Mayor Parker’s housing proposals need City Council’s support | Editorial

Ever since Mayor Cherelle L. Parker announced her plan to build and preserve 30,000 homes in Philadelphia — a challenge even under ideal conditions — it has been an open question whether City Council will allow the initiative the opportunity to succeed.

Councilmanic prerogative — the tradition by which district members are essentially allowed to make or break every land-use decision within their constituencies — is often cast as a way of giving voice to the community. While some residents would quibble with that assertion, what’s evidently clear is that it makes enacting citywide policy difficult.

That may be truer when it comes to housing than for any other municipal issue.

In the 15 years since the Michael Nutter administration embarked on the Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan to correct zoning problems citywide, successive City Councils have passed district zoning restrictions that have effectively suppressed housing production. The 2021 decision to curtail the city’s property tax abatement on new construction and rehabilitation projects has also stifled growth.

That makes the Parker administration’s decision to introduce five bills meant to streamline home building a welcome effort — even if Council’s reluctance to approve the proposals is unsurprising.

» READ MORE: Parker’s housing plan is ambitious, but can it overcome steep challenges? | Editorial

After all, when Parker herself was a district councilmember, she was not shy about pressing for her own restrictive zoning decisions. Parker demanded builders use more expensive materials, limited home-based daycare centers, browbeat a medical marijuana dispensary that wanted to open a location in her district into moving elsewhere, opposed the construction of accessory dwelling units, and — in one of her last acts on Council — sought to restrict grocery and convenience stores.

Now that she is mayor, Parker has a different perspective. Rather than focusing on individuals who call her office with complaints, her priority is fixing systemic citywide issues. Sometimes that means telling constituents no.

While community input for construction projects should not be ignored, it can have the effect of delaying a worthwhile project until it withers on the vine and dies.

As chronicled by Inquirer reporter Jake Blumgart, red tape and community approval requirements have delayed an affordable housing project in Strawberry Mansion for six years. In the meantime, costs have risen, threatening the viability of the proposal. Multiply this delay tactic by the 30,000 homes the Parker administration seeks to build or maintain, and the potential problem she faces becomes clear.

Under the current system, opposition to housing doesn’t even have to be widespread. Research has shown that public meetings for individual projects tend to be disproportionately attended by dedicated housing opponents. After all, if a project does not offend you, why take time out of your day to talk about it?

Attendees also tend to be comfortably housed, rather than the first-time home buyers and renters who are primarily impacted by housing policy. Also, while many community groups are free to join, operate transparently, and regularly hold fair and free elections, that’s not always the case.

The Society Hill Civic Association and Center City Residents Association require dues — a form of poll tax that would be illegal for any official government entity. Some registered community organizations, like Strawberry Mansion Community Concern, which has led the charge against the affordable senior housing proposal, appear to represent just one person. Others neglect to keep minutes or hold leadership elections.

» READ MORE: Mayor Parker should beware of the unintended financial consequences of her housing plan | Editorial

Despite that, these organizations are, for all intents and purposes, often allowed to dictate policy by Council, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and other government entities.

How can Parker bridge the divide between civic needs and civic groups? The mayor should tie her plan to borrow $800 million for housing in the city to her proposals to reduce district zoning restrictions and cut red tape. One should not be able to move forward without the other.

Take, for example, the Turn the Key program. Initially billed as a relatively affordable way to provide workforce housing, the reluctance of some Council members to approve land sales has resulted in higher-than-expected costs for many properties.

The Parker administration is now seeking to borrow $112 million to fund the program, but this spending shouldn’t happen if Council members are unwilling to pass the mayor’s legislation to allow the Land Bank to sell parcels from a preapproved list without asking for another Council ordinance. Otherwise, much of this money will go to waste.

By binding her efforts to streamline development to her proposed investment in affordable housing, Parker can give her housing plan a fighting chance.