Late last year, some members of Philadelphia City Council began pursuing legislation to further regulate demolition.
Philadelphia has many thousands of vacant properties, and historically, some local politicians have sought to encourage razing such structures to prevent fire risks or eliminate drug havens.
But in the last couple of decades, as real estate development heated up in many neighborhoods, concerns emerged that potentially historic older buildings were being destroyed to make the vacant land more valuable.
“We know that when these properties are demolished in certain communities, that typically is a sign of gentrification,” Councilmember Jeffery Young, who represents much of North Philadelphia, said at a Tuesday hearing.
“When you demolish that property and you build up, you’re trying to make more money than the property was originally stated as a shell,” said Young, whose district also includes parts of Center City.
Young introduced a bill last year that would ban demolition permits from being issued in his district unless a property owner had secured building permits for a new project.
He said he saw the legislation as a means to encourage property owners to repair existing buildings and to ensure that vacant lots would not scar his district.
“When you rehab a property, the price is typically lower than a brand-new house, and so we’re trying to keep homes affordable,” Young said, “and prevent blight from our communities.”
Young’s bill would not apply to buildings deemed imminently dangerous by the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections.
Last year Councilmember Jamie Gauthier passed a law containing a similar provision, but for a more tightly proscribed area that covered properties held by large higher education institutions in University City.
The Building Industry Association (BIA) presented a litany of concerns about Young’s bill at Tuesday’s Rules Committee hearing.
The BIA feared the legislation would delay projects, as many developers demolish structures while they are waiting for their building permits. The additional months in limbo would increase insurance, security, and financing costs, the group argued.
The bill could also encourage bad actors to engage in dangerous behavior, the BIA said.
“To qualify for an exception based on structural danger, certain property owners may be compelled to intentionally incur code violation or enforcement action to demonstrate instability,” said Kenn Penn, a local developer, who spoke on the BIA’s behalf. It “incentivizes the very condition that the city seeks to avoid.”
Penn also warned about the danger of preserving long-vacant properties.
“The bill would prevent demolition of vacant and unsecured structures that are highly susceptible to unlawful occupation,” Penn said. “Philadelphia has already experienced multiple fires this winter, many historically linked to squatters and abandoned buildings.”
Penn asked Young to limit the legislation to properties that do not have a vacant property license.
But the bill passed from the committee with only technical amendments.
“I understand the impacts this will have on the development community,” Young said. “But what I think this bill does is ensures that property owners maintain their properties in a prudent manner.”
