- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
I've had a chance to parse the new zoning code, and found some rather interesting changes in the language about how the City (well, City Council who writes the zoning code) views vacant lots.
Basically, they're bad news. Something to avoid.
However, with recent public dustups about vacant lots,
first in Point Breeze (vacant lot improved into park contrary to objections and warnings of the City),
second in Roxborough (demolition of a half block of 1800s homes to create, oh-boy, another vacant lot)
it does raise an interesting question
- is a vacant lot really, logically,
a "use of the property"?
It seems that it's exactly the opposite- an intentional NON-USE,
rather than any positive use.