Common Ground for Rebuilding Our City
Moderator names: Chris Satullo & Joan Davis
Developers Forum Group Overview:
This group had 15 participants, all male
except a lone female representative from the Norris Square Civic Association.
The rest were industry professionals: 3 Developers, 1 specific to mixed-use; 5
Attorneys; 2 University Affiliates – Temple University, Director of Facilities and University of Pennsylvania, Real Estate Dept.; 3 Urban Design/Development Professionals; and 1 Architect.
Their conversation revealed similar
experiences and concerns. Of common interest was finding ways to reliably
minimize the risk of development projects. Describing the current process
as a “paralyzing uncertainty”, the group repeatedly called for replacing the
current influence-based process with reasonable standards and “by right” designations,
and a predictable project review process timeline and lifecycle. Another
topic that generated great energy was how difficult it is to identify the true
voice of the public.
questions remained unanswered for this group:
should speak for the community?
determines “common good?
Principles/Factors participants said
contribute to productive public participation in the project/development review
- A predictable process. Important elements include:
- the duration of process is known in advance;
- the outcome is not dependent on the
- the sequence of activities is known in advance;
should rely on “planning”, not an ad hoc, reactive process.
- Codifying the process produces a reliably consistent
outcome and a process that is understood by all stakeholders.
- Appropriate notification for variances is also
an aspect of transparency.
- If a proposed project is developing to standards, that should mean
- If a proposed project requires variances, approval should be based
on consideration of benefits versus detriments as well as hardships.
- Useful public input.
- Public input has value to developers and needs
to be heard and addressed. However having a voice should differ from
having influence or veto power.
- Project success is often dependent on being
able to get to the right group together.
- Development professionals can play a role by vetting public input,
and ensuring citizens are able to articulate their issues.
Principles/Factors participants said impede
- Timid architecture. Inventiveness is discouraged and design
is compromised in the absence of professional leadership setting the
- Paralyzing uncertainty.
- The public process gets close to
“extortion”. Acquiescing to a “community group wish list” should
not be a part of the process.
- The few can derail huge investments; individual
weight to veto should be eliminated.
- The process lacks finality.
- Councilmatic Privilege that’s absolute.
- The process lacks a timetable.
- The duration of negotiation narrows public
participation. Can end up with just the immediate neighbors, who may have
the ear of local council.
- Once council approval is needed, the duration
- Developers are unable to determine which public voice has the
- Failure of officials to govern unrealistic expectations from the
- Limited public notification decreases participation and access to
information for those directly impacted but not locally notified.
- Only the zoning hearing supports voicing community concern. There
should be other venues and entry points.
Characteristics/elements to include in a new
project/development review process, and why.
- Recognize the necessity to streamline development projects and have
a predictable project review timetable.
- Elevate the role of the Planning
- Model after the ‘find a way attitude” exhibited
in the development of public housing. Make the private housing
process just as expeditious [with emphasis on market rate housing].
- Promote efficiency with a minor claims
process. Minor zoning issues don’t hold up / delay major projects.
- An efficient project review process has a
positive impact on community involvement and investor/developer’s risk.
- Create an environment of standards-based outcomes.
- Maintain consistency to a “Grand Plan”.
- Limit whimsical power of other players (i.e.
Council). There should be no “automatic veto”.
- Accurately reflect “By Right” in the zoning
code. This would lessen the developer’s exposure to rejection.
- Understand that capital will not invest in a
- For national builders to be willing to build in
the City despite tax issues and union costs, the project review process
must reliably minimize developers’ risks.
- Have a strong comprehensive development plan based on robust,
informed public input.
- Understand who will benefit from the project
and who is of direct concern.
- Mediate the concerns of directly impacted
- Must ensure that By Right projects are not
missing the community voice.
- Gather “useful input” from the public to
improve development plans. The public can help developers understand what
may fly in a community.
- If a proposed project requires variances, base
approval on consideration of benefits versus detriments as well as
- Development professionals within city should
take a more active role as mediators.
- City professionals can help neighbors
understand the zoning rules.
- Get the right people in the room early in the process.
- A proposed “Major Plan” plus a By Right
situation should invoke the requirement for public notice. This
could trigger an early opportunity for public input.
- Historical Commission should gets
its say right up front – not at the tail end of the process.
- The process should include clarification of
what is meant by “Community” interests.
- Identify the legitimate community voices of
- Avoid being overly influenced by the “loudest
- When the cast of characters shifts so do the
critical issues, impacting investment and development timelines, often
causing projects to derail.
Other areas of agreement.
- Don’t empower the noisy few to dictate results for the entire
- The public should provide input to the process, not control it.
- Communities that tend to presume “veto power”
were identified as Northern Liberties, Society Hill, Queen Village, and
- Don’t change the rules from one administration to another.
- Don’t put the sole burden for communication on the developer.