Must council rule land use? Yes

By Darrell L. Clarke

I have the privilege to represent approximately 150,000 residents of Philadelphia in the Fifth Councilmanic District. At a very personal level, I know my district. I know its strengths and its challenges; its community groups and their leaders; and the alliances - and tensions - that sometime exist between neighbors. I have a clear sense of the development needs within my district.

And I am not different from the nine other district Council members with whom I serve. We are dedicated to understanding the specific communities we represent as thoroughly as possible.

So when new opportunities arise - when a developer proposes a new project that requires Council's approval - we understandably look to the Council member who represents the affected district to evaluate the project.

That is the essence of what some refer to as the councilmanic prerogative: When presented with a proposal affecting a specific councilmanic district, we defer to the Council member who best understands its impact. We offer our opinions and our suggestions, but we will vote on the proposal only after the district Council member has exhaustively evaluated it in a transparent process that includes public hearings and meetings with community advocates.

The prerogative is informal. It is not required by our Home Rule Charter or Council's rules. It exists only because it works. And in return for the prerogative, Council expects the district Council member to negotiate on Council's and the city's behalf to improve the project, often dramatically.

Supporters of the project understand that without the Council member's support, the project could stall. This brings them to the table. Compromises are reached; legitimate neighborhood concerns are resolved; flawed projects ripen into worthwhile ones; and good projects become superior ones.

Here are just two examples in the Fifth Councilmanic District: