PARKS
Judge John Herron's decision preserving Burholme Park in its totality for future generations despite massive political pressure on the other side is a great victory for community interests.Sixty years ago, Temple University tried to take over Hunting Park for its own purposes, and was defeated by the resistance of the Fairmount Park Commission. Temple's presence in Philadelphia is far, far larger now than it was then, but Hunting Park remains. Temple's experience followed that of the University of Pennsylvania, which failed to take over a city park about 100 years ago, and is perhaps now 100 times as large as it was then.Judge Herron, a former prosecutor whose reputation as a reformer allowed him to be elected on a reform slate backed by Governor Robert P. Casey in 1987, spent nine days generally long days, in the courtroom hearing detailed testimony on the case.One witness to the proceedings told me that Herron was so thorughly prepared that he knew the facts of the case and the law relevant to the case better than the well-prepared and vigorous lawyers on either side.This decision is victory for all the many scores of thousands of people who visit Burholme Park on a regular basis, including me and my family. It is a victory for those Friends of Burholme Park activists who refused to be discouraged, such as Tim Kearney, Fred Maurer, Jean Gavin, and Paul Canty and for attorney Sam Stretton and his associates.I especially like Judge Herron's statement, quoted by the Inquirer, to the effect that the park adds value to living in the city of Philadelphia for many Philadelphians. He is absolutely right about that: nearness to parks of substantial size is a stabilizing factor for the city of Philadelphia, which increases city revenues from real estate taxes and real estate transfer taxes. To cut the size of Burholme Park would be a real negative for the future of its surrounding and nearby neighborhoods.There is plenty of available space in Philadelphia for Fox Chase Cancer Center to expand. I like the idea of former Rep. George Kenney of using the land at Byberry; there also may be suitable land in around my district in or near the Cardone company complex on the old Sears on the Boulveard distribution center headquarters. Had the Fox Chase Cancer Center been willing to consider alternatives earlier, they could have had what is now the very large property owned by a Toyota dealership on Cottman Avenue.I believe that the Fox Chase Cancer Center should be working immediately on its expansion plans, should forego prolongation of the controversy, and drop its appeal. Appellate courts in Pennsylvania are bound by Judge Herron's finding of the facts; all they are allowed to reverse is his finding of the law relevant to the facts. His thorough preparation and extraordinary judicial craftsmanship makes any reversal of his decision highly unlikely.
December 9, 2008
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/architecture-urban-planning/71394-save-burholme-park-3.html#post953560
*
More statues are hardly the top priority for an underfunded park system.The park needs more money for maintenance, planting, recreational and environmental facilities.The statues are all or virtually all funded and maintained by donations. It is unlikely that the Hunting Park site is high up on anybody's radar screen for donations.
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=36227
*
I agree with many of the details of the strategic plan, and especially the view that what is needed is strong public and private leadership to put together the pieces of public and private policies that will determine the Park's future. Closely allied with leadership is the question of money, a question which the Plan skirts. The City appropriated $11 million for the Park in 1970 under Mayor James Tate--which, adjusted for inflation, is about $50 million in today's money. But the City in 2004 only appropriated $14 million. This is an unexplained shortfall that should be carefully investigated and reversed to the degree possible. Second, there should be an aggressive plan to get more funds from the Pennsylvania and federal governments as well. And all funds that the park helps raise stay in the park--we have to move towards this goal over time. Certainly, there is no shortage of maintenance problems for park commissioners to focus on. And there is no shortage of bold steps--such as the luring of the Barnes Museum to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that represents the Commission's most recent landmark success--either. But public advocacy--and advocacy to relevant funders at state, federal, and private sector levels--is a vital key. With strong leadership from the Park Commission members, top staffers, and the wonderful welter of advocacy and improvement groups that have sprung up around the Park, the Park can build upon its past successes and achieve new levels of greatness.
May 15, 2005
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:MI83FCzz2tUJ:www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ppall/blog/comments.jsp%3Fblog_entry_KEY%3D20735%26t%3D+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=287
*
Yes, Pete McPhillips, Burholme Park is in Perzel's district. That fact alone--to say nothing of his position as Speaker of the House--gives him some leverage in this this matter. Formally, it is a decision of the Fairmount Park Commission and the City of Philadelphia, both of which support this decision.This is far from the first time that there has been a proposal to take land from Fairmount Park for other purposes. Both Benjamin Franklin Parkway and the Schuylkill Expressway were built on what was then part of Fairmount Park, as was the Art Museum. (The Fairmount Park Commission still maintains a substantial degree of control over the Benjamin Franklin Parkway).In the early 1940's, then State Representative James H.J. Tate--later Mayor of Philadelphia from February, 1962 through the early days of January, 1972--led the successful opposition to Temple University's takeover of Hunting Park, something hundreds of thousands of Hunting Park users over the years should be grateful for. So therefore Temple built all along Broad Street, taking over one piece of land at a time.Currently, LaSalle University has won permission to eventually take over a park at Ogontz and Lindley Avenues; one of Councilman David Cohen's last official acts was to oppose this. As Philadelphia land becomes more valuable, there may well be other plans to raid both Fairmount Park and the considerable number of other parks under the direct control of the Philadelphia Department of Recreation.The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a state park in Northeast Philadelphia--Benjamin Rush State Park. I held up approval of a plan to put what is now the Delaware Valley Veterans Home there until the geographical description of the land was corrected, agreement was reached on what land would be substituted, and agreement was reached that if the state ever gave up on getting the necessary federal approval for the Delaward Valley Veterans Home, then the land would revert back to the Benjamin Rush State Park.I had leverage in this decision--which ultimately resulted in a decision that pleased both advocates for veterans and state parks--because state legislative approval was required. No state action is required for Burholme Park to give up land to the Fox Chase Cancer Center.
May 28, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256891#post256891
*
I agree that the Fox Chase Cancer Center should find other ways to expand than by taking over part of Burholme Park. I have made clear my opposition to the takeover. I was a featured speaker yesterday in the dedication of an historical marker commemorating the long history of the Whitaker Mills textile plant complex, and the generous decision of the heirs of the Whitaker family to donate the land to the Fairmount Park system.Fairmount Park should be gaining land over time, not losing it. Parkland should not be considered a landbank except in extraordinary circumstances.But I am not on the Fairmount Park Commission, nor am in City Council, nor do I either represent the Burholme Park area or does my district even even border the Burholme Park area, although it is close to Burholme Park.One of the leaders of the movement to maintain the full size of Burholme Park is Tim Kearney. Kearney is, for the second consecutive time, the Democratic nominee against House Speaker John Perzel, who does represent Burholme Park. A Kearney victory--or even a Kearney close race--would send a very clear message that Northeast Philadelphia voters want Burholme Park to be maintained as it.Kearney also agrees, as do I, about the general economic points you are making. His victory--or even strong showing--would send a real message to state legislators in Harrisburg that they should be more proactive in trying to create meaningful economic benefits for the average citizen.
May 28, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256774#post256774
*
Northwood is a wonderful neighborhood, and I was sorry that the 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Plan had to take it away from my district as part of the decennial redrawing of district lines because of population changes.I last visited the Northwood Park when I went with many other family friends and relatives to console Flora Becker, Judge Becker's widow, last Wednesday night. The park is small but beautiful, and it adds to the general perception of Northwood as a beautiful urban oasis. Walking down Judge Becker's block, I saw anew the many positive qualities of Northwood that kept him living in the modest house in which he grew up for his entire life.Changing the name of Northwood Park would be a blow to the strong neighborhood identity that exists there. Naming it after a police officer who was killed in the line of duty would only reinforce the fear of crime and lead to more flight from the neighborhood. Other ways to remember the dedicated and conscientious Officer Skerski would be much more appropriate.
May 26, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256519#post256519
*
The problem with the Logan Triangle land is that it is not totally impossible to build there. It is just extremely expensive. There is no reason for any business or residential developer to pay a heavy premium to build there. But the fact that it is barely possible under extremely limited circumstances to build there has inhibited recreational development. Philadelphia hates to close the door on the potential for new tax ratables.What makes the most sense to me, as I have argued in another post, is to have the city lease the land to the Fairmount Park Commission for a 99 year period at $1 a year, with the right to get it back with substantial notice, say five years. The day might well come when development of Broad Street is such that the land becomes extremely valuable for private investment, but many of us are unlikely to live to see that day.Any substantial building there--a recreation center no less than houses or businesses--is in great structural danger without a massive financial investment. I think it makes much more sense to have an extension of Hunting Park there, which could include various various recrational activities that enhance living in the surrounding neighborhoods.
May 25, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256141#post256141
*
Neither 16th and Stenton (West Oak Lane) or the empty land caused by the removal of the sinking homes (Logan) are in Olney. Olney is the area close to (SURPRISE!) Olney Avenue, both to the east and the west of it. All neighborhood boundaries are vague and in the eye of the beholder, but 16th and Stenton and the Logan sinking homes are clearly out of the Olney area.In a sense, it would be great if it was totally impossible to build there. Then the focus would be on competing plans for a park (we could easily extend the nearby Hunting Park) and an urban farm. The urban farm idea might not cost the city anything, but the park would be far more useful to every day life.The problem is that, with enough investment to strengthen the foundations, commercial buildings could be built there. Similarly, if one was one going to build $500,000 houses there, one could spend enough money for strong foundations to cover the basic instability of the land.The rub is obvious: there is no good reason at the current time to build anything there. The neighborhood as it now stands is simply not attractive to people who want to invest large sums of money in either commercial space or housing. Nor is there any likelihood of imminent change.So, barring some deep-pocket suitor, i.e. Temple (which has no reason to want to build anything there either), what makes the most sense to me is a 99 year lease at $1 a year to the Fairmount Park Commission, which the city could cancel with, say, five years advance notice. Some day that land could well be valuable for other purposes, but in the meantime neighbors could use the land for constructive recreational pursuits.
May 20, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=253281#post253281
December 9, 2008
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/architecture-urban-planning/71394-save-burholme-park-3.html#post953560
*
More statues are hardly the top priority for an underfunded park system.The park needs more money for maintenance, planting, recreational and environmental facilities.The statues are all or virtually all funded and maintained by donations. It is unlikely that the Hunting Park site is high up on anybody's radar screen for donations.
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=36227
*
I agree with many of the details of the strategic plan, and especially the view that what is needed is strong public and private leadership to put together the pieces of public and private policies that will determine the Park's future. Closely allied with leadership is the question of money, a question which the Plan skirts. The City appropriated $11 million for the Park in 1970 under Mayor James Tate--which, adjusted for inflation, is about $50 million in today's money. But the City in 2004 only appropriated $14 million. This is an unexplained shortfall that should be carefully investigated and reversed to the degree possible. Second, there should be an aggressive plan to get more funds from the Pennsylvania and federal governments as well. And all funds that the park helps raise stay in the park--we have to move towards this goal over time. Certainly, there is no shortage of maintenance problems for park commissioners to focus on. And there is no shortage of bold steps--such as the luring of the Barnes Museum to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that represents the Commission's most recent landmark success--either. But public advocacy--and advocacy to relevant funders at state, federal, and private sector levels--is a vital key. With strong leadership from the Park Commission members, top staffers, and the wonderful welter of advocacy and improvement groups that have sprung up around the Park, the Park can build upon its past successes and achieve new levels of greatness.
May 15, 2005
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:MI83FCzz2tUJ:www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ppall/blog/comments.jsp%3Fblog_entry_KEY%3D20735%26t%3D+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=287
*
Yes, Pete McPhillips, Burholme Park is in Perzel's district. That fact alone--to say nothing of his position as Speaker of the House--gives him some leverage in this this matter. Formally, it is a decision of the Fairmount Park Commission and the City of Philadelphia, both of which support this decision.This is far from the first time that there has been a proposal to take land from Fairmount Park for other purposes. Both Benjamin Franklin Parkway and the Schuylkill Expressway were built on what was then part of Fairmount Park, as was the Art Museum. (The Fairmount Park Commission still maintains a substantial degree of control over the Benjamin Franklin Parkway).In the early 1940's, then State Representative James H.J. Tate--later Mayor of Philadelphia from February, 1962 through the early days of January, 1972--led the successful opposition to Temple University's takeover of Hunting Park, something hundreds of thousands of Hunting Park users over the years should be grateful for. So therefore Temple built all along Broad Street, taking over one piece of land at a time.Currently, LaSalle University has won permission to eventually take over a park at Ogontz and Lindley Avenues; one of Councilman David Cohen's last official acts was to oppose this. As Philadelphia land becomes more valuable, there may well be other plans to raid both Fairmount Park and the considerable number of other parks under the direct control of the Philadelphia Department of Recreation.The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a state park in Northeast Philadelphia--Benjamin Rush State Park. I held up approval of a plan to put what is now the Delaware Valley Veterans Home there until the geographical description of the land was corrected, agreement was reached on what land would be substituted, and agreement was reached that if the state ever gave up on getting the necessary federal approval for the Delaward Valley Veterans Home, then the land would revert back to the Benjamin Rush State Park.I had leverage in this decision--which ultimately resulted in a decision that pleased both advocates for veterans and state parks--because state legislative approval was required. No state action is required for Burholme Park to give up land to the Fox Chase Cancer Center.
May 28, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256891#post256891
*
I agree that the Fox Chase Cancer Center should find other ways to expand than by taking over part of Burholme Park. I have made clear my opposition to the takeover. I was a featured speaker yesterday in the dedication of an historical marker commemorating the long history of the Whitaker Mills textile plant complex, and the generous decision of the heirs of the Whitaker family to donate the land to the Fairmount Park system.Fairmount Park should be gaining land over time, not losing it. Parkland should not be considered a landbank except in extraordinary circumstances.But I am not on the Fairmount Park Commission, nor am in City Council, nor do I either represent the Burholme Park area or does my district even even border the Burholme Park area, although it is close to Burholme Park.One of the leaders of the movement to maintain the full size of Burholme Park is Tim Kearney. Kearney is, for the second consecutive time, the Democratic nominee against House Speaker John Perzel, who does represent Burholme Park. A Kearney victory--or even a Kearney close race--would send a very clear message that Northeast Philadelphia voters want Burholme Park to be maintained as it.Kearney also agrees, as do I, about the general economic points you are making. His victory--or even strong showing--would send a real message to state legislators in Harrisburg that they should be more proactive in trying to create meaningful economic benefits for the average citizen.
May 28, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256774#post256774
*
Northwood is a wonderful neighborhood, and I was sorry that the 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Plan had to take it away from my district as part of the decennial redrawing of district lines because of population changes.I last visited the Northwood Park when I went with many other family friends and relatives to console Flora Becker, Judge Becker's widow, last Wednesday night. The park is small but beautiful, and it adds to the general perception of Northwood as a beautiful urban oasis. Walking down Judge Becker's block, I saw anew the many positive qualities of Northwood that kept him living in the modest house in which he grew up for his entire life.Changing the name of Northwood Park would be a blow to the strong neighborhood identity that exists there. Naming it after a police officer who was killed in the line of duty would only reinforce the fear of crime and lead to more flight from the neighborhood. Other ways to remember the dedicated and conscientious Officer Skerski would be much more appropriate.
May 26, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256519#post256519
*
The problem with the Logan Triangle land is that it is not totally impossible to build there. It is just extremely expensive. There is no reason for any business or residential developer to pay a heavy premium to build there. But the fact that it is barely possible under extremely limited circumstances to build there has inhibited recreational development. Philadelphia hates to close the door on the potential for new tax ratables.What makes the most sense to me, as I have argued in another post, is to have the city lease the land to the Fairmount Park Commission for a 99 year period at $1 a year, with the right to get it back with substantial notice, say five years. The day might well come when development of Broad Street is such that the land becomes extremely valuable for private investment, but many of us are unlikely to live to see that day.Any substantial building there--a recreation center no less than houses or businesses--is in great structural danger without a massive financial investment. I think it makes much more sense to have an extension of Hunting Park there, which could include various various recrational activities that enhance living in the surrounding neighborhoods.
May 25, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256141#post256141
*
Neither 16th and Stenton (West Oak Lane) or the empty land caused by the removal of the sinking homes (Logan) are in Olney. Olney is the area close to (SURPRISE!) Olney Avenue, both to the east and the west of it. All neighborhood boundaries are vague and in the eye of the beholder, but 16th and Stenton and the Logan sinking homes are clearly out of the Olney area.In a sense, it would be great if it was totally impossible to build there. Then the focus would be on competing plans for a park (we could easily extend the nearby Hunting Park) and an urban farm. The urban farm idea might not cost the city anything, but the park would be far more useful to every day life.The problem is that, with enough investment to strengthen the foundations, commercial buildings could be built there. Similarly, if one was one going to build $500,000 houses there, one could spend enough money for strong foundations to cover the basic instability of the land.The rub is obvious: there is no good reason at the current time to build anything there. The neighborhood as it now stands is simply not attractive to people who want to invest large sums of money in either commercial space or housing. Nor is there any likelihood of imminent change.So, barring some deep-pocket suitor, i.e. Temple (which has no reason to want to build anything there either), what makes the most sense to me is a 99 year lease at $1 a year to the Fairmount Park Commission, which the city could cancel with, say, five years advance notice. Some day that land could well be valuable for other purposes, but in the meantime neighbors could use the land for constructive recreational pursuits.
May 20, 2006
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=253281#post253281
posted by Comment on Pennsylvania Legislation at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home