Limits on zoning appeals approved

Gov. Rendell signed legislation yesterday giving Philadelphia the power to increase fines for quality-of-life code violations, at the cost of restricting city residents' right to challenge zoning changes in court.

Community activists had urged Rendell, the former mayor, to veto the measure on the grounds that it would allow the billboard industry and developers to run rampant in the city.

An amendment slipped into House Bill 1954 in the middle of the night Nov. 19 would prohibit citywide interest groups from suing to overturn Philadelphia zoning decisions, limiting legal standing to those who live within 500 feet of a proposed project.

The change came without notice, and without debate, amid the usual flurry of bills as the state legislature was winding up its two-year session.

"I hope his hand at least gave him a cramp when he signed it," said Mary Tracy, director of SCRUB, an anti-blight group that has a long string of court victories against illegally sited billboards.

"So many great citizens wrote great letters, but they unfortunately fell on deaf ears," Tracy said. "It's like they don't even care what people think about the quality of life in their neighborhoods."

The last-minute amendment was "an unfortunate byproduct of the process we have in Harrisburg" that did not diminish the original intent of the bill, Rendell spokeswoman Kate Philips said.

"This bill has some unintended consequences that unfortunately don't outweigh the need for the city to have the ability to fine people who dump in the city," Philips said. "It's a big problem."

The new law allows Philadelphia to increase fines for illegal dumping and other code violations from $300 to $2,300.

That was all that was in the legislation from the time it was introduced in September 2003 until the amendment dealing with zoning cases was added in the Senate Appropriations Committee. With the change, it passed both houses of the legislature in a marathon session the weekend before Thanksgiving.

Officials in the office of Senate Majority Leader David J. Brightbill (R., Lebanon) did not respond to requests for comment.

The amendment brings the rules for legal standing in zoning disputes in Philadelphia into line with the rest of the state, said John Milliron, a lobbyist for the Outdoor Advertising Association of Pennsylvania.

In the state's other 66 counties, only property owners within 500 feet of a disputed project can sue - but under Philadelphia's City Charter, any taxpayer could go to court.

"It's the same standard as in Harrisburg, Johnstown, Scranton and Pittsburgh," Milliron said. "One of the reasons we have strict standing is so the courts don't get clogged with suits from people who aren't directly affected."

SCRUB has turned to the courts in recent years in seeking to enforce a 1991 city law that severely restricts outdoor advertising. It routinely lost scores of billboard cases before the city Zoning Board of Appeals, only to win them later in court.

The new law applies to all zoning matters, however, such as the controversial plan by Fox Chase Cancer Center to expand into Burholme Park in the Fox Chase section of the city.

But the billboard industry has been after SCRUB for years to no avail. A narrowly drawn amendment limiting legal standing only in zoning cases involving outdoor advertising was pushed two years ago by House Speaker John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) - but that measure died when it was brought to light.

In the fall of 2001, City Council adopted an ordinance limiting citywide groups' right to fight billboards in court, but Mayor Street vetoed it.

"We will have no way to protect ourselves now from these giant wraparound billboards that are coming," said State Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.), who joined more than 350 Philadelphians who wrote letters urging Rendell to veto the bill.

"While this bill was probably directed first and foremost at SCRUB ... it will undermine the effectiveness of every community group in the city," said Marc Stier, president of the West Mount Airy Neighbors.

Tracy said her group would probably challenge the constitutionality of the new law. The state constitution requires that legislation concern only one subject at a time, and also mandates public hearings - though the courts have rarely enforced those provisions against the legislature.

"This symbolizes everything that is wrong with Pennsylvania government," Tracy said.