Embedded Files
Act 135 through maps
Act 135 through maps
With new research, this project shows that
Properties petitioned are not necessarily in the poorest vacant/blighted areas, but in poor vacant/blighted areas with the most potential to appreciate
Rather than rehabilitate local property-by-property, repeat users tend to concentrate activity where potential for returns is greatest
Act 135 really does contribute to blight remediation and cleaner neighborhoods... though this benefit could be expanded to inner city neighborhoods
An overview
An overview
The law
The Pennsylvania State Senate passed Act 135 in 2008
A party in interest can identify a abandoned/blighted/vacant property, then file a petition to acquire conservatorship with the aim of bringing the home up to municipal code
Once the petitioner makes these renovations, they can put the home on the market to earn a 20% conservator's fee from the sale as well as recoup all repair costs
Read more about Act 135 here
The purpose
The law is a means for neighbors and local organizations to take "reasonable" and "necessary" measures to rehabilitate blighted, dangerous properties
Residents united to take on Rittenhouse Square property at 18th and Delancey, a 'wreck for two decades' whose owner 'has evaded building inspectors by doing just enough work to avoid condemnation'
For this long vacant Roxbury property, neighbors employed Act 135 to bind and support owners to eliminate the eyesore-esque dangers of rotting windows, weathered sidings, and naturally exposed rooms
Act 135 helped preserve the historic site of Robert Purvis House after its owner had long neglected the home, which sat idle and tattered with debris
The controversy
Critics believe the act may accelerate displacement, with predatory implications on historically marginalized communities
The Penn Carey Law Advocacy for Racial and Civic Justice found Act 135 disproportionately targets black and Asian neighborhoods
The Philadelphia Inquirer has detailed the stories of several residents who attempted in good faith to make necessary renovations, but lost generational homes to experienced developers
Councilman Jay Young Jr. has hosted a hearing and proposed a city-wide task force on Act 135
The story
Through this project, I hope to evaluate both how Act 135 has had success but also explore its possible inequities
My main finding is that even though Act 135 is incredibly effective in terms of actually rehabilitating otherwise hazardous blighted properties, petitioner efforts are overly concentrated in areas most primed for gentrification
Act 135 contributes to revitalizing neighborhoods in dire need, though perhaps not in all of the neighborhoods that could benefit the most.
Act 135 usage is concentrated poor, vacant, and appreciating areas bordering wealthier ones rather than the poorest, just as (if not more) vacant, inner city ones.
I hope to cultivate stronger awareness and informational infrastructure over what impact Act 135 actually has on Philadelphia neighborhoods - how can private citizens be empowered through the law to green their communities, but also do so in a mutually beneficial way (for residents and developers).
These figures show where, by which actors, and what impact Act 135 has had since its first case in 2010.
Data sources
Data sources
The following maps are based on Act 135 cases filed with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and updated with docket information through November 21, 2025 (shortened to 2025).
Each dark blue dot represents a property petitioned under Act 135.
The overlays of vacancy parcels, census tracts by median income, and population by race are sourced from the City of Philadelphia metadata.
769
769
Properties petitioned from 2010 through 2025
829
829
Petitions filed from 2010 through 2025
Where?
Where?
The following maps are based on Act 135 cases filed with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and updated with docket information through November 21, 2025. Each blue dot is a property petitioned under Act 135. On the interactive maps, users can click a blue dot to see more information about each property.
Act 135 properties and vacancies
Act 135 properties and vacancies
From this map, we can see that petitioned properties tend to concentrate over some areas with more frequent rates of vacant parcels. But there is a clear misalignment between the concentrations of properties petitioned and concentrations of vacancies: not all heavily vacant/blighted areas have high rates of Act 135 usage.
Users can click on each property to learn more about it, or move around the map.
*Each gray shading (technically lighter blue once a user zooms in) is one parcel of land that fulfills Philadelphia vacant land criteria.
Act 135 properties, vacancies, and income
Act 135 properties, vacancies, and income
Adding each census tract's median income highlights another perspective.
On one hand, blight and poverty unsurprisingly seem to go hand in hand. Poorer neighborhoods, as drawn out by darker red shadings, tend to have high rates of vacancy shadings
As indicated by the heat map, properties petitioned concentrate the most heavily not necessarily where there is the most blight/vacancies, or even the most poverty.
Instead, it is striking that properties petitioned (intended private redevelopment) overwhelmingly concentrate in poor areas that border wealthier ones.
More specifically, these neighborhoods are ones facing the most predisposition of gentrification...
Like the previous map, users can click on properties or zoom around. Note the legend on the top left.
Act 135 over the years: planning districts
Act 135 over the years: planning districts
The pattern was not always this way.... appreciating frontiers have boomed and busted over time.
As demonstrated by the lumpy but consistently upward trajectory, the volume of Act 135 properties petitioned over time has increased both rapidly overall and city-wide. This showcases more widespread adoption of citizen-led blight remediation!
The number of all properties petitioned in each region skyrocketed after the 2014 and 2017 amendments that loosened petitioner restrictions and expanded definitions of parties in interest. The next figure
Users can click on or hover over each bar to see how many properties were petitioned in each district.
Act 135 over the years: spatially and with amendments
Act 135 over the years: spatially and with amendments
2010-2014: early adoption
pre 2014 amendment
78 total properties petitioned through these 5 years (2010).
-2017: hotspots reveal themselves
Post 2014 amendment:
In 2014, the legislature passed HB 1363 (Act 135, 2008, § 3), which
expanded the radius and broadened eligibility for petitioners as party in interest (widened petitioning radius from 500 feet to 2,000 feet for individuals, and from a 1-mile to 5-mile radius for nonprofit involvement)
introduced more profitable conservator’s/developer’s fees via 20% of property sale.
Clear uptake in Act 135 properties, which seem to accumulate in the same places:
particularly, South Philly's and North Philly's borders on Center City, plus noticable concentrations on the West Philly/University City border... areas primed for gentrification
186 new properties petitioned through these 3 years (2015-2017)
-2022: hotspots are even more pronounced, as Fishtown and Upper Northwest Philadelphia emerge as contenders
Similarly, in 2017, the legislature passed HB 1430, which increased recuperation of fees through a conservator’s own appraisal, broadened criteria that proves blight, and allowed registered addresses to count as residency to justify involvement.
This further widened geographic requirements by allowing registered addresses rather than actual physical location to qualify organizations as “parties of interest” (as opposed to being ‘located in’), and enabled total reimbursement of rehabilitation costs to make Act 135 more favorable to frequent corporate conservators.
277 new properties petitioned through these 5 years (2018-2022)
While these looser provisions welcome a more expansive range of corporate petitioners and expedite blight remediation, they weaken initial provisions that encourage the restoration of problematic properties on a more localized scale.
-2025: more spatial diversification and widespread adoption, but even more exacerbated activity in aforementioned hotspots
Though the map showcases more diverse geographical breadth of Act 135 properties, hotspots that are most susceptible to gentrification are even more concentrated
263 new properties petitioned through these 3 years (2023-2025)
Who uses Act 135 in Philadelphia?
Who uses Act 135 in Philadelphia?
By frequency
The proportion of superpetitioner activity has intensified over time
By corporation type
Frequency is a greater predictor of behavior than entity type (ie CDC, LLC, INC)
Users can click on or hover over each bar for more information.
The percentage point in parentheses is the percentage of all properties petitoned by the relevant superfrequent petitioner in that year. The number to the left is the absolute number of properties petitioned by that petititioner in that year.
Act 135: Superfrequent Petitioners vs. Everyone Else
156 total petitioners have utilized Act 135.
Yet the top 2 petitioners (just 1% of all) make up ~50% of all properties petitioned.
The top 6 petitioners (just 3.8% of all) make up ~65% of all petitioned.
Act 135 usage is dominated by a small number of highly active organizations.
Out of the 156 petitioners, there are 86 human petitioners and 70 entity/non-human petitioners.
Yet individuals account for only 100 properties petitioned citywide (13.3%), while entities account for 669 properties (86.7%).
What does local action mean?
Act 135 has expanded the radius and means by which a petitioner can serve as conservator for properties... the top six actors don't just stick to one neighborhood, perhaps showcasing that Act 135 is more of a repeatedly used tool (for the sake of using it) than for collective neighborhood action of a single problematic property.
Despite their city-wide reach, superfrequent petitioners show pronounced concentration in two specific areas: South Philadelphia and Lower North Philadelphia
What happens to affected properties?
What happens to affected properties?
How are outcomes measured?
How are outcomes measured?
I hand-coded outcomes drawing on all 152 properties South Philadelphia petitioned through 2023 based on images from Google Earth.
Specifically, I looked up an image for each property roughly 3 years prior to the petition and then followed it over time.
At a minimum, I coded the year before, the year of the petition, annually for several years after, and the most recent image available.
Especially for occasional properties where Google satellite images were not available, I incorporated supplementary images and descriptions from BrightMLS, Redfin, the Public Record, Philadelphia County parcels, and Zillow to further bolster my analysis.
Why South Philadelphia?
Why South Philadelphia?
South Philadelphia has a geographically dense concentration of Act 135 affected properties.
The district has experienced the most properties petitioned since the 2010 implementation of Act 135, reaching 170 through November 2025. The consistent dominance in properties petitioned over the years allows for enough time passed and a large local sample to showcase outcomes of what happens to homes after petitions are filed.
To ensure that conditions in South Philadelphia are not an outlier from those in other parts of the city, I also conduct the analyses related to who petitions separately for the South Philadelphia planning district.
Results produce the same conclusions as those presented below for the city as a whole. That is, the kinds of people and entities using Act 135 to acquire properties is comparable to citywide, which indicates South Philadelphia is likely to provide generalizable insights into variation in outcomes among petitioned properties.
As for the timing, I completed this outcome analysis only for properties petitioned through 2023 in order to give time to see if change has happened. In other words, for cases in 2024 or 2025, it may be too early to tell if a petition went through, a sale is complete, and/or renovation takes scale.
Overall outcomes
Overall outcomes
3.9% of properties experience no change
26.5% of properties experience moderate touch-ups
49.67% experience a dramatic transformation
(15.89% of these as new constructions)
and 9.93% are demolished and remain vacant.
Superfrequent petitioners drive uncharacteristic transformation while failing to remediate
South Philadelphia Act 135 Property Outcomes by Petitioner Frequency
South Philadelphia Act 135 Property Outcomes by Petitioner Frequency
(If petitioner frequency [Superfrequent, Frequent, Infrequent, One-off], X% likely that property filed has outcome)
Superfrequent petitioners are the most - and only ones - who pursue a property and make no change
When superpetitioners do Act, they are the most likely to drive uncharacteristic transformation (a sitting demolition or new construction)
Superfrequent petitioners are responsible for 81% of new construction in South Philly
Adjacent property pursuits enable block-by-block level transformation
South Philadelphia Property Outcomes by Number of Times a Property is Petitioned
South Philadelphia Property Outcomes by Number of Times a Property is Petitioned
(If filed number of petitions per property [1,2,3] X% likely that property filed has outcome)
13.8% of all South Philadelphia Act 135 properties petitioned have a directly adjacent, next door neighbor that was also petitioned.
These properties are nearly four times as likely to be demolished than non-repeatedly petitioned properties.
There is a 41.6% likelihood that adjacent Act 135 properties are demolished at some point, compared to a 25.19% likelihood for properties without an adjacent petition.
Takeaways
Takeaways
Act 135 has certainly contributed to the restoration of select potentially hazardous vacant and blighted properties (yay!).
But primarily in areas with high gentrification potential rather than inner-city vacancies.
What's next
What's next
See Intervention: steps being taken to make Act 135 mutually beneficial for residents, developers, and greater Philadelphia.
Comprehensive Act 135 Map
Comprehensive Act 135 Map
Left sidebar
Property features
Including outcome analysis
0 = no change
1 = moderate touch-ups
2 = dramatic transformations
3 = demolition
4 = new construction
Right side bar (layers & overlays)
Vacant parcels
Median income by census tract (2019)
Predominant race according to the US Census
Properties last updated: November 29, 2025
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse