Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

[Glenn moyer]

>In my experience with city/town governments, minutes ere pretty much  
>all that were kept. Transcripts were rare. If anyone was using those  
>terms interchangeably, they were simply incorrect and/or choosing to  
>mislead.
>
>Also in Provincetown the Board of Selectmen were dead set against  
>their weekly meetings being taped and televised on public access but  
>we had to tell them they really had no choice about it. It was in the  
>Town's contract with Comcast as well as Federal Law. Town government  
>has become at least a little more transparent. Mabe the same thing  
>will happen here.
>


Yes, I completely agree.  And I too am hopeful about the benefits of public 
access cameras in city hall.

It's interesting.  The cameras weren't present at the May 20th PCPC hearing.  I 
wonder if the indictment of the Kelly aid, shortly afterwards, finally forced 
the city to comply with the federal law.

If any one knows more about the public access laws and the delays in 
Philadelphia compliance, please share your experience and knowledge.  I've only 
recently learned about all of this.

Best,
Glenn


-Original Message-
>From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2008 9:07 PM
>To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
>Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
>
>Frank
>
>On Oct 4, 2008, at 01:58 PM, Glenn moyer wrote:
>
>> "Of course, the minutes,
>> which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those."
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> This is not what Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC secretary  
>> have asserted.  Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him  
>> at the PHC architectural hearing.
>>
>> Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this  
>> "public hearing" and was denied.  Farnham justified the refusal  
>> while asserting that an accurate record would be produced.  As I  
>> later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words  
>> "transcripts" and minutes interchangeably.  Even the minute by  
>> minute recording, "minutes" is considered to be a much more detailed  
>> record than a sloppy outline.
>>
>> The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, "these are not  
>> transcripts."  That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was  
>> calling them "transcripts"  She got angry but never disputed my  
>> complaint.
>>
>> I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew.  
>> (Melani and Andrew- help me out).
>> The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent  
>> recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these  
>> official hearings!
>>
>> Consider:  These commissions record these official public hearings.   
>> They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting  
>> "transcripts" will be available.  Then, when the published record  
>> appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern.  (Thank God  
>> for the new public access TV cameras)
>>
>> As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never  
>> relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the  
>> public submissions, no one knew where the file was located!  Most of  
>> those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors  
>> worked on.
>>
>> Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings.  Like I said  
>> to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing  
>> more than a smokescreen placed in the "minutes" to be pointed  
>> towards at the approval show.
>>
>> Think about it.  Did any of those commissioners say anything  
>> specific about the traffic study?  Matt mentioned the problem of the  
>> promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St.  Did  
>> they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument  
>> or any other potential problem raised by the opponents?  "I believe  
>> the traffic study and parking won't be a problem," is the red flag  
>> which shows its real purpose.  If anyone presented their study, as  
>> support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The  
>> Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I  
>> demanded their survey and data being asserted.  They left it at home  
>> 'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested!  I could see  
>> and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately  
>> called their survey propaganda)
>>
>> It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand.  All the  
>> written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the  
>> traffic study went directly into the trash.
>> The staff couldn't even locate the file for me to look at!!!
>>
>> glenn
>> PS  In my opinion, I don't think the organized group got very good  
>> legal advice.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM
>>> To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
>>> Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
>>>
>>> At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that
>>> aesthetics

Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

[Frank]

In my experience with city/town governments, minutes ere pretty much  
all that were kept. Transcripts were rare. If anyone was using those  
terms interchangeably, they were simply incorrect and/or choosing to  
mislead.


Also in Provincetown the Board of Selectmen were dead set against  
their weekly meetings being taped and televised on public access but  
we had to tell them they really had no choice about it. It was in the  
Town's contract with Comcast as well as Federal Law. Town government  
has become at least a little more transparent. Mabe the same thing  
will happen here.


Frank

On Oct 4, 2008, at 01:58 PM, Glenn moyer wrote:


"Of course, the minutes,
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those."

Frank,

This is not what Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC secretary  
have asserted.  Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him  
at the PHC architectural hearing.


Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this  
"public hearing" and was denied.  Farnham justified the refusal  
while asserting that an accurate record would be produced.  As I  
later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words  
"transcripts" and minutes interchangeably.  Even the minute by  
minute recording, "minutes" is considered to be a much more detailed  
record than a sloppy outline.


The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, "these are not  
transcripts."  That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was  
calling them "transcripts"  She got angry but never disputed my  
complaint.


I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew.  
(Melani and Andrew- help me out).
The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent  
recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these  
official hearings!


Consider:  These commissions record these official public hearings.   
They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting  
"transcripts" will be available.  Then, when the published record  
appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern.  (Thank God  
for the new public access TV cameras)


As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never  
relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the  
public submissions, no one knew where the file was located!  Most of  
those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors  
worked on.


Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings.  Like I said  
to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing  
more than a smokescreen placed in the "minutes" to be pointed  
towards at the approval show.


Think about it.  Did any of those commissioners say anything  
specific about the traffic study?  Matt mentioned the problem of the  
promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St.  Did  
they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument  
or any other potential problem raised by the opponents?  "I believe  
the traffic study and parking won't be a problem," is the red flag  
which shows its real purpose.  If anyone presented their study, as  
support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The  
Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I  
demanded their survey and data being asserted.  They left it at home  
'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested!  I could see  
and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately  
called their survey propaganda)


It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand.  All the  
written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the  
traffic study went directly into the trash.

The staff couldn't even locate the file for me to look at!!!

glenn
PS  In my opinion, I don't think the organized group got very good  
legal advice.



-Original Message-

From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that
aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as
things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have
more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were  
not

really a "valid" thing to complain about. I assume this was true at
other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major
talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of
the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different  
angle

on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that
there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes,
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those.

Frank


On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote:


Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard
community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also
has a large potentia

Re: [UC] Re: UC Burglaries

[Glenn moyer]

"We are not looking to sensationalize any story; we are looking to tell the real stories of what's happening in our communities."
 
Great!
 
The backroom dealing in city hall that I introduced to you is a real and major story for our entire city.  I'd be happy to introduce the story to your viewers tomorrow, but in my opinion, you should connect me with your investigative reporters first.
 
The story warrants some serious background investigation before airing it.  I believe the station will decide to do a series rather than a single story.  It's two separate city commissions involved, the historic Commission and Planning Commission.  Additionally, the false public records need to be compared to  a series of hearings so that the full impact of the serious crisis in government can be understood by your viewers.
 
We will need to use the PA Right to Know Law to access actual recordings from the PHC.  Additionally, your investigators will want to review print news coverage of the neighborhood issue and view a public access video of a September 16, PCPC hearing.  (Essentially, the University of Pennsylania is attempting to smash zoning regulations in our residential community while landbanking a parcel in the residential neighborhood.  In a partnership filled with conflict of interest, Penn and its corporate friends want to erect an 11-story hotel for the parents of Penn students coming for visits.  Many people throughout the city, to whom I've spoken, believe that Penn power brokers exert far too much influence on our city government.  This investigation will support the reality that our government serves the interest of powerful wealthy players and not the citizens of Phildelphia. ) 
 
Manuel, I understand the comment about sensationalism.  Suburban and rural perceptions of cities have been studied.  Local TV markets from Philadelphia often reach far out into these communities and have been cited as a source of serious misperceptions about cities and their residents.  Some people believe that the concentration of news coverage around sensational crimes by local TV news ignores the detrimental side effects of these misperceptions.  (I had a brief correspondence with Melani about this issue.  She's OK and sometimes makes some good points.)
 
Covering the city hall, public record crisis and play to pay system, with an in depth investigation by your station is the type of coverage that can help reverse negative opinions about local TV news coverage and sensationalism.
 
I look forward to meeting you and your investigators,
Glenn Moyer
West Philadelphia 
-Original Message- From: Manuel McDonnell-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Oct 4, 2008 3:51 PM To: UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] Re: UC Burglaries 

Thanks to everyone for your feedback.
 
We are not looking to sensationalize any story; we are looking to tell the real stories of what's happening in our communities.
 
While I'm not going to talk ratings on a listserve; FOX 29 News is a ratings leader in almost all of our newscasts; even on weekends; some of our best numbers come at 10pm on Sundays, when many viewers are looking to "catch up" on the weekends' events.
 
On an aside, we are still without any one to talk to tomorrow night. Please reach out to me tonight if you can via [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 215 982 5501.
 
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Wilma de Soto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I watch Fox 29 News on a regular basis.The Fox Ten O'Clock News, Good Day Philadelphia in the AM because I feel they are one of the best local news channels after the other local network affiliates switch national news.However, the real reason I began watching them a while ago is because I have friends who work there.  Then, I discovered they do the local news more thoroughly, and in the case of Channel 29, are not as their politically extreme as their National Network corporation even though they do report and correspond with them.I agree that reporting burglaries in the area would alert more neighbors as to what happens.  On the flip side it might also raise fears and deter potential home buyers and dig deeper into an already depressed economy.I understand both issues, but I feel it is not because people do not usually watch Fox 29 News. 


On 10/3/08 4:31 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



In a message dated 10/3/08 4:16:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A TV news story would raise awareness of the burglary problem inUniversity City.  As a result, our neighbors are more likely to noticesuspicious behavior and report it to the authorities.  It also would placepressure on the police to increase patrols.How is any of this a bad thing?MarkThat might be the result if many of our neighbors & the police are watching Channel 29 news.   Let me ask here:   how many foks on the listserv would generally be watching Channel 29 News on a Sunday or Monday night?   Please reply to the list if you DO typically watch it.Then we'll know how effective a 

Re: [UC] Re: UC Burglaries

[Manuel McDonnell-Smith]

Thanks to everyone for your feedback.

We are not looking to sensationalize any story; we are looking to tell the
real stories of what's happening in our communities.

While I'm not going to talk ratings on a listserve; FOX 29 News is a ratings
leader in almost all of our newscasts; even on weekends; some of our best
numbers come at 10pm on Sundays, when many viewers are looking to "catch up"
on the weekends' events.

On an aside, we are still without any one to talk to tomorrow night. Please
reach out to me tonight if you can via [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 215 982
5501.

Thanks

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Wilma de Soto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I watch Fox 29 News on a regular basis.
>
> The Fox Ten O'Clock News, Good Day Philadelphia in the AM because I feel
> they are one of the best local news channels after the other local network
> affiliates switch national news.
>
> However, the real reason I began watching them a while ago is because I
> have friends who work there.
>
> Then, I discovered they do the local news more thoroughly, and in the case
> of Channel 29, are not as their politically extreme as their National
> Network corporation even though they do report and correspond with them.
>
> I agree that reporting burglaries in the area would alert more neighbors as
> to what happens.  On the flip side it might also raise fears and deter
> potential home buyers and dig deeper into an already depressed economy.
>
> I understand both issues, but I feel it is not because people do not
> usually watch Fox 29 News.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/3/08 4:31 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   *In a message dated 10/3/08 4:16:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> *A TV news story would raise awareness of the burglary problem in
> University City.  As a result, our neighbors are more likely to notice
> suspicious behavior and report it to the authorities.  It also would place
> pressure on the police to increase patrols.
>
> How is any of this a bad thing?
> Mark
>
> That might be the result if many of our neighbors & the police are watching
> Channel 29 news.   Let me ask here:   how many foks on the listserv would
> generally be watching Channel 29 News on a Sunday or Monday night?   Please
> reply to the list if you DO typically watch it.
>
> Then we'll know how effective a news story would be.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melani
>
>
>
>
> *Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
> Urban & Bye, Realtor
> *3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104
> cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113
> personal fax 215-386-1345
> *Recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards
> Diamond award for over $8 million in sales
> and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards
> *
> *This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
> is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise exempt from disclosure.  If the reader of this e-mail is not the
> intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> immediately notify us by replying to the original message at the listed
> e-mail address.  Thank You.
>
> *
>
>
>
> **
> New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  Dining,
> Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
>   (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew0001)
>
>
>


-- 
Sent from Manuel McDonnell-Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

[Glenn moyer]

"Of course, the minutes,  
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those."

Frank,

This is not what Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC secretary have asserted. 
 Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him at the PHC architectural 
hearing.

Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this "public 
hearing" and was denied.  Farnham justified the refusal while asserting that an 
accurate record would be produced.  As I later experienced again at the PHC 
offices, they use the words "transcripts" and minutes interchangeably.  Even 
the minute by minute recording, "minutes" is considered to be a much more 
detailed record than a sloppy outline.

The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, "these are not transcripts."  
That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was calling them "transcripts" 
 She got angry but never disputed my complaint. 

 I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew. (Melani and 
Andrew- help me out).
The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording, they 
lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these official hearings!

Consider:  These commissions record these official public hearings.  They 
refuse to allow independent recording while asserting "transcripts" will be 
available.  Then, when the published record appears, the mistakes follow an 
identifiable pattern.  (Thank God for the new public access TV cameras)

As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant. 
When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the public submissions, no 
one knew where the file was located!  Most of those commissioners never read 
all the submissions our neighbors worked on. 

 Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings.  Like I said to Ray, it 
was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing more than a smokescreen 
placed in the "minutes" to be pointed towards at the approval show.

Think about it.  Did any of those commissioners say anything specific about the 
traffic study?  Matt mentioned the problem of the promised valet parking and 
shuttle buses turning on 41st St.  Did they point to any part of the traffic 
study to refute his argument or any other potential problem raised by the 
opponents?  "I believe the traffic study and parking won't be a problem," is 
the red flag which shows its real purpose.  If anyone presented their study, as 
support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The Clark Park 
dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I demanded their survey and 
data being asserted.  They left it at home 'cause they didn't think anyone 
would be interested!  I could see and hear the reaction of the attendees and 
one woman appropriately called their survey propaganda) 

It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand.  All the written 
testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the traffic study went 
directly into the trash.
The staff couldn't even locate the file for me to look at!!!

glenn
PS  In my opinion, I don't think the organized group got very good legal 
advice. 


-Original Message-
>From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM
>To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
>Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
>
>At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that  
>aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as  
>things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have  
>more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not  
>really a "valid" thing to complain about. I assume this was true at  
>other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major  
>talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of  
>the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle  
>on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that  
>there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes,  
>which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those.
>
>Frank
>
>
>On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote:
>
>> Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard  
>> community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also  
>> has a large potential impact on public infrastructure, as well as on  
>> community members who don't live right next to a project. Traffic is  
>> a meat-and-potatoes city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if  
>> PCPC did not consider traffic at this site.
>>
>> It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in  
>> September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April,  
>> before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some  
>> people before making up their minds, and city planners are under  
>> permanent pressure to read and consider studies.
>>
>> -- Tony West
>>
>>
>> UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
>>> why, then, was traff

Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

[Glenn moyer]

"it's because pcpc couldn't approve the hotel on the basis of 
its height and scale in april or may. pcpc decided, after 
tabling the matter and scrubbing neighbors' testimony in 
may, to use, in september, a stand-in issue as its 
criterion: traffic."


Ray, you are right on target and touching on some very important matters.  Of 
the four city hearings, only the architectural committee of the PHC actually 
did the job the taxpayers gave them.  

They had obviously reviewed the plans, and sure enough, they discussed and 
rejected the hotel for the range of issues our neighbors have been stressing 
since the secret project was exposed by the UC Review.  It was clear to me that 
the project would not pass them with some simple tweak to the proposal.  
Clearly, the work of the architectural committee needed to be completely 
bypassed by Penn and that is exactly what occurred two weeks later.

As the PCPC did, the records of the architectural committee had been “scrubbed” 
so that had the PHC commissioners wanted to review their architect’s 
proceedings they could not have done so.  

At the November approval performance, a representative from the architectural 
committee argued against the prearranged approval.  He was pissed.  The new 
secret plans being presented that day used the single issue switcharoo.  The 
change from 10 stories to  11, with  a setback of floors 4-11, was asserted by 
the Penn team, director Farnham, and the unidentified PHC staff as the complete 
answer to the architects rejection!  Farnham argued that it was OK that "the 
public" was being surprised with the new secret plans that day because Penn had 
given them to him earlier (This drew laughter)!

First, the entire claim that the illegal lack of setback for floors 1-3, was 
OK’d by the architects, is complete bullshit.  Clearly, it was prearranged in 
the backroom that the commission would vote to change policy and not send the 
new secret plans back to the architects as they should have done.  Taxpayers 
and the architects need to ask themselves, why the hell do we provide resources 
for an architects committee when the records will be scrubbed and they are 
completely ignored and bypassed

>From the stupid comments of the other commissioners in this process (eg. The 
>height is shocking but people will get used to it), none of the other 
>commissioners ever reviewed the plans, reviewed the written and oral testimony 
>of opponents, or put any effort into understanding the proposal.  Greenberger 
>and Altman at PCPC led the performance for the benefit of the audience and new 
>public access cameras. 

Making some comments about Vancouver and how they had considered the height, 
etc., Altman and Greenberger were attempting to give the appearance that work 
and analysis had guided their decision rather than it being a prearranged deal 
in a backroom.  If they considered the testimony of opponents which had been 
scrubbed from the record, why did they not direct a single comment as a 
refutation of any of the other issues raised???

The scrubbed PCPC records identified the traffic study as the only unresolved 
question from May, and sure enough, the September performance of Altman and 
Greenberger followed the script exactly while the other commissioners said 
nothing but dumb shit.

If the public had honest transcripts of the PHC hearings, we would all clearly 
see the outrageous and dishonest pretense of a single issue answered, prior to 
the prearranged approval.  As I immediately realized, when I first read the May 
20 PCPC “minutes,” most of our neighbors would have also predicted that; “the 
traffic study,” would be the central single issue for the charade and that 
approval of Campus Inn had been prearranged.

Concluding, there are two important points.  These commissioners do not do the 
work and analysis that is pretended.  Like our civic association boards, a few 
bad actors make the backroom deals and lead the performance.  Their buddies go 
along with their “decisions” and no one challenges the obviously false records 
and no one challenges the single issue switch.

One member from the architectural committee, the one group that did the work 
they are charged to do, challenged this performance and seemed incredibly 
frustrated.  Most commissioners show up for their paychecks and play along 
while a few bad actors make the backroom deals.  That is our government.  That 
is the system.




-Original Message-
>From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2008 12:06 AM
>To: univcity 
>Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
>
>Glenn moyer wrote:
>> Throughout this smokescreen of propaganda, all important
>> relevant issues raised by the community were erased from
>> all the city records while the falsified records put
>> forth only a single unresolved issue behind the delay,
>> the parking/traffic study.
>> 
>> Was all of this a simple recurring error?  Was the DP
>> editorial board amazing

Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

[Frank]

At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that  
aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as  
things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have  
more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not  
really a "valid" thing to complain about. I assume this was true at  
other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major  
talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of  
the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle  
on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that  
there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes,  
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those.


Frank


On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote:

Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard  
community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also  
has a large potential impact on public infrastructure, as well as on  
community members who don't live right next to a project. Traffic is  
a meat-and-potatoes city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if  
PCPC did not consider traffic at this site.


It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in  
September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April,  
before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some  
people before making up their minds, and city planners are under  
permanent pressure to read and consider studies.


-- Tony West


UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why  
was traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's height and  
scale? and why was traffic so overridingly important for pcpc to  
consider in september, but not in april?




You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators

[Anthony West]

Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard 
community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also has 
a large potential impact on public infrastructure, as well as on 
community members who don't live right next to a project. Traffic is a 
meat-and-potatoes city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if PCPC 
did not consider traffic at this site.


It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in September, 
after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April, before 
reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some people before 
making up their minds, and city planners are under permanent pressure to 
read and consider studies.


-- Tony West


UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why was 
traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's height and scale? and 
why was traffic so overridingly important for pcpc to consider in 
september, but not in april?




You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.