archive-org.com » ORG » M » MANAYUNKCOUNCIL.ORG

Total: 186

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".

  • be taken whenever the Court finds that a full and complete record has not been made 14 1807 4 It is appropriate for the Court to allow additional evidence whenever that evidence is necessary for making a determination of the issues presented Korngold 606 A 2d at 1281 On March 7 2001 the appellee Cotton Street Landing Inc purchased advertising space in The Review a local newspaper in Manayunk The advertisement entitle WHAT AREA RESIDENTS REALLY WANT TO KNOW purported to answer several questions that have been raised by the Cotton Street Landing project The third question presented by the appellee in the advertisement was What will happen to the Venice Island site if the apartment project is not built Their answer As all responsible parties have acknowledged the highest and best use of the site is residential A project like Cotton Street Landing and the Venice Island location are the perfect match However what started out as a waste recycling factory handling about 40 truckloads of waste per day 7 days per week can and probably will continue We strongly feel that this is not in keeping with the nature quality and character of the Manayunk of today but realistically and business wise this is the next best use of the site emphasis added It is well settled law that in order to prove an unnecessary hardship an applicant must prove that the subject property could not be used within the permissible limits of the existing zoning classification Philadelphia v Earl Scheib Realty Corp 8 Pa Commonwealth Ct 11 17 301 A 2d 423 426 1973 Where a property is being used as zoned there per se can be no unnecessary hardship Id Patullo v Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Middletown 701 A 2d 295 298 Comm 1997 Here the appellee admitted that the land can be used as zoned and therefor cannot be entitled to a variance It is clear that the site had a viable industrial use that use was shut down so that the appellee could apply for a variance and that use can and probably will continue if the variance is denied This is the smoking gun The ad is necessary to make a proper determination of the issues and should be admitted into the record 2 THE BOARD IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED TESTIMONY REGARDING EFFECTS OF FLOOD The testimony of appellants witness Dr Sally Willig at the Dranoff Properties Sept Term 2000 No 2000 001056 and 2000 001057 in this Court hearing of March 13 2000 and all witnesses from the Dranoff hearing of June 12 2000 was incorporated into the record later on June 12 2000 in this case As a result like in the Dranoff case copy of motion attached as Exhibit A the record was incomplete from the very beginning because the Board had arbitrarily limited testimony of Dr Willig and implicitly of all witnesses to the issue of whether the 100 year flood level would increase N T March 13 2000

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/VeniceIsland/maloomian-remand.html (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive



  • applicant where he knew of the existing zoning regulations and the problems bringing about the hardship or should have known them at the time he purchased the property Ottaviano v Zoning Bd of Adjustment of Philadelphia 31 Pa Cmwlth 366 376 A 2d 286 287 Pa Cmwlth 1977 In Ottaviano the homeowner alleged that the size of his kitchen made the kitchen dangerous to cook in and therefor created a hardship necessitating the erection of an addition on to the back of his house Id The Commonwealth Court held that the homeowner was not entitled to a variance and should have known of this condition at the time he bought the property Id Here the problem is the same Cotton knew or should have know that this site was zoned for industrial use and that 12 improvements to the transportation infrastructure might be necessary to operate a business within the zoning regulations Even if the conditions are the result of the actions of the prior owner the hardship is still self created and cannot support a variance Camaron Apartments Inc v Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia 14 Pa Cmwlth 571 324 A 2d 805 807 Pa Cmwlth 1974 Finally Cotton knew of the zoning and the floodway problems when it bought the property Even if it did not the law holds that a property owner is duty bound to check a property s zoning status and that the failure to do so when accompanied by a resulting lack of knowledge will not be sufficient for the issuance of a variance Center City Residents Association v Zoning Bd of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia 144 Pa Cmwlth 545 601 A 2d 1328 1330 Pa Cmwlth 1992 This property was working as an industrial property until Cotton decided to close the industry The existing industrial use was closed by its plans to redevelop the site into a residential use Any hardship that results from closing the plant was entirely created by Cotton Without any support the Board concluded that the hardships presented are not self imposed by the Applicant Conclusions of Law 11 Because all hardship that Cotton alleges is entirely self created it was an error of law and abuse of discretion for the Board to grant the variances 13 D GRANTING THE VARIANCE SUBSTANTIALLY HARMS THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE Even if a landowner can demonstrate that an unnecessary hardship exists and that the hardship was not self created the variance must be denied if granting the variance would be detrimental to the public interest Hohl 736 A 2d at 59 Here the evidence was overwhelming that this project would be detrimental to the public interest There was a great deal of evidence that this project would be injurious to the public welfare even though the Board was clearly severely limited the evidence presented by the protestants While Cotton offered as proof that this project would not hurt the public interest testimony that the project would decrease the obstructions in the floodway that it could increase tax revenue and that it would provide extra parking to ease congestion in Manayunk The evidence presented however demonstrated that each of these benefits is false and does not support the Board s finding The alleged decrease in flood levels was the sole basis the Board gave in support of its conclusion that the variance would not be detrimental to the public interest Conclusion of Law 13 The Board relied on this argument in error as Dr Waggle Cotton s own expert admitted that the water level changes by the proposed development are very very negligible The changes are so small as to be almost imperceptible in the models N T 3 13 00 at 65 The second proposition that this project would bring in 14 additional tax revenue is equally illusive Cotton s witness Dennis Glackin admitted that the model used was very subjective The model assumes without reason or support that 80 of the tenets will come from outside the city thereby repopulating the city N T 03 13 00 at 29 When questioned about this the witness admitted that there was no way to tell whether this would actually be true and that if it was not true the benefit would have to be reduced N T 03 13 00 at 29 30 Further the model failed to take into account any costs of the project that the city would bear such as emergency services and infrastructure improvements that would be necessary to support the project in the event of a flood which as shown will happen N T 03 13 00 at 26 The model did not even consider that costs of losing the industrial use N T 03 13 00 at 23 Further this benefit is not even related to the variance at issue Cotton s expert testified that the tax value would be the same wherever the project was built and that the developer could build it anywhere in the city without receiving a variance from the floodway ordinance N T 03 13 00 at 32 This benefit is therefor irrelevant Finally Cotton argued that the extra public spaces that they are planning to build would ease parking problems in Manayunk This is disingenuous however because Mr Boles Cotton s traffic and parking expert testified that the existing parking lots in Manayunk only ever filled up to capacity on one single occasion in the past year N T 09 20 00 at 22 Because 15 the existing lots only filled on one day in the past year adding more lots will not ease the parking problem in Manayunk In contrast to these false benefits as shown below the harms inflicted upon the public welfare by this project will be multiple and extreme Accordingly it was an abuse of discretion for the Board to grant this variance by ignoring the overwhelming evidence which demonstrated that it would be detrimental to the public interest 1 Technical Compliance with FEMA Standards Does Not Mean this Project Is Sound 14 1802 3 a places the additional requirement on variances from the Floodway Ordinance that the applicant must show no rise in the regulatory flood Dr Waggle presented a model that demonstrated that the project would result in an almost unmeasurable decrease in the 100 year flood N T 3 13 00 at 65 The models submitted by Dr Waggle were technically approved by FEMA as complying with the minimum standards established in their regulations Letter of May 15 The Board relied heavily on the model and the May 15 letter from FEMA in approving the project Such reliance was inappropriate however as this letter went on to expressly warn that the letter was not meant as an approval of the project and that this development was contradictory to the mission of FEMA to reduce the loss of life and property associated with natural and man made disasters Id That language should have alerted the Board to the dangers inherent in this project However Cotton argued that as long as the minimum regulatory standards were met 16 the project should be allowed and the Board agreed Instead the Board should have refused to grant the variance because the variance was shown to harm the public health safety and welfare The evidence as reflected in FEMA s own caveat showed that reliance on the minimum standards of the FEMA regulations was arbitrary The facts starkly show the harm in fact Dr Willig noted that historically every time that there are floods Manayunk is severely hit N T 3 13 00 at 110 In fact during the most recent 50 year flood Main Street and River Road were so deeply flooded they had to be evacuated and guarded against looting N T 3 13 00 at 111 Both of these regions are in Manayunk at a higher elevation that Venice Island In fact even Cotton s hydrologist Dr Waggle admitted that his calculations were specifically designed to satisfy the regulations N T 3 13 00 at 72 He stated that if he were actually trying to design the project he would have included the cars in the parking lot in his design to calculate flood resistance but because he was trying to do a determination to satisfy the regulations he did not include the cars N T 3 13 00 at 72 He further admitted that he had never been involved with a project that called for development in the floodway before N T 3 13 00 at 56 The Board did not make any finding regarding these issues Dr Waggle also said that determination of whether changing use from industrial to residential is proper is not covered by 17 regulations and is the job of Board N T 3 13 00 at 73 On this he was correct and the Board abused their discretion by relying on FEMA s reluctant compliance letter rather than finding according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence Manayunk s hydrologists Joseph Skupien and Geoffrey Goll testified without controdiction that the calculations advanced by Cotton were misleading because they calculated the piers that supported the structures as small separate entities when in reality during a flood the piers below the buildings will be clogged with debris and cars and will act as a solid wall not as modeled in Cotton s application N T 6 12 00 at 7 Manayunk s hydrologists also opined that the Board should have required the development to be modeled for additional lesser floods to see the effect on those floods N T 6 12 00 at 18 They even would have done the calculations himself but he was denied access to Cotton s input data N T 6 12 00 at 52 While the 100 year flood may not be affected by the development smaller floods may be made worse Also the piers will be subject not only to pressure of water and debris but struck by items floating down river and damaged N T 6 12 00 at 29 Tractor trailers were literally floating away during Floyd only a 25 year flood N T 6 12 00 at 29 This could cause the considerable damage to the buildings making them dangerous to live in and delaying return after any evacuation Moreover the standard used by the Board ignores other more 18 long term effects of flooding After the immediate danger recedes the dampness caused by a flooded building causes health risks from molds that build up inside the walls after a flood N T 6 12 00 at 33 Further the risks associated with flooding are increased by placing residences in the floodway instead of industry because the management of a business can tell people to leave if floods occur during working hours and businesses will already be closed when floods occur during the night N T 6 12 00 at 36 Residents on the other hand will be reluctant to leave their homes may not even know of the flood or may be asleep N T 6 12 00 at 36 Finally the state and federal governments have been spending millions of dollars not in trying to lower flood waters but to move people out of the flood plains through buyouts N T 6 12 00 at 46 New Jersey alone spent 16 Million on buyouts after Floyd Allowing Cotton to build in the floodway not just a flood plain is not sound planning or management N T 6 12 00 at 46 Once again the Board failed to make any finding concerning these issues This variance creates a situation where the city is violating all state and federal policies and may have to buy out the owners in the future in order to move people out of harms way If the City is forced to buy out this development after the next flood if flooding is made worse or if public health is endangered these are all clear detriments to the public 19 interest 2 The Variance Will Cause Loss of Lives There was overwhelming evidence that this project was against the public interest because it will put human life in peril The record shows that floods kill more people and cause more property damage than all other natural disasters combined N T 6 12 00 at 194 Cotton relied on the creation of an evacuation plan to argue that this project will not cause people to die The evidence strongly showed that such presumptions were naive and it was an abuse of discretion for the Board to ostrich like stick its head in the sand and ignore this peril The evidence showed that 80 90 percent of people do not leave when the storm warnings go out N T 6 12 00 at 196 Further evacuation plans while necessary are often not effective because they are unable to control people who will go back into the danger area to protect their homes cars and belongings N T 3 13 00 at 115 6 Mr Hendrickson testified that evacuation plans such as this one which calls for escape via a footbridge often do not matter because most people are lost trying to save their automobiles N T 3 13 00 at 130 The evidence showed that in Hurricane Floyd the first flood warning came at 3 54 P M and the data shows that Venice Island became flooded at some time between 3 and 4 in the afternoon meaning the warning was too late N T 6 12 00 at 25 6 Floyd was only a 25 year flood N T 6 12 00 at 25 6 Since flooding was already beginning before the warning was issued the time to 20 evacuate was extremely short N T 6 12 00 at 26 Here too the Board failed to make any findings Further the majority of the time the Island was flooded in Floyd was after dark so that the evacuation would have been much more difficult N T 6 12 00 at 27 This would not happen with an industrial use because it would be closed at night Stephen Miller a professional water rescue expert there was no basis why this project was even being considered N T 6 12 00 at 175 He testified that 90 percent of flood victims die in or near their car because they don t follow evacuation plans that call for residents to leave their cars behind N T 6 12 00 at 175 The Board Chairman agreed that people would not leave their cars behind chastising Mr Jaffe attorney for Councilman Cohen when he suggested cars left behind would cause pollution in the river he declared Mr Jaffe do you think 575 people are just going to leave their cars there and just leave I m sure that the drivers are going to take their cars out N T 12 22 99 at 83 In this development many people will not take the footbridge they will try to save their cars N T 6 12 00 at 175 They will die Mr Miller testified that at some point someone will die as a result of building in the floodway on Venice Island possibly a firefighter having to rescue residents N T 6 12 00 at 185 He also testified that a firefighter is four times more likely to die in a water rescue operation than any other rescue N T 21 6 12 00 at 185 Michael Kurtz one of the few people who trains the people who train water rescuers testified on the project N T 6 12 00 at 194 He stated that most likely the conditions on Venice Island will make it such that the only rescue option will be by helicopter the most dangerous type of rescue N T 6 12 00 at 187 8 Multiple witnesses agreed that in the event of a flood on Venice Island water would be moving at a minimum speed of 8 10 feet per second which would make it impossible for rescue boats to operate N T 6 12 00 at 28 Mr Kurtz further stated that the pillars of the planned buildings will cause a condition rescuers call strainer when debris like trees and fences become caught on the pillars N T 6 12 00 at 188 Strainer is a condition that kills rescuers N T 6 12 00 at 188 The Board even cited the testimony regarding the likelihood of death in its Findings of Fact and did not reject it Finding of Fact 30 It was an abuse of discretion to grant this variance when it will result in the loss of human life and force Philadelphia firefighters to be placed in fatal peril due to ignoring nature an obvious detriment to the public interest It is as if a building were approved ignoring the laws of gravity 3 The variance will cause intolerable traffic hazards and congestion on roads surrounding the island which have limited access and which are surrounded by narrow roads which it is impractical to expand The impact of this development on traffic and parking congestion harms the public interest Several sections of the 22 variance requirement are violated by this provision The Code requires the Board to consider that the grant of the variance will not overcrowd the land or create an undue concentration of population Section 14 1802 2 g that the grant of the variance will not adversely affect transportation or unduly burden water sewer school park or other public facilities Section 14 1802 2 i and that the grant of the variance will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets Section 14 1802 2 e Cotton s testimony to argue that this project would not cause an increase in traffic congestion was completely incredible Elmer Boles testified that adding 270 residential units would not negatively impact traffic conditions or congestion N T 09 20 00 at

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/VeniceIsland/maloomian-brief.html (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ZONING HEARING
    story additions to the remaining structure with conversion of Building E 1 to be used as a fitness area for residents and apartment units E 2 residential storage facility and apartment units E 3 residential activities facility and apartment units E 4 to remain vacant P 1 residential apartments P 2A lobby and management office and apartment units P 2B apartment units for a total of 160 residential units proposin 160 parking spaces 5 of which are accessible spaces 55 are compact spaces 17 of those compact spaces are crossing the existing property lines and require either an easement agreement or proof of ownership of the abutting property This construction is within the floodway and no new construction or development is permitted These structures must be flood proofed to 40 3 city DATUM Location 4601 45 Flat Rock Road NWC Leverington Avenue Hearing to be at 1515 Arch Street 18 th floor Monday November 22 at 2 00 PM Calendar 99 1285 Dated 11 10 99 Dranoff Properties Permit is for the relocation of lot lines to create one lot from 3 erection of an 8 high fence and the creation of a private parking lot having a total of

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/VeniceIsland/dranoffzoning.html (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • $75 million Manayunk project in the works -- Philadelphia Business Journal -- 1998-08-24
    oppose the project However he stressed that the development would open up the river in that immediate area for the first time Besides the community is accustomed to having 40 to 50 large trucks coming through there every day said Thomas Connelly president of Connelly Containers whose Bala Cynwyd paper packaging operation across the river will not be affected by the sale This is an industrial site with all the sights sounds and odors of an industrial site When you look at the tradeoffs the positive effects this will have far outweigh the negative impact of more cars Manayunk s residents and businesses have complained about a lack of parking on Main Street since the neighborhood became the trendy restaurant and retail mecca it is today The Realen proposal calls for the construction of below ground parking There will also be several floors of parking within the hotel In all 450 cars could be accommodated Connelly announced in late May the mill would close and 59 workers have since lost their jobs The plant is now in the process of being disassembled and demolition is planned for November pending zoning approval Neither Connelly nor Maloomian would comment on the 3 acre parcel s price but sources familiar with the deal said that it was sold for more than 7 million Maloomian would only say that financing for the project should it commence would be entirely private The price reflected the enthusiasm for this market Maloomian said Realen Properties is an affiliate of Realen Homes It was one of four finalists for the project after 12 submitted request for proposal packages during the summer Developer Bart Blatstein who purchased land from Connelly two years ago and built the Main Street 6 theater nearby was one of the developers on the short list To strengthen his hand he brought in Manayunk s most prominent business owner Dan Neducsin as a partner It was to no avail Blatstein said that his plans also called for a mixed use development Some of the other bidders Blatstein said included parking czar Joe Zuritsky O Neill Properties and the Kravco Co Maloomian now faces the task of making his plans a reality The parcel will have to be rezoned entirely and he ll have to answer to various community groups like the Manayunk Neighborhood Council and the Friends of the Canal that have mobilized and strengthened over the years The community groups were well informed and cooperative Blatstein said of his experience in the theater development They were involved in every step of the process They were naturally concerned about development of that scope and size I would imagine with the scale of the project that there would be public hearings said Kay Smith executive director of the Manayunk Development Corp It has too big of an impact on this community I think everyone is going to have a different perspective But that s one of the things that has made this neighborhood so strong Smith

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/VeniceIsland/VI_Realen.html (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Trio wants to build Manayunk hotel -- Philadelphia Business Journal -- 02-24-97
    of 20 million to 25 million Currently Neducsin who as head of Neducsin Properties owns more than 30 storefronts along Manayunk s Main Street as well as owning about 200 apartments in that same area is busy putting together a business plan His best estimate at this time for when the hotel might be operational is about two years from now Between the plans and the permits that s about how long it takes he said Venice Island the site for proposed hotel is co owned by Neducsin and William Green the former Philadelphia mayor Green would have an option to be a partner in the hotel Newman said they re still trying to figure out exactly the right place on the island to erect a hotel The question is where on the balance will be the best view and the most beneficial spot he said Newman s hunch is the premier spot may be where the island nears Green Lane At that point it narrows and a structure set there could face down the Schuylkill River If you take a look it s very interesting at that point There s rock formations and rapids It s not just simply a body of water he said The partnership is confident a hotel situated in Manayunk makes good sense Neducsin notes that the nearby Adam s Mark on City Avenue has the highest rate of occupancy in the city and the Marriott in Conshohocken is a close second Both hotels have average occupancy rates in the 90 percent range Neducsin said a reason for this is that both hotels sit between the Philadelphia Convention Center and the Valley Forge Convention Center Manayunk has a mystique said Newman and that will add to the hotel s appeal as will the fact that

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/VeniceIsland/Ned_hotel.html (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • HOUSE BILL 165 P.N. 185
    real property to be acquired 27 under this act prefers to have the Commonwealth or the local 28 government unit acquire the property in fee simple the 29 Commonwealth or the local government unit shall be required to 30 acquire the property in fee simple 20030H0165B0185 4 1 Section 7 Local taxing options 2 a General rule To provide revenue to make acquisitions 3 for the mitigation of flood hazards or retire the indebtedness 4 incurred in the mitigation of flood hazards a local government 5 unit shall have the following local tax options 6 1 In addition to the statutory rate limits on real 7 estate taxes provided for counties a county may by 8 ordinance impose a tax on real property not exceeding the 9 millage authorized by referendum as required by subsection 10 b 11 2 In addition to the statutory rate limits provided 12 for the respective class of local government units a local 13 government unit excluding a county and county authority 14 may by ordinance impose either a tax on real property not 15 exceeding the millage authorized by referendum under 16 subsection b or a tax on the earned income of the residents 17 of that local government unit not exceeding the rate 18 authorized by referendum under subsection b 19 b Referendum 20 1 The local taxing option authorized by this section 21 shall not be exercised unless the governing body of the local 22 government unit shall by ordinance first provide for a 23 referendum on the question of the imposition of the 24 additional tax at a specific rate and a majority of those 25 voting on the referendum question vote in favor of the 26 imposition of the tax The ordinance of the governing board 27 of the local government unit providing for a referendum on 28 the question shall be filed with the county board of 29 elections 30 2 The referendum shall be governed by the provisions 20030H0165B0185 5 1 of the act of June 3 1937 P L 1333 No 320 known as the 2 Pennsylvania Election Code 3 3 The election official shall cause the question to be 4 submitted to the electors of the local government unit at the 5 next primary general or municipal election occurring not 6 less than the 13th Tuesday following the filing of the 7 ordinance with the county board of elections 8 4 At such election the question shall be submitted to 9 the voters in the same manner as other questions are 10 submitted under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Election 11 Code The question to be placed upon the ballot shall be 12 framed in the following form 13 Do you favor the imposition of a describe tax in 14 millage or rate by local government unit to be 15 used in the mitigation of flood hazards to purpose 16 Section 8 Procedure for acquisitions by local government 17 units 18 a Recordkeeping When a local

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/zoning/Bills/20030512-HB0165P0185.HTM (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • MNC-list Info Page
    sections below Subscribing to MNC list Subscribe to MNC list by filling out the following form You will be sent email requesting confirmation to prevent others from gratuitously subscribing you This is a hidden list which means that the list of members is available only to the list administrator Your email address Your name optional You may enter a privacy password below This provides only mild security but should prevent others from messing with your subscription Do not use a valuable password as it will occasionally be emailed back to you in cleartext If you choose not to enter a password one will be automatically generated for you and it will be sent to you once you ve confirmed your subscription You can always request a mail back of your password when you edit your personal options Pick a password Reenter password to confirm Which language do you prefer to display your messages English USA Would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest No Yes MNC list Subscribers The subscribers list is only available to the list administrator Enter your admin address and password to visit the subscribers list Admin address Password To unsubscribe from MNC

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/mailman/listinfo/MNC-list (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
    of respondents reported that they expected to continue to live in Manayunk Twenty nine percent said they expected to leave the neighborhood within the next three years For those who were planning to move the top three reasons given were parking problems 23 the need for more living space 18 and employment related reasons 16 While there is general satisfaction with the overall quality of life in Manayunk there is also significant concern among residents that it is changing for the worse Sixty percent of survey respondents rated Manayunk s overall quality of life QOL as good or very good Only 11 gave the area a negative rating A significant 29 rated Manayunk s QOL as only fair While opinion was decidedly mixed concerning how Manayunk s QOL had changed over the past several years a significantly large 39 of survey respondents reported that it had gotten worse Thirty two percent of respondents reported change for the better and 29 said the neighborhood stayed about the same Manayunk has an acknowledged problem with automobile parking on residential blocks The attitude of Manayunk residents with regard to traffic and parking problems is indisputable Many written in comments on returned survey forms mentioned parking difficulties and many cited parking as a primary reason for planning to move out of Manayunk Traffic and parking problems were the most disliked characteristic of both residential Manayunk and the Main Street Commercial District While the automobile traffic generated by Main Street commercial development is a major annoyance to residents also contributing to the problem is a high percentage of car ownership among survey respondents Ninety percent of the respondent households had automobiles versus 62 citywide Fifty one percent of respondent households reported owning more than one car versus 34 citywide and 13 of these households had 3 or more cars versus 6 citywide Among survey respondents 60 of the multiple car households were either very long term 35 years or more or newer less than five years residents While 62 of respondent households usually parked their cars on their block of residence or used off street spaces 28 parked a block or more distant and 6 admitted to usually parking on the sidewalk There is a high degree of usage of the Main Street Commercial District by survey respondents Overall 82 of survey respondents reported being users of the Main Street Commercial District While 40 of the respondents visited Main Street on a weekly basis 18 said they never visited Main Street The most frequently cited reasons for visiting Main Street were night life entertainment 33 purchase of goods and services 29 and strolling window shopping 23 Of those who never visited Main Street the most frequently cited reasons were shops don t carry the things I need 35 too expensive 27 and lack of parking 15 There is only moderate usage of the Manayunk Canal Towpath by survey respondents Only 50 of the survey respondents reported being users of the Manayunk Canal Towpath Of these

    Original URL path: http://www.manayunkcouncil.org/survey-summary.html (2016-04-26)
    Open archived version from archive



  •