As visitors descend on Philadelphia this summer to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial in a quintessentially American city, preservationists remain on edge over a City Council bill they fear could put historic buildings here at increased risk of demolition.

The so-called “Squilla Bill,” brought by City Councilmember Mark Squilla, first popped up last fall after a year of adversarial lobbying between historic preservation advocates and a collection of pro-development interests. At stake are potentially some of the most significant changes to the city’s historic preservation ordinance in decades. That includes what advocates continue to fear is a 30-day demolition loophole that would give a property owner a heads up if their building is nominated for historic preservation, thus potentially affording them an opportunity to apply for demolition or alteration permits before protections can go into place.

Development groups such as the Building Industry Association have called those fears overblown, and Councilmember Squilla also said the bill strikes an appropriate balance and has been modified to address concerns. Still, the bill remains a proverbial football: a Philadelphia Planning Commission hearing originally scheduled for last December was punted until this spring and then never occurred. Instead, a modified version of the bill was placed on the agenda of a City Council Rules committee hearing on June 3. Yet, at the last moment, that too was delayed until the fall.

All parties say there continues to be dialogue via virtual meetings facilitated by Squilla’s office. However, historic preservation groups say the fundamentals remain the same and that they oppose the bill. As such, their vigil continues. “There have been a few revisions to the bill,” said Paul Steinke, executive director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. “But none of them really resolve the underlying issue, which, if it went into effect, would erode the protections that nominated properties enjoy while they’re being considered for designation.”

Moving Target

The latest drama around the Squilla bill took place June 3, when Council’s Rules Committee, chaired by Councilmember Cindy Bass, was to consider the latest draft of the bill, officially registered as Bill No. 251030. After word of the hearing got out in May, various preservation and civic groups formed social media campaigns to rally opposition. Arielle Harris, an architectural historian and board member of the historic preservation advocacy nonprofit RePoint Philadelphia, said her group started an online petition while also reaching out to RCOs and other sympathetic community organizations. RePoint also began lobbying the offices of the seven City council members who sit on the Rules committee. “All of our meetings were generally very successful,” Harris said. “The staff were all very receptive to our concerns with the bill.”

The networks of the Preservation Alliance and other historic preservationist groups were also activated. Their efforts may have had the desired effect. On May 28, Councilmember Curtis Jones, a member of the committee, issued a letter announcing his opposition to the bill, stating it “Will open the dangerous door of demolition… [of] swaths of homes, religious institutions, and old factories that make Philadelphia beautiful.”

At the hearing on June 3, preservation advocates filed into City Hall’s cavernous Room 400, with advocates ready to make their case through public comment and preservation leaders such as Steinke and Harris slated as official panelists. Yet, when the meeting began, they said, Bass announced the bill would be tabled and Squilla delivered brief remarks explaining his decision.

In an email to Hidden City, Squilla further elaborated. “Members of the committee were receiving last minute questions on the legislation and believed they needed more time to fully understand the changes,” Squilla wrote. “They asked me if I could hold to a future date. I agreed.”

In addition to Bass, Squilla, and Jones, the other members of the committee are Councilmembers Katherine Gilmore Richardson, Brian J. O’Neill, Isaiah Thomas, and Jamie Gauthier.

Squilla said the next earliest consideration could have come in July, but that he instead opted to wait until the fall. Advocates believe consideration of the bill will be rescheduled for the committee’s September meeting. Steinke viewed the delay as mostly good news since it kept the bill from advancing. Harris agreed to an extent, but found it frustrating that opponents of the bill had made the time and effort to be there, some taking off work to do so, only to be denied an opportunity to register their discontent at the 11th hour.

What’s in the Bill?

Language for the bill that was to be considered on June 3 is not yet available to the public, but those privy to it say it’s been modified from the version first presented last fall. Most significantly, Steinke said a provision that would remove landscape architecture as a qualifying attribute for historic preservation was jettisoned, a win for advocates. Squilla had previously expressly stated he wasn’t confident of the merits of the measure, which, like the rest of the bill’s text, was generated through workshopping from several City agencies.

However, the warm and fuzzies stop there. Consternation continues to stem from the 30-day provision, which involved parties said was modified to a degree, but not to an extent that it eliminated opposition. Squilla frames the provision as fair to property owners, as it would for the first time give them knowledge of a pending nomination before Philadelphia Historic Commission staff make an evaluation of its merits. Currently, if staff determine an application warrants nomination and send a recommendation to the Historical Commission, restrictions on demolition and alteration permits immediately go into place and the property owner is then notified.

Squilla said under his bill, the City’s Department of Licenses and Inspections still cannot issue such permits during the advanced notice period, a moratorium he added after preservationists expressed concern with the earlier version of the bill. “The main purpose of the bill is to provide a more robust notification process for property owners whose properties are being considered for designation and placement on the register of historic properties,” Squilla wrote. “With the proposed changes, there will be a preliminary phase where the property owner is notified and given an opportunity to explain to the Historical Commission why it should not be considered for designation owing to hardship, mistake, or established development plans already in place (e.g., via existing permits) etc.” If the Commission decides hardship does not exist, it can still move forward and place permit restrictions in place, Squilla added.

Yet, advocates remain concerned that the bill will give developers new leverage and ultimately result in increased danger of demolition to historic properties. Steinke said unchanged in the bill is language around the consideration of existing “material commitments” at a property, such as engineering workups or permits for alteration. That leaves Steinke worried it could present an opportunity for developers to produce such materials within the notification window, nipping a nomination in the bud before its merits are ever considered and protections put in place. He also worries about holes in the moratorium. “The language is murky and subject to interpretation,” explained Steinke.

For example, according to Steinke, the City currently defines demolition as removal of at least two-thirds of a structure. Facades are also protected against demolition under current municipal guidelines. However, some buildings have multiple facades, leading Steinke to worry that developers could work to skirt the proposed permit restrictions. He added that the Historic Commission already has the ability to consider hardships when making its final decision on a nomination. “So we don’t even think it’s necessary,” to change the City’s ordinance, Steinke said.

Harris said RePoint holds similar concerns. Analysis produced by the nonprofit states the Squilla bill will introduce a “new balancing test” that awards historic designation only if the benefits aren’t “outweighed by other policy factors.” They also believe the bill would make it easier for an existing historic property owner to remove designations due to a newly proposed clause prohibiting the Historic Commission from adopting rules that “limit or restrict” rescission.

What Comes Next?

Despite their opposition to the bill, advocates credit Squilla for maintaining open lines of communication: he has held monthly Zoom calls with preservationists, the development community, and other stakeholders all in attendance. Harris was invited to one such meeting held the day before the hearing, and she said Squilla was the only committee member who agreed to a face-to-face meeting with RePoint.

Squilla also said he has worked to receive and utilize input from multiple parties. “We met for six months with the Law Department, Historical Commission, Preservation Alliance, BIA, lawyers Matt McClure and Michael Phillips, Planning, and added other preservationists along the way,” Squilla said. “There were many changes to the legislation from recommendations from the meetings.”

Squilla said his office will “set up additional stakeholder meetings over the summer.”

Preservation advocates also intend to remain active. “We’re going to continue to engage with Rules committee members,” along with Chris Rabb, the presumptive next congressman for Philadelphia’s 3rd Congressional District, Harris said.

---

---