I don't think most people know, because I got an email saying the Finance Dept under Street would not give out those numbers. Can we all agree that in the hopefully more open Nutter administration, this is a relevant statistic to look at before a new law is passed?

"what is the cost of letting people automatically pay business taxes (or property taxes for that matter) on a monthly basis?"

Unfortunately, it is my sense that such costs would be much much higher than you'd think. For instance, the Revenue Department would likely have to send out an RFP for an entirely new software system that would allow the tracking of monthly payments and what not.

I'd also guess there'd be a ton of costs relating to overcoming what some may euphemistically call "bureaucratic inertia."

Or, because conversations with you tend to somehow always end back with how entrepreneurship is the answer to curing cancer, and getting the Phils to the world series.

Anywho, I was sort of kidding, because I know you can take it. In fact, I do know at least enough about the Philadelphia zoning process to be dangerous. I have also watched the process in action.

I know that it is a system so stupidly set up, that every single variance request must go to L&I, and then is as a matter of course always denied. If the denial is 100 percent, that seems pretty pointless. How would you like the job of denier? If we had a zoning code that made clear what changes to properties were OK, then we would cut a lot of things out, right there. And, if we either got rid of the LandI role in the process, or actually empowered them to grant variances, then that would save people a lot of time and money.

Second, the city planning commission is 100 percent ignored at the hearings. They sit meekly below the cookie monster and his buds (noted planning experts such as Eleanor Dezzi), and are ignored as a matter of course.

Third, the process is cumbersome enough that at one time there was a whole 'sherpa' industry just to get people through it.

Fourth, it is true that community groups and especially the District Councilperson have a ton of say in the granting of waivers, variances, whatever. However, I would rather have a lot of community representation at the front end, so that people don't have to go on their knees to the Counci's office every time they want to extend their porch 4 inches. Does that mean that a community group will lose a little power on the back end? No question- and that is a legitimate point to raise. However, like I said, I think it is a lot healthier to have a city wide law, a clear framework, and then if there are real problems, to deal with that.

Fifth, as a City, we should decide how we feel about mixed uses. A lot of zoning requests are for that specific purpose, right? So, as a City, we should decide what constitute nuisances, what don't, etc. Doing that would knock out quite a few hearings. A cement mixing company moving in is probably a nuisance. What about a hair salon?

Sixth, basically, the system is a tax on the average person who is requesting something that a normal city, with a normal zoning code, would not put them through, would not make them hire a lawyer, etc, to take care of.

Seventh, if you are connected, and you have a lot of cash, the system works great for you. See, for example, the billboard industry. Or, if you are in the sheet metal workers union, and the zoning board forces every person applying for a variance to install central air conditioning because they feel like helping out their union, it really works great for you.

Eighth, right now the City is going to start reemphasizing planning, right? What is the point of doing so, when one power hungry guy can just ignore any change to the law he wants, and just grant variance after variance?

Stop me before I write more and repeat myself again.

The last time I checked, the process of opening up a restaurant goes well beyond the zoning code, and includes a whole range of other departments in addition to L&I, and a bunch of other codes and regulations. This is not to say that the codes and regulations are bad or that it should be a walk in the park to get all of the approvals needed, but the "process" now is broken and clearly does not work well or in any way resembling a reasonable manner. There are actually large cities such as Vancouver that have computerized the entire development approval process. Also, the zoning code is incredibly difficult to follow, even experienced zoning attorneys have told me as such. What you need to know about zoning may be in the zoning code, though it is not there in anything resembling an obvious or an organized or methodical manner.

As far as zoning, every property is zoned, that is a key part of zoning. Without having a zoning classification for every property you do not have zoning. Sometimes entire blocks might have the same classification, other times, such as say for corner properties, or larger properties you might want to have adjacent properties that are zoned differently and allow for different uses. Believe me changes in the zoning code will go both ways. I could just as easily write a scenario where a change in the new zoning code would take away density or a new design requirement would require a more expensive project with less return for a developer. Overall the key benefits of a new zoning code will be a more up to date linking of land use to a new comprehensive plan; a code that allows for and encourages land and building uses and lifestyles that are reflective of the way we live in the 21st century and not during the Kennedy administration; one that does not pit developers against civic groups; and one that will let developers and citizens have reasonable expectations of what will be built and where it will be built. The main people with the power that benefit from the current system are elected officials. The developers and the citizens lose under the current system. Even top zoning attorneys who get lots of billable hours from the current system realize that it is so dysfunctional (and uncertain) that they are supporting the calls for a new zoning code. Look zoning has an impact on property values, so do a lot of other factors from location to market demand to the local school system. The goal of zoning is not to maintain or increase property value, it to provide a basis for orderly development and for the common good and to benefit the health, safety and welfare of people, including orderly development. When a zoning code amendment or variance happens now because the head of the Zoning Board likes a project and could not care less about what the zoning code states or City Councilman Doe supports a project at 1234 Maple Ave. because he and the developer are friends it impacts not only the property there but other properties with the same zoning throughout the City as well as properties adjacent to 1234 Maple Ave. When the Center City part of the zoning code was rewritten around 1990, a result was that some properties went up in value, some declined, some aspects benefited developers, some aspects hurt developers, some aspects benefited citizens, some hurt citizens. None of the changes were outrageous, none were done in a way to benefit a specific property as things are done now with the spot amendments and the granting of unwarranted variances where nothing resembling a hardship exists. In closing do the current zoning code and related processes work, are they fair and reasonable in terms of process and a likelihood that the rules will not be subject to whims, deviation, and crass politics, and are they up to date?