation" on [their website](https://seventy.org/2024-voter-guide/2024-primary-ballot-question-philadelphia). It's 4 paragraphs and includes the original legal jibberish as the first paragraph. >**Ballot Question**: Should the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to require the City to provide for the indemnification and defense of registered community organizations in connection with claims made against them arising directly out of their lawful participation in the City’s zoning variance process? >**Plain English Statement:** Rules about how land and buildings can be used and built are called zoning. Registered community organizations, or “RCOs,” are community groups that provide input on how those zoning rules are applied in their communities. For example, RCOs provide input when a landowner requests an exception from standard zoning rules, called a variance. Sometimes lawsuits are brought against RCOs related to their participation in the variance request process, which can be costly and limit community input. >If you vote “yes” on this ballot question, that means you approve of requiring the City to devise a system to help RCOs pay for the costs of defending against such lawsuits, which may include the costs associated with losing or settling the lawsuits. >If you vote “no” on this ballot question, that means you do not want to require the city to devise a system to help RCOs pay for the costs of defending against such lawsuits, which may include the costs associated with losing or settling the lawsuits.
This would have been a great advertisement in local news broadcasts.
This was included in a printout that came with mail in ballots, was this not available to people voting in person?
I voted in person and I did not receive this
But it's not the law. It's a ballot question for the general public. As such, it smells like intentional obfuscation to me. I suppose they could have written it in Latin, Would that be even better from a lawyer point of view?
> Writing laws in colloquial English is how you get giant loopholes. It's almost as if laws shouldn't be written to have giant loopholes...
The only thing confusing is the phrase “lawful participation in the City’s zoning process”. It implies the RCOs are being “wrongfully” sued by doing something “lawful”, and it was designed to elicit a “yes” vote from the casual reader who isn’t familiar with the issue. And it was absolutely purposefully drafted that way.
It was interesting and maybe I’ve just missed it but this was the first time on the voting machine that I saw the option to see the plain language text when I clicked see the full thing-that should be better labeled but I was just glad it was there at all
All legal text is like that and it annoys the hell out of me because it's basically a different language you have to have training to comprehend properly. Ballots are for everyone and the text should be required to be written at a grade school reading level rather than a law school one.
To honest this one isn't as bad as some others. In addition to the jargon and two-dollar vocabulary words, some of these have used double-negatives and far too many clauses in ONE sentence. If anything, the turgid legal wording should be referenced in explanatory flyers and articles that discuss the ballot question. The ballot question itself needs to be written plainly-- even if that means 3 or 4 extra sentences.
But if it is not precise, people get a very different meaning--and many may be upset when they didn't vote for what they thought they were. It would take many paragraphs to break it down for everyone in super simple language.
So write some paragraphs?
I honestly can't decide who is worse: NIMBY's preventing legit development or wealthy developers doing whatever the F they want. It really depends on the specifics. But if you think about it, getting sued is a pretty cynical way to shut-down an organization with very limited funds. I suppose one of these days a developer will sue the wrong obsessed RCO and end up paying through the nose when the RCO gets lawyered-up and fights back. In the meantime many more will just have to fold-up and hand-over the neighborhood. I voted "no" because I was advised to, but I don't feel confident about it.
The NIMBYs are worse. At least the developer is building something, NIMBYs just collecting home equity or raising rents
Except the "something" is usually super low quality and ugly, but absurdly priced "luxury" condos, the developer is usually a borderline or even outright criminal organization or individual, and the "NIMBYS" are usually just regular people that bought into a nice neighborhood and are commiting the unspeakable crime of wanting it to stay nice.
Almost any housing development is a good thing. What do you think happens when wealthy people move into those luxury places? The homes they came from are now empty and landlords are desperate to fill them…this is basic supply and demand economics now. You can’t generalize housing developers while claiming that “NIMBYs are all nice regular people who just want things to stay nice”. It’s exactly that selfish attitude that has perpetuated a housing crises across the entire country…
Middle class people still won't be able to afford the old homes of the wealthy.
I mean West Philly is an example of a affluent suburb that was vacated and then immensely affordable for decades.
Do you think white flight and a mass exodus of residents are in our economic future? That's what "helped" to make that neighborhood cheap, disinvestment. We're on a long term trend towards recentralization of metro areas. Unless something drastic happens, affordability for most homes won't be a thing. I don't believe that trickle down housing helps the working and middle class as much as this subreddit thinks. I'm not against building more housing, but I don't believe the market is supply and demand, it's artificially inflated.
>I don't believe that trickle down housing helps the working and middle class as much as this subreddit thinks. Thank you for putting into words something that I haven't been able to put my finger on for quite some time. I have leaned more pro development over the years, but something in the narrative still hasn't sat well with me, and this is exactly it.
Those are just words and feelings though, there’s no actual data this person is using to describe the situation. While market rate and luxury housing also should be built with more affordable constructions as well, the reality is it quite literally is a supply and demand question. this is an article written by an economist explaining this exact situation, and I highly encourage you to read it https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-your
Just like most of our economy, it's not simple supply and demand. Especially when corporations hold so much power in the housing market. It's artifically inflated and corporate profits are telling us that. That includes housing! For instance, Large developers can hold their priceshigh and wait it out, especially if they received a tax abatement. [Algorithms](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-estate-apartment-rent-price-setting-landlords-realpage-lawsuit-illegal-2023-11) have had an effect on pricing across the country as well. [PPP loan fraud](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/26/ppp-loan-fraud-drove-home-price-inflation-in-certain-markets.html) has also contributed spillover effects into the housing market. Unreported seller consession are also propping up the prices of homes, especially new constructions. On a larger scale, even mobile home parks, once the cheapest non-subsidized housing in our country, are [being bought up by corporations](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/rents-spike-as-large-corporate-investors-buy-mobile-home-parks) and jacking the prices up. Additionally, speculative buying and house flipping is a huge contributor to skyrocketing prices of homes and has help to created another bubble that isn't purely supply and demand. We certainly need more housing, but what we really need more is enforcement of the law and regulation of the market. And yes, high end and market rate housing should, in a perfect laissez-faire world, make housing cheaper. However, that's not the world we're currently living in. We're living in a corporate controlled hellspace instead!
In my experience, the people who whine about "NIMBYs" are the ones who aren't having shit put in their neighborhoods.
You forget that a lot of Philly development historically is displacing low income people. Just a few weeks ago families were evicted from low income University City townhomes to make way for condos.
And each household got thousands of dollars in cash and the city got $3.5 million to build an affordable housing complex on that site. I agree that it's important to ensure that long-term residents aren't priced out of the city and its neighborhoods, but making sure that the land surrounding a major MFL station near a major job center stays low-to-mid density for eterntiy is just going to lead to young professionals buying up a slew of nearby rowhomes and vacant land and renovating them, bringing up prices and displacing way more people in the long-term. There is no way to keep everyone in the exact same spot for eternity, but there are sensible compromises we can make in order to ensure that those displaced still have a place to go, hopefully not too far away. It's not realistic to say that all middle class and wealthy people should live and work in the suburbs while our city goes back to being disinvested and crumbling.
People will move to Philly. They will live in whatever housing stock is available. My millionaire aunt lives in a shitty apartment in NYC and puts her window AC unit in every year. They'll just live in what exists already if nothing new exists.
When you come across RCOs that say they don’t want a development because they don’t want a certain race moving in, they absolutely should be the ones who put up the funds if they get sued for racial discrimination. So confident “no” vote on that one.
Only the lawyers win. Set up another process though the city or something, but stop feeding the lawyers.
come to think of it, it's a strange law to even have on the books. i doubt it's even constitutional because indemnifying someone to that degree almost makes them a public agent, which these RCOs are not, and thus it could essentially circumvent due process.
Agree, It's a bad idea all around, you don't have to "hate" RCOs or developers as the bad guys to understand this is just not a good idea overall.
Not showing up to vote is how awful legislation gets passed, and is how awful candidates win elections.
The democratic sample ballot they handed out recommended voting YES, so i dont feel great about it
As a separate, probably silly question, why is there a ballot question on primary voting day? Shouldn't that be on general election day? What if you're not registered for a party?
a person not registered can always vote on the ballot questions.
Because this is Darrell Clarkes last "Fuck You" to the City before he rides off to that corner store in the sky. Putting the question on the ballot for the primary and not the general means less voter turnout, which means less votes needed to get it to pass.
Of course this passed. "Throw kittens in a woodchipper in Dilworth plaza" would pass if it made it onto a Philadelphia ballot.
It's kind of insane that developers can sue RCOs at all tbh. This may be a shitty bandaid but it's the system that sucks.
RCOs are orgs that give a voice to neighbors. they shouldn't be the only voice in a development decision, but it is something wild that developers are able to sue simply to put these orgs out of business and remove impediments to their projects
Yeah, having been to RCO meetings and seeing firsthand the total disregard developers have for neighborhoods makes this a tough call for me. The RCOs are absolutely necessary. But if the developer thinks an RCO is out of line it should 100% get kicked to a city agency for review or something, anything other than RCO members having to pool resources.
They have standing, so they can sue.
I voted No. RCOs can do good but many are poorly run and do a poor job representing their neighborhood. Making them more pseudo-governmental by funding their legal protection strikes me as a bad idea.
All RCOs are allowed to do is share info to the community and give the community a voice. Voting no just silences free speech. Also YOU are allowed to participate in your community meetings and learn about developments, if an RCO exists. If you’re not a NIMBY, you can go and speak in favor. RCOs simply give people a channel to have a voice in what happens in their cities. Our tax dollars SHOULD go to securing the few rights common people have in the face of billionaire developers and their expensive lawyers.
RCOs are often great for people with tons of time. My local RCO doesn't publish meeting minutes, a charter, how their elections work or when the elections are, and in general does a poor job with transparency. They pressured our councilperson to successfully pass a restrictive overlay without consulting with another nearby RCO that also overlaps that likely would have objected. While I'd like to have a relationship with an RCO where I can perhaps email someone my position or show up to the occasional meeting I don't want to routinely tune in to every zoning meeting and argue with every NIMBY.
>My local RCO doesn't publish meeting minutes, a charter, how their elections work or when the elections are, and in general does a poor job with transparency. They pressured our councilperson to successfully pass a restrictive overlay without consulting with another nearby RCO that also overlaps that likely would have objected. This is exactly the problem! They're not representative nor responsive nor beholden to anybody but themselves. It is entirely anti-democratic, and seeing so many people parrot the pseudo-progressive hogwash that they "represent neighborhoods" when no one knows who they are or how they work because they not forced to share that information with the people they "represent" is insane.
Likewise, seeing everyone parrot the hogwash of "all they do is block development" is equally insane. I'm glad there are comments discussing the *real* issues with RCOs in this thread, I had been on the fence about them from previous threads where it was just all comments like I mentioned. I was pretty skeptical considering I didn't find any evidence of that being the case, but the anti-democratic/anti-transparent angle is something I can firmly stand behind.
Brewerytown Sharswood! Brewerytown Sharswood! I've been trying to get a copy of the bylaws for 6 months now!
Voted no. The city should not be bankrolling lawsuits with self appointed NIMBYs who claim the power to represent people who didn't vote for them and have no way of removing them from power. NIMBYs hold this city back and are driving up the cost of housing by blocking buildings over bullshit like not wanting competition over free street parking, or other bullshit like try to keep new people out of the city. Fuck them.
I voted yes since I thought the language was clear. It was about protecting RCO's from being sued into oblivion. In the process an RCO's input is pretty largely considered but the ZBA always has the final say anyway. It doesn't sound like this amendment gives any further power than they already have, just gives them a layer of protection from ill-intended developers bearing grudges. RCO's input are very important to construction projects. I encourage everyone to start to get involved in your local RCO to help your local community. Edit: I work in architecture and we regularly present to both the RCO's and ZBA. The language was clear to me since I normally have to read legalese.
The reason I voted No was because this gives them city funding but without city oversight. If the city wants to officially involve them in the zoning process so much, they need official oversight and regulation.
Full government funding for NIMBYs seems bad
I voted yes because for some reason Philadelphia developers in particular seem to be the scum of the earth.
WRONG, vote YES. If you want your community to be able to fight huge conglomerate developers who want to turn your block into a construction zone for a year just to build their 12th ugly boxy luxury condo building, then you want to vote **YES** Insane that Inquirer would suggest voting No, unless you realize they're owned by these interests.
I personally think "Yes" is the right take. RCOs don't necessarily have power to shut down development wholesale. It's just an organization that informs the community. Even if that community is full of NIMBYs, its still worth letting their voices be heard. But, developers have destroyed RCOs in the past with slap suits. There isn't even an RCO in center city anymore because of that! So, I'm voting "Yes" to avoid the slap suits.
I voted yes - RCOs do sometimes have anti building tendencies which is terrible. But the solution is to get good people on RCOs that are anti-NIMBY, not have it so developers have carte Blanche to sue RCOs and intimidate them into supporting big time developments that may not meet standards.
I voted yes. Philadelphia SHOULD ban lawsuits against the RCOs (like in other cities and states) but this acts as a stop-gap and paying for some legal fees may push the city to ban them in the future. Big developers know that RCOs are volunteer organizations with next to no budget and have taken advantage of that by threatening legal action. (An example: [https://hallmonitor.org/did-the-city-of-philadelphia-turn-its-back-on-a-civic-group/](https://hallmonitor.org/did-the-city-of-philadelphia-turn-its-back-on-a-civic-group/) ) Community zoning meetings are the only place the neighborhood can weigh in with developers and try to block or make changes to plans that are bad for the neighborhood and approve good plans that simply don't meet our sometimes wacky zoning laws/maps.
Thank you for providing the first example of RCOs actually doing something instead of just saying 'they protect community!' That example shows me they protect NIMBY interests, and voting No seems to be the way to go.
Until it’s your own backyard that you are looking to protect from a developer with large pockets. The neighborhood association will not be able to help you.
A vote for No is handing more power for wealthy developers to exert their will over the development process and sue your neighbors for voicing their opinion. I say this as someone very pro development and very anti parking-obsessed NIMBYs. Let's be clear: RCOs have no official power in the zoning process but are deputized by L&I to convene public meetings and provide feedback on developments that the ZBA takes into consideration when making their decisions. The ZBA is under no obligation to rule either way based on RCO vote results. In fact it is their legal duty to rule *solely on the basis of hardship*. Even so, developers who propose projects with no hardship which the ZBA rightfully rules against can just sue your neighbors into submission and force the groups that also do volunteer parks beautification projects, street tree planting, and street cleanups out of existence. If you want big projects to happen, the underlying zoning needs to be changed, and that's on city council. I don't get why people are so eager to throw their neighbors to the wolves when the balance of power will still remain in favor of developers.
This is sort of what I figured based on the wording of the question and the little blurbs on the Inqy—thanks for putting this more succinctly.
Everything you just said reinforces arguments to vote NO. You described problems with the system at the moment, and identified where reforms need to happen. Putting taxpayers on the hook to cover RCO legal fees doesn't solve any of it. Vote NO for sure.
Don’t know about other RCOs but I’ve been a regular attender at civic meetings since I’ve been in philly and most (not all) developers are lying deceitful condescending vultures. The RCOs are volunteers and resource poor citizens vying with well funded assholes. This is good legislation.
So your solution is no solution at all. This solution is to throw a lifeline to neighborhood groups that the City has exposed to major legal liability, and maybe that incentivizes everyone to fix the broken process zoning so they're not in that position in the first place. Have fun shining Mo Rushdy's shoes.
Oh no more developments and less taxpayer burden, the horror!!!!
It’s a place of privilege for you to not be effected by developments. You likely aren’t going to be evicted from public housing because some asshole developer wants your previously undesirable block (see UC Townhomes). But other people are and might want to know about it beforehand and at least have a channel to protest. RCOs don’t have much power but what they offer is democratic. All they can do is get info about developments in advance to share with the community and provide an opportunity for community to comment and talk to developers about their concerns. They are volunteer-run organisations and host meetings open to the public. Democracy shouldn’t be silenced by billionaire developers and their fancy lawyers.
Not that it really matters because this shitty law passed, but you got everything backwards. >It’s a place of privilege for you to not be effected by developments. Quite the opposite. It's a place of privilege to be comfortable with the status quo, and happy to block new developments to bring more housing or jobs to an area. NIMBY boomers love to block everything, and when housing gets in short supply, their home values surge. They profit from hurting the city and future generations. This pattern has been repeated all over cities in the US. Philadelphia has actually done a better job of allowing development and staying affordable. Unfortunately, we just took a step backwards. >RCOs don’t have much power but what they offer is democratic. RCOs are fundamentally undemocratic. They don't have to tell you when their meetings are. They don't have to hold meetings when normal people can attend. Some retirees can just set one up and claim they represent your area. Then they interfere with laws and rules put in place through actual democratic processes. >All they can do is get info about developments in advance to share with the community and provide an opportunity for community to comment and talk to developers about their concerns. They are volunteer-run organisations and host meetings open to the public. >Democracy shouldn’t be silenced by billionaire developers and their fancy lawyers. If this was all they actually did, they couldn't even be sued. The instigator for all this is one RCO doing it's normal NIMBY bullshit. They gave feedback for a UPS development that met all the rules of the long standing zoning for the site. When they didn't get what they wanted, they appealed to the zoning board and common pleas court and were rejected. Then they took to the commonwealth court. The developer rightly sued them back for frivolously abusing the court system to block a fully legal development. Now RCOs will be able to use *tax payer money* to abuse the court system to block development and hurt the city.
I’m honestly torn. Some development and affordable housing projects in particular are necessary for the greater good of the city, even if a particular neighborhood might not like it. But developers are driven by money alone, and they can plow into a neighborhood and residents could have no say or method to fight it. Edit: grammar
Wat is question 1? The article is blocked for me
Whether tax money should be used to defend people that block construction projects.
[удалено]
Not at all, it’s about zoning and land use decisions. Nothing to do with police or environmentalists.
In simpler terms: When a community organization participates legally in decisions about how land and buildings in the city can be used (like giving input on whether a variance should be allowed to permit something normally not permitted by zoning laws), should the city help protect and defend them if someone sues them because of their involvement? This change would help ensure that these organizations can participate in the zoning process without worrying about the cost of legal battles if they are sued.
I voted YES. For Northern Liberties Community neighborhood assoc. (NLNA) Frivolous lawsuits against community groups are all too common and a very real problem. The NLNA has had to defend against them over the years, and these suits also typically name individual neighbors as well. At least one longtime Philly RCO had to shut down because of these suits. The NLNA believes it will be beneficial to the association and to all the neighbors who participate in the zoning process, if this ballot question passes.
Of course the Inquirer will post this opinion. They’ve been bought out by big developers so that newsworthy stories critical of them can be disappeared. https://twitter.com/apipennsylvania/status/1699900778201354612?s=20 https://www.phillymag.com/news/2023/09/11/philadelphia-inquirer-deletes-article-critical-of-controversial-sixers-arena/
I'm more of a YIMBY than a NIMBY but I still voted yes on this one because suing is not the solution. Why even have the feedback process if it can be simply bypassed by the rich? If RCOs have too much veto power, regulations should instead be changed to limit that power, and then they would not be able to enforce unreasonable demands even with this support but would be able to shut down frivolous, undemocratic lawsuits.
Nimby
Vote yes. The city should protect these community orgs from claims during variance process. The community orgs represent the residents of these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are compelled by the city to comply, and shouldn’t be priced out and squeezed by private capital interests with bottomless coffers through a protracted process for lack of legal services. The city should protect its own.
They don't represent the members of the community they claim to. They're self appointed and many are notorious at blocking out anyone they don't like from participating in the process. The city should not be bankrolling lawsuits with self appointed representatives of an arbitrary area that were never elected or even able to held accountable by the very people they claim to represent.
For those not aware and thinking of voting "yes", this was brought on because OCF( shitty builder, but thats not the point) Wanted to build apartments on yorktown neighborhood (think 13th and girard area). he had the RIGHT to do it by zoning, and not only that, the only way to stop unaffordable housing is to INCREASE SUPPLY...like oh idk building more. [But darryl the cockroach clark and his goonies held it up in ZBA, and got sued](https://www.phillytrib.com/news/local_news/developer-sues-council-president-over-development-residents-oppose/article_07edcc11-661c-5bfb-8a9f-07d2b7230490.html)
that says they sued clarke and the ZBA, not an RCO it just says the RCO also disapproved of the development
"the community had opposed the project, along with several apartment buildings surrounding the community because they are not affordable for most neighborhood residents, change its character and lack sufficient parking." is the most Philly RCO complaint ever. First the housing isn't cheap enough for the people who already live nearby, and then the developer has to make it more expensive by including more parking, too. What a joke.
> First the housing isn't cheap enough for the people who already live nearby, and then the developer has to make it more expensive by including more parking, too. if you know anything about philly realestate, these are just poverty pimps hawking any shit that sticks until they get their ~~bribes~~ donations for their totally legit charity. Darryl the cockroach clark is the biggest poverty pimp in philly, are you that surprised his cronies will try to eliminate housing?
Not surprised at all. But I rarely see both of the most common bogus reasons to oppose housing listed together in the same sentence.
Allow development but make the developers contribute to the community. Transit station access, streetscape improvements, parks and plazas, street trees, etc. And make their stuff be open after 5 PM! Glaring at you, Comcast!
I wish we could have better looking buildings. A lot of the new ones look cheap and a lot of the old ones look cheap as well.
I completely forgot today was voting day. So happy I logged on to Reddit. I’m also glad I’m getting some direction on this ballot question.
How dare you, mere citizen, have the temerity to oppose a development project in your neighborhood? We will sue you to into oblivion! Something is wrong with you if you can't bear the constant noise, 24/7, from that Bitcoin mining facility (Granburg, TX). Stop complaining your lungs hurt - EV & lithium battery plants have fires all the time! (numerous fires at numerous locations). We'll use the courts to force you to sell - we are rich and we are building a development here on your land whether you like it or not! (Solano County, California). Profit uber Alles!
I voted yes. Theres a reason RCOs exist, and majority of the time they don’t have the financial resources to legally compete with developers. By voting no, you are providing developers the power to steamroll over RCOs and members of the community and build shit AGAINST the will of the community. Our city will look like NYC in 5 years if we allowed developers to have their way. Personally, I don’t think that’s a good thing.
"Our city will look like NYC in 5 years if we allowed developers to have their way." Exactly what someone who votes yes on this would say. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but Philly is still 25% below its peak population and the poorest big city in the country - I assure you nothing could make us into NYC anytime soon. Affordability aside, how would being more like NYC even make us worse? It's incredibly safe, diverse, has the country’s best transit, better schools, many employers, and has the money to continuously invest in projects that improve QoL for its residents. And blocking development will make Philly LESS affordable btw.
bro if you like high rises and shitty condos so bad why don’t you move to NYC? Below 25% peak population? To whose standards? NYC is horrible, overpriced apartments, live in a closet for 2200 a month, you can’t see the sky, no backyards, pollution is horrible, never can own a home, it’s a rat race, etc.. NYC a shithole of a city. Just look at Fairmount, grays ferry, and Bella vista now. 4-5 unit condo-rowhome bullshits being mass built. Philadelphians are losing the opportunity to own homes at an exorbitant rate, but you just want us to hand over the legal ability to convert our city into a massive apartment complex? No thanks.
What? Philly is 25% below **its** peak population of over 2 million in 1950. I am saying we have plenty of room to grow, and the city needs to grow its tax base. Also Grays Ferry is not overbuilt... at all. I chose Philly over NYC because I wanted to buy a home but there is a middle ground between being the poorest big city in the country and the richest. We aren't "handing over the legal ability to convert our city into a massive apartment complex" by keeping things how they are now. Stating that we could become NYC in 5 years (or 20) is just laughable. North Philly has endless vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. We can't even fill in Market Street in Center City. There's no reason to further empower NIMBYs.
I’m still feeling pretty confused about the language of this ballot question. It seems too broad to be meaningfully applied?
I hit that naw button and you should've too
As a member of an RCO in North-ish Philly, and after hearing some of the racist/classist exchanges from RCO members when making decisions (I use neither of those terms lightly), you absolutely should vote NO on this. Far too often are NIMBYs running the ship and it sometimes feels like the suburbs even though we're in the middle of a metropolis... because, again, these decisions are made with undertones of exclusion that frankly should sometimes result in lawsuits with those making said decisions being held accountable. Just my two cents. 🙃
Voted No. We need to build more dense housing.
Done!
Welp, looks like it overwhelmingly passed :(
"Yes" won. Hard to say what the impact will be. Certainly ROC's get more protection. On the positive side, at least developers will think twice about using lawsuits to silence or neutralize community opposition. I am on the fence about this one. I don't think a crazy ROC group will get very far with or without this. So it's not like a carte-blanche for NIMBY's. It COULD BE very helpful to ROC's that have legit problems with a variance. Depending on what your definition of "legit" is.