Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Backroom tax hike turned off residents.

By John Chin The chief clerk of City Council called the fight on Dec. 14. The favored Callowhill Reading Viaduct Neighborhood Improvement District was down for the count. A majority of the area's residents, 51.9 percent, had come out swinging like Rocky Balboa, and they beat a system rigged heavily in favor of special improvement districts.

By John Chin

The chief clerk of City Council called the fight on Dec. 14. The favored Callowhill Reading Viaduct Neighborhood Improvement District was down for the count. A majority of the area's residents, 51.9 percent, had come out swinging like Rocky Balboa, and they beat a system rigged heavily in favor of special improvement districts.

Let's be clear: This fight was not about cleaner, safer streets. The district was resoundingly rejected because the voters objected to the proposed taxation, as well as a politics-as-usual process that was lacking in transparency, clarity, and inclusion.

The weak efforts to inform residents and create a participatory discussion about the district fell short of transparency. Many residents learned of the plan only through a mandatory mailing from the city in August. This was four months after the legislation to create the district had been introduced. At that point, decisions were already being made without the input of the people who live in Chinatown North and the Callowhill loft district.

Then there was the clarity problem. Questions about the relationship between the district and proposals to turn part of the Reading viaduct into a park yielded inconsistent answers. District advocates could not agree on whether there was a connection or why the Reading viaduct was part of the name. Residents wanted to know how their money would be spent and if it would be used to enrich private developers along the viaduct. The proponents' inability to answer these simple questions generated misgivings.

In the end, the Nutter administration and the media decided that the district had in fact been connected to the viaduct project. Deputy Mayor Alan Greenberger asked City Council to change the name of the district and remove references to the Reading viaduct in the bill. PlanPhilly reported that although the district "originally included the creation of a linear park along the viaduct as a project, the issue proved too divisive."

The process also failed in terms of inclusion. It did little to account for the diversity of the neighborhood, which has a mix of races, income levels, and commercial, industrial, and residential uses, as well as a higher rate of extreme poverty than the city average. It's also been a long-standing area of planned growth for nearby Chinatown.

The Center City District's Paul Levy initially presented an inclusive though unrefined vision of a Chinatown North and Callowhill district that would remain diverse, with additional housing for low-income families. But the district did not sustain that vision. Rather, it became a special-interest district focused on the viaduct project, not an improvement district designed to benefit everyone.

Finally, the timing of this proposal was bad. Philadelphians are experiencing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Neighborhood residents and small businesses are struggling to make ends meet.

Many property owners objected to the district because of its proposed 7 percent property-tax increase. The proponents' indifference to residents' hardships, and their standard response that this was a "nominal" tax, failed to resonate with the neighborhood. Along with recent citywide property-tax increases, the cumulative result would have been a tax hike of more than 20 percent in less than two years.

As it has for the past 45 years, though, the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corp. will continue its efforts to improve Chinatown North through beautification and greening projects, its daily sweeping program, and redevelopment - some of the same activities the improvement district proposed to establish.