If a property owner allows his property to become an eyesore and a health hazard, and doesn't clean it up after being given notice, the city will clean it up and bill the property owner.

If the city is unable to keep up its own property then it shouldn't own it. The City of Philadelphia is a bad neighbor.

One question not answered in the articles: why didn't he just buy the lot off the city? That would have avoided the whole controversy.

One article says that the lot "had gone unsold", but none of the articles mentions a price, or any offer on his part to purchase it.

...

Ok, I researched a bit more. Apparently the city's lot lines are out of date, and it is completely unclear who actually owns what in this area. Attempts to straighten this out are met with bureaucratic stalling, probably because it is such a total disaster.

"They said we need to return it to the condition we found it in immediately," he claims.

Oh, man, LAFF RIOT! So the city wants the lot to be empty again, except for 40 tons of garbage???

City governments are full of people with no vested interest in the areas that they govern. Bureauocracy literally means "Government by desks" and THAT is exactly what you've gotten here.

People sitting at desk after desk after desk after desk, unaccountable to the citizens they serve, unaccountable for the condition of public property, unaccountable for even knowing what property belongs to whom, and willing only to act when its power, even the power to do nothing, is threatened by the independent actions of a citizen.

I know what I'd like to do. Take that 40 tons of garbage, and distribute it evenly to every city official that wants to fine this man, and tell them they can return the garbage there if they want to.

Don't underestimate value of vacant lots. I recall from my childhood a vacant lot next to Ebbets Field (home of the Brooklyn Dodgers) with broken glass, etc. which we used to call "Little Ebbets" and where we used to play ball. If you could field grounders at Little Ebbets, you could play anyplace.

There is a part in the story that says the developer, Feibush, had expressed interest in the property because it's adjacent to one of his parcels. Feibush had also received three citations from the City for the condition of the lot:

Here's what Feibush finds funny about the situation: In the past few years, he's received three citations from the city fining him for not removing the snow from the sidewalk in front of this lot. Last August, he received a citation for the trash on the lot.

I think the City is just worried he's making them look bad. If they had decided to turn that parcel into a garden it would have taken years to study, they would have to entertain bids, and it would have cost a hell of a lot more than he did it for.

I think Sara's got it right: He made the City of Philadelphia look ridiculous, and now they're mad.

Of course the minute he returns it to its original condition he will receive a citation for littering. Furthermore, the EPA will issue a cease and desist order and demand he complete an environmental impact statement.

It happens in a small scale, too. At our library, we have a private Friends group that does a lot of good work for us. This last year, the carpets got really gross and the Friends wanted to pay for the carpets to be cleaned. The fight that ensued was ridiculous!

After four years of fighting, they finally let the Friends reupholster our furniture. The Friends had wanted to buy new, but the City wouldn't let them. The furniture in question was at least twenty years old, with the staining and wear and tear you'd expect. But heaven forbid that you replace the stuff, oh no. Couldn't have a private group showing up the City like that.

Stupid.

I think a_random_guy at September 15, 2012 12:15 AM sees what's going on here.

I don't doubt that the city is sluggishly bureaucratic and worse.

But just skimming all of this, I get the sense the guy was preparing to do a land grab.

"Improving" a piece of land has ancient and irrefutable meanings in civic life. Citizens can't be permitted to just start building things on public property, no matter how incompetent the local government, and no matter how much of an improvement the buildings seem to be.

If the guy had just hauled away the trash, we'd all applaud. But if the title on the land is dicey, the motivation for his 'improvements' is obviously fishy.

Are you guys really that certain that a guy who moves forty tons of anything is trying to do you a favor? If there were forty tons to be removed from that lot, he was taking down buildings... And they weren't his.

At the very least, this guy is trying to finagle a payoff. Otherwise, it's a land grab.

The last thing IN THE WORLD we want is city government with "vested interest in the areas that they govern."

Even if true

1. No one else has bought it
2. If he does bid he cant claim he deserves a rebate/discount for work already done
3. If he does buy it the city can now charge him more than they would have been able to originally

4. if the story is true by cleaning up the lot he was in fact doing what the city ordered him to do.

Even if it is a landgrab so what? No one else seem to want it and some one down at city hall seem to think he already owns it

"Like any property owner, [the authority] does not permit unauthorized access to or alteration of its property. This is both on principle (no property owner knowingly allows trespassing) and to limit taxpayer liability."

Possible reply to the authorities: "I'm sorry, officials, but I can't put it back the way it was.

I'd be trespassing, and you told me not to do that.

Meanwhile, no matter who owns the property, it was simply a nuisance before this. Now it's a decorated nuisance. Heavens, people might want to be there!"

You might be right crid.

But having no vested interest, and a less than minimal level of competence, has not made them less dictatorial.

Well, heck. If the city needs any piece of property turned back into a cesspool, pronto, they should just host an Occupy protest. Problem solved!

The Philadelphia RDA probably wanted to use the lot as evidence of "blight" so they could pull off an eminent domain land grab as part of a redevelopment plan on behalf of some connected corporation. That's why they're mad.

> But having no vested interest, and a
> less than minimal level of competence,
> has not made them less dictatorial.

Doooooood.... Human nature sucks, amirite? I hear ya, Man...

Major bummer!


That doesn't mean government by organized crime is the way to go.

Besides, how vested is vested? If taxpayers wanted difference servants to administer these commons, they could have them.

Different, not different.

If voters demanded more of civic government, they'd probably get it. Government bureaucrats are "vested" in their careers.

Boy, are they.

Difference not DIFFERENCE. sorry

ai-yi-yi.. Melting in the heat wave here.

Crid, if we don't have government by organized crime now, what the fuck would you call it?

And do you know what I mean by vested interest? I don't think you do.

In this instance I mean they have no accountability for doing their jobs right, they get nothing more if they do them well, and they face no reprecussions if they do them poorly. There is no incentive to do more than show up, and even then the only thing they seem to want to do is throw their weight around getting off on having authority without accountability.

> if we don't have government by organized
> crime now, what the fuck would you call it?

Representative government weakened by bureaucratic inertia and broadening voter naïvete.

> And do you know what I mean by
> vested interest?

If you have to ask, you've expressed yourself badly. "Vested" is a term of finance; we shouldn't let it tumble into cliche.

> In this instance I mean they

What'll it mean next time?

My earliest official request for this parcel was in 2006. I have submitted 6 subsequent official requests and dozens of additional informal inquiries since that first effort.

In support of my efforts directly engaging the RDA (PRA) for 1138-42 S. 20th, I have corresponded with individuals on many levels of City Government begging them to look into my submission to ensure nothing would be lost in the mess that is the RDA (PRA).

This address was part of my original submission for several lots which included lots directly across the street adjacent to other lots I already owned. I settled on those parcels last week but only after crushing an eminent domain effort by the RDA for my adjacent parcels. What happened with the garden at 20th and Annin was retribution for embarrassing a certain politician regarding a land grab for affordable housing.

I hope that the light shined on this corner by the Daily News story will put to rest the City’s efforts to punish me for cleaning a drug and garbage infested lot after promising me the lot for a garden on multiple occasions.

The reason I could no longer wait for the city to act in this case is for the coffee shop I opened on the corner 3 weeks ago. No one could maintain a business adjacent to what that parcel used to look like…..certainly not me.

The fact that it takes someone years to buy a lot from the city is ridiculous in its own right. That frustration is compounded by the fact that while the city figures out to whom they want to sell a property to (since mid 70s in this case) they don’t even bother with the most basic requirements of being a decent steward of the property.

The before photos from google maps used on many blog posts about this lot do not do justice to showing what this property looked like just last month. Please see my blog post below for more current photos.

http://nakedphilly.com/point-breeze/...ship-business/

I was trying to post this hyperlink:

http://nakedphilly.com/point-breeze/one-example-of-why-philadelphia-needs-to-get-out-of-the-land-ownership-business/#comment-10110

I guess that depends on where you live and what the weather is like. I'm getting pretty beat up over here.

In all seriousness though....thank you for publishing this story.

Crid, if you're going to talk about word meaning, know what it means.

vest·ed   /ˈvɛstɪd/ Show Spelled[ves-tid] Show IPA
adjective
1. held completely, permanently, and inalienably: vested rights.
2. protected or established by law, commitment, tradition, ownership, etc.: vested contributions to a fund.
3. clothed or robed, especially in ecclesiastical vestments: a vested priest.
4. having a vest; sold with a vest: a vested suit.

Its not a finance term alone thanks much.

Never fuck with an English major when it comes to word meanings, we like words more than we like people. ;)

If you're to thick to figure out context, you're to thick to debate.

Bureaucrat: (speaking) Do what I say or face X consequence.

Bureaucrat's level of accountability to the listener? 0.

Consequence of incompetence: 0

Potential to be fired: 0

Answerable to the public? In our dreams.

Dictator:

a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.

What you called inertia, I call a gross abuse of power by an authority which has no accountability. You claim it is representative government, but overlook that there is no law of the universe stating that representative governments are beyond dictatorial abuses of power. When the exercise of power over the citizen is the same, does it matter what name you give to it?

Crid, if you're going to talk about word meaning, know what it means.

vest·ed   /ˈvɛstɪd/ Show Spelled[ves-tid] Show IPA
adjective
1. held completely, permanently, and inalienably: vested rights.
2. protected or established by law, commitment, tradition, ownership, etc.: vested contributions to a fund.
3. clothed or robed, especially in ecclesiastical vestments: a vested priest.
4. having a vest; sold with a vest: a vested suit.

Its not a finance term alone thanks much.

Never fuck with an English major when it comes to word meanings, we like words more than we like people. ;)

If you're to thick to figure out context, you're to thick to debate.

Bureaucrat: (speaking) Do what I say or face X consequence.

Bureaucrat's level of accountability to the listener? 0.

Consequence of incompetence: 0

Potential to be fired: 0

Answerable to the public? In our dreams.

Dictator:

a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.

What you called inertia, I call a gross abuse of power by an authority which has no accountability. You claim it is representative government, but overlook that there is no law of the universe stating that representative governments are beyond dictatorial abuses of power. When the exercise of power over the citizen is the same, does it matter what name you give to it?