Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Kimm Tynan]

Tony,

I think you might agree that we all view the world through our own lens of
experience.  In a neighborhood (not the only one) where, I would submit,
folks are often valued based on their status of ³renter² vs. ³homeowner,² it
is not too unreasonable that, in that environment, a nonhomeowning tenant,
or one who identifies with nonhomeowning tenants, might perceive your
inquiry as a value judgment.

My husband and I bought our house after we had lived here for four years, in
the same apartment (i.e., we weren¹t what you could call transient.)  After
two or three years of shopping, we ended up buying a house three blocks from
where we had rented for four years.  I remember an individual who might be
characterized as an upper-middle-class educated white homeowner ³welcoming²
me to ³the neighborhood.²  Frankly, I was offended.  I had lived here for
four years as a ³mere renter,² had been a member of a neighborhood church,
had participated in civic activities, and none of those four years had been
as a transient student.  But ­ the bias that was so evident in this
exchange, was that one is not acknowledged as a valuable member of this
community unless one is a homeowner.  So, I can completely understand why
Frank or anyone else might get their back up about renter vs. homeowner
characterizations.

I don¹t like the idea that transient student populations have a significant
say in our neighborhood decisions.  They¹re here for a bit, then gone.  But,
not all renters are students, nor are all renters transient.  I say this as
a homeowner on a block dominated by rental units.  I yearn for permanent, or
at least long-term, neighbors.  But my closest long-term homeowner neighbor
is a sociopath or psychopath or something (I don¹t know, I never took much
psychology.)  I¹m a legal services foreclosure defense attorney, but I keep
hoping someone will foreclose on him, because I think only that or death or
jail are going to make him go away (I was hoping he¹d be tempted by all the
realtor ads to sell our houses we get, but apparently those didn¹t work
either.)  I¹m not saying this to beat on my neighbor ­ just to make the
point that homeowners aren¹t necessarily the be all and end all.  Hell, if
he was a renter, I might have a sane landlord to complain to.

But I digress.  The tensions in this neighborhood between tenants and
homeowners is longstanding.  I know from my own experience.  But, I never
understood how deep it is until recently.  I doubt I could find it if I
tried, but I think Ray or Glenn or Wilma could.  I didn¹t understand why
Glenn kept referring to civic associations as ³homeowner¹s clubs.²  I mean,
I did, because that¹s the way they tend to behave.  But ­ like I said ­
particularly given my urban community organizing background, I had never
until recently encountered an organization that explicitly defined itself as
being for ³homeowners.²  But, somewhere in this thread, I saw a reference by
SHCA to itself as an organization for homeowners.  Frankly, I was shocked.
It¹s one thing to behave that way de facto.  It¹s another to admit it de
jure.

Before you or anyone ever criticizes anyone for failing to be a ³proper²
³legitimate² member of this community, I want to say one thing.  I am not a
member of any civic organization in this neighborhood, because I have never
trusted any civic organization in this neighborhood to represent me properly
or adequately.  The only organizations I trusted were Calvary and PIA, and
both of those went away over time.  I was appalled to read whatever I read
about SHCA that defined it as an organization for homeowners.  But ­ I think
that I would actually give SHCA credit for honesty ­ for speaking what
others don¹t admit to.



What does all of this have to do with anything?  I¹m not sure, except that
it¹s not unreasonable that renters/tenants might feel
marginalized/offended/etc. by your post.  It¹s not an entirely unreasonable
objection.  Why does it matter?  I can see a student vs. non student
distinction.  Students mostly view themselves as here temporarily, they
aren¹t invested and don¹t venture very far west.  But, even here, not all
renters are students.  Some just live here.

Kimm


On 2/19/08 10:19 PM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Then you don't interpret them correctly, Frank. I asked a simple
> question of fact: to what extent do renters and owners have equal
> standing in zoning law? I don't know. It surely seems relevant to the
> issue to ask this question. Why is it "hateful" to want to know a useful
> answer?
> 
> -- Tony West
> 
>> > Nope. That's exactly how I interpret his words. Otherwise I fail to
>> > see how the analogy, wrong-headed as it is, applies to the current
>> > discussion. It's a stretch even then.
>> >
>> > Frank
>> >
>> >
>>> >> Frank wrote:
 >>> They compare the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of
 >>> strangers from Pittsburgh and ask for legal precedents for
 >>> marginalizing renters and students

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Glenn wrote:

Yes, it appears UC Neighbors have closed the archives!

A new message appears, "The current archive is only available to the 
list members."


I pulled a quote from it a few days ago to explain the Penn censorship 
policy to our new list subscriber, S. Anderson.  The archives had not 
become secret at that point.


It must have occurred about the same time as founding members Lamond, 
West, and Siano started the ad hominem here.


UC Neighbors is promoted by the University of Pennsylvania and is linked 
within the Penn network




at

   http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors

it says:

   "ucneighbors list run by kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu"



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN

































































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

Re: [UC] A pause in the debate for an important, if trashy, announcement

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where were we... I believe it was at Esaul 
Sanchez' mendacity about Penn neither having any appropriate uses not enough 
money to fix up the property it bought at 400 S 40th. One wonders how the Nobel 
Laureates in the R.E. Dept at Penn came to the decision to buy property they 
apparently now say they can't justify application- or dollar-wise. Oh, yes. 
Economic rent seeking.




economic rent seeking:

from wikipedia :



"In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual,
organization, or firm seeks to make money by manipulating
the economic and/or legal environment rather than by trade
and production of wealth."

...

"Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of
uncompensated value from others without making any
contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of
land and other pre-existing natural resources"



is this what you meant, al? how does it apply to the 
proposed hotel?



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN





























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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:


Frank wrote:
dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to this lists to the 
ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know the ones. They compare 
the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of strangers from 
Pittsburgh




I just tried reading these posts on kyle's list, but that list's 
archives don't seem to be public anymore --


http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/pipermail/ucneighbors/

???





I just tried to view the archives of kyle's list, and 
arrived here:


  http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/private/ucneighbors/

  "ucneighbors Private Archives Authentication"


the archives of kyle's list are now private, apparently.


???


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN




































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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Anthony West wrote:
Then you don't interpret them correctly, Frank. I asked a simple 
question of fact: to what extent do renters and owners have equal 
standing in zoning law?




we aren't before the zba yet; your query is premature, not 
apposite.


we are at the stage where shca's zoning committee is 
deciding whether it approves or disapproves rezoning that 
property for the proposed hotel. shca's zoning committee is 
not the zba.


that is why barry grossbach's original announcement about 
this pending decision (by shca's zoning committee) stated:



[on feb 13] Neighbors
will have a full opportunity to ask questions and offer
comments about the project, and the committee will take all
comments into consideration in its deliberations. I will
contact by phone those immediate neighbors whose e-mail
addresses I do not have, but please feel free to share this
information with anyone who might be interested.



that shca had to even have this meeting, instead of 
rejecting -- outright, immediately -- the proposed hotel (on 
the basis of shca's stated mission), is a topic we've 
already discussed, and it's been noted how shca's failure to 
reject the proposal is an example of shca not acting in the 
interests of the neighbors it claims to serve.  we shall now 
see if shca honors the overwhelming opposition to this hotel 
that was expressed by neighbors who attended the 13 feb meeting.



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN

































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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Anthony West]

It's a matter of principle, Frank. Perhaps we disagree on this 
principle. I deeply believe it is wrong to speak offensively about 
known, individual human neighbors on a neighborhood listserve. As 
deeply, you believe this is the most satisfying purpose of a 
neighborhood listserve. We will continue to disagree on this point, I'm 
afraid.


Whenever you disparage individual neighbors, I will make every effort 
not to draw attention to your attacks by copying them and repeating them 
on a listserve. I'll make my point once (all right, twice or thrice in 
off-weeks), then I'll quit.


I know you expressed your opinion. My opinion is you should change the 
way you express your opinion of your neighbors. I already have great 
respect for your character; doing so will make my respect even greater.


-- Tony West


Frank wrote:
Once again you dodge the issue. You have been asked by myself and by 
Maggie to make the substance of your accusations public. You have 
refused. Is there any reason for anyone to believe you?


Why do you continue with character assassination (not just of me) 
instead of focussing on the issues at hand? I don't want an 11-story 
hotel built 1/2 block away from me. I expressed my opinion when it was 
asked for by a community group. Why do you take those facts so 
personally that you must attempt to make me look untrustworthy?


Frank

On Feb 19, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Anthony West wrote:


Yes, Frank (and Maggie),

Sarcasm is a form of aggressive speech. It's not the end of the 
world, usually. But when it is repeated over and over in 
conversation, it piles up and becomes an irritant. When it is used to 
initiate a criticism of a neighbor who hadn't previously been picking 
a fight with you, it is aggressive behavior.


In an off-list post I detailed a pattern of unprovoked complaints by 
you, on any neighborhood subject under the sun. They included at 
least three pointless digs at neighborhood individuals who have 
nothing to do with me, or you for that matter.


I don't intend to kill your posts, Frank. If you write nasty things 
about your neighbors, for no cause that I can see, I will point it 
out to you in public, since that is your (and Maggie's) wish. I 
specifically exclude any remarks you make about me; it's only your 
treatment of others that distus me.


-- Tony West


Frank wrote:


Yes, it was sarcastic. So? Is sarcasm not permitted on the list now? 
If sarcasm is too aggressive for you, I suggest you add my posts to 
your kill file because there's more to come.






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
.

[UC] A partial answer on zoning law

[Anthony West]

By happenstance, a job assignment tonight turned out to be coverage of a 
neighborhood Zoning Committee meeting in another part of town. It was 
fascinating and instructive, in a grisly sort of way. You see the same 
social behaviors and hear the same refrains in public, on both sides, 
not all of them pretty.


But I did bump into a guy who could answer the question nobody on either 
of University City's two lists was up to. It's the question of relevant 
range. The fellow in question was Tom Citro, a "zoning consultant" with 
more than a dozen years' experience in the field. He was representing 
one of the variance applicants, an Indonesian church on S. Broad St.


Citro told us the relevant radius is 500 feet. Within that radius, the 
ZBA *must* listen to input from any neighbor. Beyond that radius, it 
*may choose to* listen to input.


Now as to our neighborhood: Woodland Ave. Presbyterian Church lies just 
farther than 500 feet west of the proposed hotel at 40th & Pine.


Some concerns raised by neighbors -- parking and visual scale -- strike 
me as legitimate reasons to ask ZBA to cast a wider net. I know several 
persons who live within, say, 1000 feet of the project and I hope their 
voices are heard. "Heard" doesn't necessarily mean "placed in charge", 
though.


But I don't feel comfortable offering an opinion from my radius of 44th 
St. It doesn't feel like it's my call.


-- Tony West


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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Anthony West]

Yes, Frank (and Maggie),

Sarcasm is a form of aggressive speech. It's not the end of the world, 
usually. But when it is repeated over and over in conversation, it piles 
up and becomes an irritant. When it is used to initiate a criticism of a 
neighbor who hadn't previously been picking a fight with you, it is 
aggressive behavior.


In an off-list post I detailed a pattern of unprovoked complaints by 
you, on any neighborhood subject under the sun. They included at least 
three pointless digs at neighborhood individuals who have nothing to do 
with me, or you for that matter.


I don't intend to kill your posts, Frank. If you write nasty things 
about your neighbors, for no cause that I can see, I will point it out 
to you in public, since that is your (and Maggie's) wish. I specifically 
exclude any remarks you make about me; it's only your treatment of 
others that distus me.


-- Tony West


Frank wrote:


Yes, it was sarcastic. So? Is sarcasm not permitted on the list now? 
If sarcasm is too aggressive for you, I suggest you add my posts to 
your kill file because there's more to come.




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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Anthony West]

Then you don't interpret them correctly, Frank. I asked a simple 
question of fact: to what extent do renters and owners have equal 
standing in zoning law? I don't know. It surely seems relevant to the 
issue to ask this question. Why is it "hateful" to want to know a useful 
answer?


-- Tony West

Nope. That's exactly how I interpret his words. Otherwise I fail to 
see how the analogy, wrong-headed as it is, applies to the current 
discussion. It's a stretch even then.


Frank



Frank wrote:
They compare the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of 
strangers from Pittsburgh and ask for legal precedents for 
marginalizing renters and students. It's hateful, arrogant behavior.
Ladies and gentlemen, here Frank displays his own deep and severe 
dishonesty. He's lying.


Here is what was posted, by Tony West, on that list:

"This is one question that gnaws at me. I don't know the answer, 
Mike, but there must be an answer in code or case law somewhere: how 
close to a given zoning variance do you have to live -- or own 
property -- in order to have a voice in the "public input" part of a 
zoning hearing? (As a side question -- does zoning law draw a 
distinction between owners and renters?)  




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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Frank]

Once again you dodge the issue. You have been asked by myself and by  
Maggie to make the substance of your accusations public. You have  
refused. Is there any reason for anyone to believe you?


Why do you continue with character assassination (not just of me)  
instead of focussing on the issues at hand? I don't want an 11-story  
hotel built 1/2 block away from me. I expressed my opinion when it was  
asked for by a community group. Why do you take those facts so  
personally that you must attempt to make me look untrustworthy?


Frank

On Feb 19, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Anthony West wrote:


Yes, Frank (and Maggie),

Sarcasm is a form of aggressive speech. It's not the end of the  
world, usually. But when it is repeated over and over in  
conversation, it piles up and becomes an irritant. When it is used  
to initiate a criticism of a neighbor who hadn't previously been  
picking a fight with you, it is aggressive behavior.


In an off-list post I detailed a pattern of unprovoked complaints by  
you, on any neighborhood subject under the sun. They included at  
least three pointless digs at neighborhood individuals who have  
nothing to do with me, or you for that matter.


I don't intend to kill your posts, Frank. If you write nasty things  
about your neighbors, for no cause that I can see, I will point it  
out to you in public, since that is your (and Maggie's) wish. I  
specifically exclude any remarks you make about me; it's only your  
treatment of others that distus me.


-- Tony West


Frank wrote:


Yes, it was sarcastic. So? Is sarcasm not permitted on the list  
now? If sarcasm is too aggressive for you, I suggest you add my  
posts to your kill file because there's more to come.






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

Re: [UC] Re: Who owns the "nec of 40th & baltimore?" [was: Re: [Ucneighbors] RE: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC] Community rejects hotel

[emko]

D'oh! Thanks.

Maggie

On Feb 19, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Lewis Mellman wrote:


I assumed it meant north east corner, but ICBW (I could be wrong)
-Lew

On Feb 19, 2008, at 8:02 PM, emko wrote:

I'd be surprised if there were free parking spots around there  
currently, though, and that means whoever is currently parking  
there is going to have problems and have to move elsewhere. I've  
had problems getting a parking space almost everywhere in this  
neighborhood, esp. up at that end.


The other problem with more cars around that area is the  
bottleneck at the approach of Baltimore to University Ave.


By the way, what's a "nec"? (I don't even know what it would mean  
if it were a typo.)


Maggie


On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 2/19/08 11:40:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, please work to get the nec of 40th and  
Baltimore occupied.  How many years has Campus Apartment let it  
be idle and abandoned?  Toward what end?


Clarification needed here:  the end building is 421 S. 40th.  It  
is owned by Louis R. Sheffler & Michael Karp - NOT Campus  
Apartments.


Campus Apartments is one of the partners of the proposed hotel,  
not the owner of the vacant and unsightly commercial building  
across the street.  Fair is fair; it's not correct to accuse the  
potential developer of neglecting an adjacent property.


Check the ownership on Hallwatch.org, here:
http://www.hallwatch.org/proptax/search/address/tr/current?addr% 
3Alist=300-499+s.+40th&evenodd=


While there, you can also look up the owners on the 3900 & 4000  
block of Pine St. and the 4000 block of Baltimore. You're going  
to see the same landlord names repeated many times, and very few  
individuals.


Also note that the property description for the one full time  
resident homeowner on the block (4017 Pine) shows that she has a  
garage, so I guess parking won't be an issue for her.  In the  
4100 block of Pine, "the O'Donnell house" which is also mentioned  
in the email to which I'm responding, has an enormous yard with  
gates which could probably work for parking and still leave loads  
of play space for the children.  And another homeowner on the  
4100 block of Pine who is opposed to the project has a very long  
driveway and deep yard, so she, too, has her own private parking.


Also, the homeowners on Woodland Terrace have permit parking - so  
the hotel guests wouldn't be able to warehouse their cars on the  
Woodland folks' block.


I point this out in the interest of fairness and complete  
reporting also.  Now, back to work.


- Melani Lamond




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101



**
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/ 
rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)

[UC] Re: Who owns the "nec of 40th & baltimore?" [was: Re: [Ucneighbors] RE: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC] Community rejects hotel

[emko]

I'd be surprised if there were free parking spots around there  
currently, though, and that means whoever is currently parking there  
is going to have problems and have to move elsewhere. I've had  
problems getting a parking space almost everywhere in this  
neighborhood, esp. up at that end.


The other problem with more cars around that area is the bottleneck  
at the approach of Baltimore to University Ave.


By the way, what's a "nec"? (I don't even know what it would mean if  
it were a typo.)


Maggie


On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 2/19/08 11:40:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, please work to get the nec of 40th and  
Baltimore occupied.  How many years has Campus Apartment let it be  
idle and abandoned?  Toward what end?


Clarification needed here:  the end building is 421 S. 40th.  It is  
owned by Louis R. Sheffler & Michael Karp - NOT Campus Apartments.


Campus Apartments is one of the partners of the proposed hotel, not  
the owner of the vacant and unsightly commercial building across  
the street.  Fair is fair; it's not correct to accuse the potential  
developer of neglecting an adjacent property.


Check the ownership on Hallwatch.org, here:
http://www.hallwatch.org/proptax/search/address/tr/current?addr% 
3Alist=300-499+s.+40th&evenodd=


While there, you can also look up the owners on the 3900 & 4000  
block of Pine St. and the 4000 block of Baltimore. You're going to  
see the same landlord names repeated many times, and very few  
individuals.


Also note that the property description for the one full time  
resident homeowner on the block (4017 Pine) shows that she has a  
garage, so I guess parking won't be an issue for her.  In the 4100  
block of Pine, "the O'Donnell house" which is also mentioned in the  
email to which I'm responding, has an enormous yard with gates  
which could probably work for parking and still leave loads of play  
space for the children.  And another homeowner on the 4100 block of  
Pine who is opposed to the project has a very long driveway and  
deep yard, so she, too, has her own private parking.


Also, the homeowners on Woodland Terrace have permit parking - so  
the hotel guests wouldn't be able to warehouse their cars on the  
Woodland folks' block.


I point this out in the interest of fairness and complete reporting  
also.  Now, back to work.


- Melani Lamond




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101



**
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel- 
campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Glenn]

I just tried reading these posts on kyle's list, but that list's archives 
don't seem to be public anymore --


http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/pipermail/ucneighbors/





Yes, it appears UC Neighbors have closed the archives!

A new message appears, "The current archive is only available to the list 
members."


I pulled a quote from it a few days ago to explain the Penn censorship 
policy to our new list subscriber, S. Anderson.  The archives had not become 
secret at that point.


It must have occurred about the same time as founding members Lamond, West, 
and Siano started the ad hominem here.


UC Neighbors is promoted by the University of Pennsylvania and is linked 
within the Penn network


Glenn Moyer



- Original Message - 
From: "UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "University City List" 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD



Frank wrote:
dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to this lists to the 
ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know the ones. They compare 
the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of strangers from 
Pittsburgh



I just tried reading these posts on kyle's list, but that list's archives 
don't seem to be public anymore --


http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/pipermail/ucneighbors/

???


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN































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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 
269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 2/18/2008 5:50 AM






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

[UC] Public report

[Glenn]

February 19, 2008, 4:30 PM, 41st and Pine St.

Mr. Dexter Bryant and Chris Kingsely of UCD meet Glenn Moyer after 2 UCD 
employees are flagged down and call Mr. Bryant. Trash has been placed on the 
sidewalk in front of various Campus Apt buildings on Pine St between 40 th and 
42nd Sts. Also on 41st St.



I met Mr. Dexter Bryant and Mr. Chris Kingsely of the UCD at 4:25 PM. As of 
3:30 PM, the regular trash violations of Campus Apts were photographed on Pine 
St and 41st St. On this holiday week, trash cannot be put out until Wed. after 
7 PM.  Several piles exceeded the limits on amount of trash.

Mr. Dexter Bryant and Mr. Chris Kingsley refuse to call the city of 
Philadelphia Streets Department on the spot. Four separate UCD employees refuse 
to call city enforcement officers. They do not record any of the violation 
addresses. Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Bryant inform me that I need to contact the 
property manager.

I inform Mr. Bryant and Mr. Kingsley that Deputy Commissioner Carlton Williams 
of the Phila. Dept. of Streets is on record describing a "working relationship" 
between the city and UCD. 

Mr. Dexter Bryant confirms that UCD compiles a list of addresses for the city 
enforcement officers and provides addresses. This is not done on the basis of 
an immediate violation. UCD provides a list of "offenders" by way of the phone 
at later dates. 

I asked repeatedly for Mr. Bryant and Mr. Kingsley to call enforcement 
officers. None of the Campus Apt. addresses were recorded by any of the UCD 
employees. As I walked away, Mr. Kingsley and Bryant left without any effort to 
record the various addresses. All UCD staff refused pictures. 

Glenn Moyer, 5:23 PM, 2/19/08

RE: [UC] A pause in the debate for an important, if trashy, announcement

[KAREN ALLEN]

> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:49:26 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
> UnivCity@list.purple.com> Subject: Re: [UC] A pause in the debate for an 
> important, if trashy, >announcement> so, in the case of the proposed hotel, 
> the IRON TRIANGLE is:> > - city hall's zba (legistlature)> > - lussenhop/penn 
> (interest group, constituency)> > - shca zoning committee (bureaucracy, 
> regulatory agency)> > > and we the citizens (the public, the consumers) can 
> get > shortchanged as a result of that dynamic, which works to > benefit the 
> interest group, to empower the legislature, to > sustain the bureaucracy...> 
> > yes?
 
YES!!!  Thanks for a thought-provoking lesson!

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Frank]

Nope. That's exactly how I interpret his words. Otherwise I fail to  
see how the analogy, wrong-headed as it is, applies to the current  
discussion. It's a stretch even then.


Frank

On Feb 19, 2008, at 04:30 PM, Brian Siano wrote:


Frank wrote:
PS. I would like to join Maggie in her feelings about your private  
posting to her of your complaints about me. I think it proves that  
you have no interest in doing anything but stirring the pot. Her  
question was asked on the list. Why was it not answered on the  
list? Also dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to  
this lists to the ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know  
the ones. They compare the people at last weeks meeting with a bus  
full of strangers from Pittsburgh and ask for legal precedents for  
marginalizing renters and students. It's hateful, arrogant behavior.
Ladies and gentlemen, here Frank displays his own deep and severe  
dishonesty. He's lying.


Here is what was posted, by Tony West, on that list:

"This is one question that gnaws at me. I don't know the answer,  
Mike, but there must be an answer in code or case law somewhere: how  
close to a given zoning variance do you have to live -- or own  
property -- in order to have a voice in the "public input" part of a  
zoning hearing? (As a side question -- does zoning law draw a  
distinction between owners and renters?)  It seems intuitively fair  
that if I want to enclose my porch, and all the neighbors on block  
block say they're cool with that, they couldn't then be outweighed  
by two busloads of open-porch lovers who show up at my zoning  
hearing from Pittsburgh to condemn my project."


Sure isn't like what Frank tried to say, isn't it? There's no  
"hateful, arrogant" content to any of this. Instead, we find that  
Tony was raising a question of community voices versus distance,  
illustrated his question with a reasonable analogy. Anyone who reads  
the English language can see that there is no insult, no bullying,  
no "hateful" or "arrogant" content.


The fact is obvious: Frank is lying about what Tony's been saying on  
the other list.



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] A pause in the debate for an important, if trashy, announcement

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Glenn wrote:
I think the "iron triangle" concept explains the relationships being 
created between the local special interests and city agencies as well as 
the use of civic associations.  It's the expedient method (what some at 
Penn would call the corporate model for community engagement) to reach 
the goals of rent seeking by shortchanging common citizens and 
democratic processes.  I found the following guidance for policymakers:



fascinating. I've never heard of that term before -- IRON 
TRIANGLE


here's IRON TRIANGLE explained on wikipedia:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle



so, in the case of the proposed hotel, the IRON TRIANGLE is:

   - city hall's zba (legistlature)

   - lussenhop/penn (interest group, constituency)

   - shca zoning committee (bureaucracy, regulatory agency)


and we the citizens (the public, the consumers) can get 
shortchanged as a result of that dynamic, which works to 
benefit the interest group, to empower the legislature, to 
sustain the bureaucracy...


yes?



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN















































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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Brian Siano]

Frank wrote:
PS. I would like to join Maggie in her feelings about your private 
posting to her of your complaints about me. I think it proves that you 
have no interest in doing anything but stirring the pot. Her question 
was asked on the list. Why was it not answered on the list? Also 
dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to this lists to the 
ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know the ones. They compare 
the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of strangers from 
Pittsburgh and ask for legal precedents for marginalizing renters and 
students. It's hateful, arrogant behavior.
Ladies and gentlemen, here Frank displays his own deep and severe 
dishonesty. He's lying.


Here is what was posted, by Tony West, on that list:

"This is one question that gnaws at me. I don't know the answer, Mike, 
but there must be an answer in code or case law somewhere: how close to 
a given zoning variance do you have to live -- or own property -- in 
order to have a voice in the "public input" part of a zoning hearing? 
(As a side question -- does zoning law draw a distinction between owners 
and renters?)  It seems intuitively fair that if I want to enclose my 
porch, and all the neighbors on block block say they're cool with that, 
they couldn't then be outweighed by two busloads of open-porch lovers 
who show up at my zoning hearing from Pittsburgh to condemn my project."


Sure isn't like what Frank tried to say, isn't it? There's no "hateful, 
arrogant" content to any of this. Instead, we find that Tony was raising 
a question of community voices versus distance, illustrated his question 
with a reasonable analogy. Anyone who reads the English language can see 
that there is no insult, no bullying, no "hateful" or "arrogant" content.


The fact is obvious: Frank is lying about what Tony's been saying on the 
other list.



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

[UC] FW: another break-in

[Leila Graham-Willis]

Forwarding from a neighbor...

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:07:49 -0600Subject: another break-in  Many of you 
already know, but for those who don't: there was a break-in on the 4600 block 
of Osage on Sunday around 3:30 p.m. In this case the burglars were pretty 
aggressive, pulling the bars off of a basement window (alley side) to enter, 
and kicking down a double dead-bolted door to enter the main house. A neighbor 
saw two teenage boys walking down the alley around the time of the break-in, 
perhaps as lookouts. A large group (maybe 6 or so) of kids was seen hanging out 
on the sidewalk and a neighbor's wall shortly before the break-in (laughing and 
joking and having fun, though, not acting suspicious in any way).  Also, a 
neighbor spotted a prowler lurking in the bushes at a different house in the 
same row on Saturday. The prowler took off when he realized he was seen. Also, 
Det. Murray's most recent email crime report noted several gunpoint robberies 
in our immediate area (e.g., 44th and Osage, 47th and Osage) during evening 
hours, approx 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Lisa
_
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Frank wrote:
dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to this lists to the 
ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know the ones. They compare 
the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of strangers from 
Pittsburgh



I just tried reading these posts on kyle's list, but that 
list's archives don't seem to be public anymore --


http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/pipermail/ucneighbors/

???


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN































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

[UC] Re: Who owns the "nec of 40th & baltimore?" [was: Re: [Ucneighbors] R E: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC] Community rejects hotel

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

 
Thank you for the correction.
How do we get Karp, et al to invest some time or effort into filling that space 
with a reasonable tenant.  I have heard from several potential users, who 
claimed calls were not returned, and when they persisted and got through, they 
were told there was no interest in renting the space.  It has been vacant so 
long, I can't even track the years.  Does anyone have a clear memory of the 
last complete use.  I remember a cute, Coffee Shop that used part of the space 
for a short time, but that is as much as I remember.
 


- Melani Lamond writes:

Clarification needed here:  the end building is 421 S. 40th.  It is owned by 
Louis R. Sheffler & Michael Karp - NOT Campus Apartments.  

Campus Apartments is one of the partners of the proposed hotel, not the owner 
of the vacant and unsightly commercial building across the street.  Fair is 
fair; it's not correct to accuse the potential developer of neglecting an 
adjacent property.

Check the ownership on Hallwatch.org, here:
http://www.hallwatch.org/proptax/search/address/tr/current?addr%3Alist=300-499+s.+40th&evenodd=

While there, you can also look up the owners on the 3900 & 4000 block of Pine 
St. and the 4000 block of Baltimore. You're going to see the same landlord 
names repeated many times, and very few individuals.  

Also note that the property description for the one full time resident 
homeowner on the block (4017 Pine) shows that she has a garage, so I guess 
parking won't be an issue for her.  In the 4100 block of Pine, "the O'Donnell 
house" which is also mentioned in the email to which I'm responding, has an 
enormous yard with gates which could probably work for parking and still leave 
loads of play space for the children.  And another homeowner on the 4100 block 
of Pine who is opposed to the project has a very long driveway and deep yard, 
so she, too, has her own private parking.  

Also, the homeowners on Woodland Terrace have permit parking - so the hotel 
guests wouldn't be able to warehouse their cars on the Woodland folks' block.  

I point this out in the interest of fairness and complete reporting also.  Now, 
back to work.




_
Free info for small business owners.  Click here to find great products geared 
for your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m7tDdWm7w94hToWc4qyB55JKGQoYwzRzj6AeabPIvTcaoGX/

[UC] RE: Who owns the "nec of 40th & baltimore?" [was: Re: [Ucneighbors] RE: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC]

[KAREN ALLEN]

Unlike an eleven story building that would encroach upon its neighbors, what 
happens within the confines of "the O'Donnell house"  involves no one else, and 
no one else has the right to insinuate what they should do with their "enormous 
yard".
You have an "enormous yard" and a adjacent property with a driveway, and yet 
I've seen your household's two vehicles parked on the street.  Maybe you should 
convert part of your "enormous yard" into a parking facility and free up 
onstreet parking for others, just as you imply the O'Donnells and other Pine 
Street residents should do.  And if your response is that you have just as much 
right to park on the street as anyone else, then so do the O'Donnells and the 
other Pine Street residents.  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:09:19 -0500Subject: Who owns the 
"nec of 40th & baltimore?" [was: Re: [Ucneighbors] RE: In favor of hotel? RE: 
[UC] Community rejects hotelTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
UnivCity@list.purple.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] note that the property description 
for the one full time resident homeowner on the block (4017 Pine) shows that 
she has a garage, so I guess parking won't be an issue for her.  In the 4100 
block of Pine, "the O'Donnell house" which is also mentioned in the email to 
which I'm responding, has an enormous yard with gates which could probably work 
for parking and still leave loads of play space for the children.  And another 
homeowner on the 4100 block of Pine who is opposed to the project has a very 
long driveway and deep yard, so she, too, has her own private parking.  I point 
this out in the interest of fairness and complete reporting also.  Now, back to 
work.- Melani LamondMelani Lamond, Associate BrokerUrban & Bye, Realtor3529 
Lancaster Ave.Philadelphia, PA 19104cell phone 215-356-7266office phone 
215-222-4800, ext. 113office fax 215-222-1101**Ideas to please 
picky eaters. Watch video on AOL 
Living.(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)
 

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Frank]

My original email said this: "I've also been speaking with someone  
about getting the footage online." I guess you missed that part. I  
wasn't more specific because I didn't want John to be overwhelmed with  
requests and criticism as I have been.


Frank

On Feb 19, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Brian Siano wrote:

Frank, my assumption was that you hadn't considered circulating the  
video on the Web. And my assumption was that there was a good chance  
that you didn't know how easy this was. You may find this assumption  
"arrogant," but I think it was reasonable.



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

[UC] Karl Rove at Penn

[Glenn]

Karl Rove will be having an evening at Penn tomorrow.  From what I understand, 
President Amy G. needs a quick tutorial on the evils of deliberative democracy. 
 

Afterwards rumor has it; Penn Praxis will give, "the architect," the new Penn 
humanitarian award.   In his speech, he is expected to thrill the good folks of 
the UC District when he announces the multi-billion dollar contract for 
Blackwater International to clean up dissent in West Philadelphia.

Unfortunately, no upscale Inn is ready to entertain this holy and wonderful 
humanitarian.  Penn Real Estate and Blackwater spokespeople have emphatically 
declared that such an "unfortunate situation" will never occur again.

An anonymous good consumer

PS: Don't shoot, I love Karl!

Re: [Ucneighbors] RE: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC] Community rejects hotel

[MLamond]

In a message dated 2/19/08 11:40:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On the other hand, please work to get the nec of 40th and Baltimore 
> occupied.  How many years has Campus Apartment let it be idle and abandoned?  
> Toward 
> what end?   
> 
Clarification needed here:   the end building is 421 S. 40th.   It is owned 
by Louis R. Sheffler & Michael Karp - NOT Campus Apartments.   

Campus Apartments is one of the partners of the proposed hotel, not the owner 
of the vacant and unsightly commercial building across the street.   Fair is 
fair; it's not correct to accuse the potential developer of neglecting an 
adjacent property.

Check the ownership on Hallwatch.org, here:

http://www.hallwatch.org/proptax/search/address/tr/current?addr%3Alist=300-499+s.+40th&evenodd=

While there, you can also look up the owners on the 3900 & 4000 block of Pine 
St. and the 4000 block of Baltimore.   You're going to see the same landlord 
names repeated many times, and very few individuals.   

Also note that the property description for the one full time resident 
homeowner on the block (4017 Pine) shows that she has a garage, so I guess 
parking 
won't be an issue for her.   In the 4100 block of Pine, "the O'Donnell house" 
which is also mentioned in the email to which I'm responding, has an enormous 
yard with gates which could probably work for parking and still leave loads of 
play space for the children.   And another homeowner on the 4100 block of Pine 
who is opposed to the project has a very long driveway and deep yard, so she, 
too, has her own private parking.   

Also, the homeowners on Woodland Terrace have permit parking - so the hotel 
guests wouldn't be able to warehouse their cars on the Woodland folks' block.   


I point this out in the interest of fairness and complete reporting also.   
Now, back to work.

- Melani Lamond




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101



**
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
  
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)

Who owns the "nec of 40th & baltimore?" [was: Re: [Ucneighbors] RE: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC] Community rejects hotel

[MLamond]

In a message dated 2/19/08 11:40:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On the other hand, please work to get the nec of 40th and Baltimore 
> occupied.  How many years has Campus Apartment let it be idle and abandoned?  
> Toward 
> what end?   
> 
Clarification needed here:   the end building is 421 S. 40th.   It is owned 
by Louis R. Sheffler & Michael Karp - NOT Campus Apartments.   

Campus Apartments is one of the partners of the proposed hotel, not the owner 
of the vacant and unsightly commercial building across the street.   Fair is 
fair; it's not correct to accuse the potential developer of neglecting an 
adjacent property.

Check the ownership on Hallwatch.org, here:

http://www.hallwatch.org/proptax/search/address/tr/current?addr%3Alist=300-499+s.+40th&evenodd=

While there, you can also look up the owners on the 3900 & 4000 block of Pine 
St. and the 4000 block of Baltimore.  You're going to see the same landlord 
names repeated many times, and very few individuals.   

Also note that the property description for the one full time resident 
homeowner on the block (4017 Pine) shows that she has a garage, so I guess 
parking 
won't be an issue for her.   In the 4100 block of Pine, "the O'Donnell house" 
which is also mentioned in the email to which I'm responding, has an enormous 
yard with gates which could probably work for parking and still leave loads of 
play space for the children.   And another homeowner on the 4100 block of Pine 
who is opposed to the project has a very long driveway and deep yard, so she, 
too, has her own private parking.   

Also, the homeowners on Woodland Terrace have permit parking - so the hotel 
guests wouldn't be able to warehouse their cars on the Woodland folks' block.   


I point this out in the interest of fairness and complete reporting also.   
Now, back to work.

- Melani Lamond




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101



**
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
  
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)

RE: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[KAREN ALLEN]

I've had the same experience of having Tony cursing at me or writing that my 
posts were nonsense, bullshit or whatever because I had the nerve to state an 
opinion that he didn't agree with.  Ditto with the experience of him writing me 
offlist to try to convince me he's right in badgering someone else.  
 
Now I simply use the e-mail block.  
Karen Allen
 
> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:39:15 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 
> [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD> To: UnivCity@list.purple.com> > Tony, you send 
> me an email off-list titled "Frank's Grumbles." In the > email you referred 
> to his criticisms as "grumbles" yet in public you > refer to them as 
> "aggressive." I'm not going to quote your private > email to me because you 
> expressly said you didn't want to send it to > the list, but it seems clear 
> to me that in fact the reason you don't > want it sent to the list is that it 
> makes clear that Frank's > criticisms are just that -- critical opinions, 
> which anyone is surely > permitted, not "aggressive," and certainly not 
> pointed at an > individual rather than an issue, as your post below is.> > 
> I'm not going to continue responding to your posts, Tony. I don't > think 
> you're genuinely interested in carrying on a discussion.> > Maggie> > > On 
> Feb 18, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Anthony West wrote:> > > What did this remark mean, 
> Frank?> >> > You complained a certain kind of internet work was very time- > 
> > consuming for you. Brian responded with an explanation of how he > > did it 
> without consuming much time. He sounded very helpful, to my > > untutored 
> ear.> >> > So what do you mean, then, "your shift"? It sounds like a 
> sarcastic > > and hostile remark ... what a person might fairly call > > 
> "aggressive" ... but in all honesty, like many of your comments on > > line, 
> it doesn't mean very much in the end. There's a nasty twist > > to it, that 
> doesn't result in anything.> >> > Equally aggressive is your irrelevant aside 
> about the SHCA Zoning > > Committee. It's well known Brian is not involved 
> with this body. > > Why do you drag it into a conversation with Brian? I hope 
> you are > > not trying to fake a connection between Brian and the Zoning > > 
> Committee. He's just a neighbor like you and he deserves the same > > respect 
> you deserve.> >> > In any event, why should this Zoning Committee seek you 
> out for > > your assistance? Who are you? What courteous business gesture did 
> > > you ever make to this Zoning Committee, that might inspire them to > > 
> recruit your assistance? All I've seen you publish about this > > Zoning 
> Committee is complaints. Yet you take it as a point of pride > > that you 
> never, under any circumstances, will talk to any people > > you're 
> complaining about. Why, then, should they seek your > > assistance in 
> conducting their business?> >> > You're obviously a good man in many ways, 
> Frank. But this sort of > > criticism is useless. It wastes the 
> neighborhood's time.> >> > -- Tony West> >> > Frank wrote:> >> This must be 
> your shift, Brian. Welcome! > >>> >> By the way, no one from the Spruce 
> HIll Community Association or > >> their Zoning Committee has contacted me 
> about obtaining a disc, > >> nor has a single one of them said "Thank you." 
> Sadly, some of them > >> only seem interested in criticizing their neighbors' 
> efforts to > >> distribute a verbatim record of a public meeting. It would be 
> just > >> as easy for SCHA to tape these meetings and put them online or in > 
> >> an archive themselves> >>> >> Having owned a successful 
> subscription-based video website in the > >> past, I'm pretty familiar with 
> posting video footage online. > >> There's no need to school me on it. 
> Nonetheless, John Ellingsworth > >> was nice enough to enquire if he could do 
> that for me and I gladly > >> handed the footage over to him. I honestly 
> don't have the time to > >> once again reformat the footage then upload it. I 
> believe I > >> previously stated why my wake and sleep-time CPU cycles are > 
> >> already in use. I believe John will be posting it on his own web > >> 
> space and I'm sure he'll let us know as soon as it's available. > >> Maybe 
> he'll be more receptive to your video tutorial.> >> >> > > > 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: In favor of hotel? RE: [UC] Community rejects hotel

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

 I think that a hotel on 40th and Pine would be good.  You are bringing money 
into the neighborhood.  The Presenters said "40 jobs would be created" and that 
"the workers would arrive by Public Transportation".  I believe that most of 
the jobs will be of the minimum wage variety and that unemployed neighbors will 
be given no preference.
 
People who are staying over to come to the Green Line just up the street, or 
the New Vietnam Café.  Or the more established places like Abbraccio, Dahlak 
and Marigold.  They may, but I suspect they will be directed to the similarly 
owned business on 40th street.  I often visit clients in the Faculty Club or 
the Penn Tower Hotel, and I can tell you that the front desk has maps and 
fliers which seem to define a UC that stops east of 42nd Street.  I know there 
are UC Maps that go out to 52nd, but I can't seem to find them in the Penn run 
buildings.
 
You keep talking about how it ruins our neighborhood feel.  That corner of 40th 
and Pine is basically still all Penn. Please tell that to Joseph Canavan, Mary 
Goldman, The O'Donnell family.  On the other hand, please work to get the nec 
of 40th and Baltimore occupied.  How many years has Campus Apartment let it be 
idle and abandoned?  Toward what end?   
 
Every other corner there, I’d be willing to bet, is a house converted into 
apartments.  Speculation shored up by an unsupported bet is just distraction. 
The houses on Baltimore that this hotel would back up to look to me to be 
mostly houses changed into apartments filled with students.  Students need 
affordable housing also.  $175 / night may force the students further West 
(could be good for some and bad for others) or could drive up the costs of 
inner ring dorm housing.  I haven’t been on that block in a while  but 
 
if I remember correctly, isn’t the first house there that big white house with 
the columns that is kind of back off the street? No! Isn’t it a Greek house as 
well? No!  
 
 I doubt the rest of the houses on the block from 40th to 41st on Pine are 
apartments,  but do you think they 
will really be effected by the hotel?  Of course I do.  I type from informed 
passion.
 
It just seems to me that some people on this list just resist any change to the 
neighborhood.  Not me.  I love change.  I have converted my home into a cheery 
place of inclusive celebration.  Not for profit, but to build memories and to 
spread faith and hope and love (which are quite radical emotions in these scary 
times.)   I can certainly understand that.  But this change I think effects 
fewer than it has the possibility of helping.  It helps the masters of 
Institution and Profit. There are many larger lots, more suitably located for 
the density proposed by these developers. I will not bend my zoning rights or 
neighborhood charm to their cement fiber phallus. 
 Just my two cents.
Dick Salmon


_
Need cash? Click to get an emergency loan, bad credit ok
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mKmyKfkwrigu09YzR8RDxIhRSDHxRbjAVZ5Bv3FDoIb2dru/

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Brian Siano]

Frank wrote:
I stated, not complained, that working with video was time-consuming. 
Brian offered an alternative which was no alternative at all for me as 
I explained.

[...]
This is a thread on a listserv, not a private conversation with Brian. 
It was a response to some non-helpful help which made some arrogant 
assumptions about my time and experience.

[...]
I was responding "in kind" to exactly the sort of useless criticism 
you accuse me of engaging in.
Geez, you try to offer advice, and you get comments like "non-helpful 
help" and "arrogant assumptions."


Frank, my assumption was that you hadn't considered circulating the 
video on the Web. And my assumption was that there was a good chance 
that you didn't know how easy this was. You may find this assumption 
"arrogant," but I think it was reasonable.


As you yourself said, making a DVD on a Mac was an easy, one-two-three 
process. I use a PC, and I understand that Macs can be easier. But all 
too often, people who are used to the easy one-two-three approach are 
likely to not be aware of the other processes involved in posting to the 
Web. One may be an expert in this simple Mac process... but it's been my 
experience that this doesn't always mean that one is an expert, or even 
familiar, with other facets of video publishing. There are lots of 
hobbyists out there who can burn a DVD, but who are helpless when it 
comes to anything else.


You may call this an "arrogant" assumption, and you're free to take it 
as a personal slight if you want. But I merely pointed out that, if 
you'd wanted to circulate that video widely-- given the discussion on 
this list, that seemed to be a big priority-- there were better 
alternatives, which I've used in the past.



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

Re: [UC] Campus Inn questionnaire (not poll) results

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 2/19/2008 4:02:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This 2:9  ratio yields a multiplier of 4.5. So if a survey of a proposed 
business  project yields 12 positive and 50 negative unsolicited 
responses from  end-users, the "weighted responses" are 54 positives and 
50 negatives. In  other words, actual public opinion looks more like a 
tossup so far. I  would not assume most neighbors of the hotel project 
clearly express a  choice for or against, based on this tool alone.
 
I don't think I could have been more clear, to anyone who paid attention,  
about the fact that the absolute numbers answering one way or another were  
neither the intent of the questionnaires nor to be interpreted as reflective of 
 
anything. And I stated this in the context of criticizing the DP "poll."
 
The "subject" of the email posting to this list was "Campus Inn  
questionnaire (not poll) results."
 
And the web page containing the links stated "Informal community  
questionnaires to ascertain reasons why neighbors are opposed to, in support 
of,  or 
undecided about the project."
 
The key, as I thought was evident, was to consider each questionnaire in  and 
of itself, to see why those opposed were opposed, why those in favor were in  
favor, and why those undecided were undecided.
 
So, what's the point of all the huffety puffety in your post?
 
Sorry, but I deeply resent being deliberately misinterpreted. And I  post 
this to the list rather than send it to you privately (as would normally be  my 
inclination) in case your comments get anybody thinking I'm using data in an  
attempt to deceive rather than present food for thought.
 
Al Krigman




**Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.  
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)

[UC] Go West, marching song

[Glenn]

High ho..., high ho...
To barking cheese 
I go.

I rant and rant
Because I can't
Use reason; 
All know.



Dedicated to West, Siano, FOCP, civility, and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PS:  The civil dwarfs welcome additional marching verses from members of the 
public.

Re: [UC] Campus Inn questionnaire (not poll) results

[Anthony West]

Very worthy and interesting results, Al. How are we to make sense of them?

My first tool is the Rule of 2:9. That's based on an oral formula passed 
on by one of my early sales managers, who had recently graduated from U. 
Maryland Business School. It was: "For every 2 unsolicited positive 
feedback comments (compliments) a business gets, it will get 9 
unsolicited negative feedback comments (complaints)." That's for a 
perfectly average, normal business venture.


I can't vouch for the scientific status of Joe's wisdom. But he had just 
gotten out of B-School, he was young and charismatic ... and more 
importantly, very successful in the face of a hostile business 
environment. So I've gone by that ratio ever since. It makes intuitive 
sense to me now, anyway.


People who think you may have done a good business deed, have much less 
incentive to express their opinion in public than people who think you 
may have a done a bad business deed. Supporters accrue small personal 
gain from supporting you, whereas opponents maximize personal gain by 
opposing you.


This 2:9 ratio yields a multiplier of 4.5. So if a survey of a proposed 
business project yields 12 positive and 50 negative unsolicited 
responses from end-users, the "weighted responses" are 54 positives and 
50 negatives. In other words, actual public opinion looks more like a 
tossup so far. I would not assume most neighbors of the hotel project 
clearly express a choice for or against, based on this tool alone.


That's why we have multiple tools, multiple tests, multiple meetings and 
multiple voices. No one source of data is adequate to describe the 
public response to  large-scale developments like this one. If I thought 
I saw a simple public response at this time, I would say so. I don't see 
such a response. I don't have such a response myself.


-- Tony West



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No time like the present (especially because I figured out how to 
share the results without giving away the names or email addresses of 
the participants).
 
Go to www.icodat.com/c-i.htm . Then 
click on each of the links to get the tabulations.
 
Al Krigman



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

[UC] What is zoning law on this matter?

[Anthony West]

This is one question that gnaws at me. I don't know the answer, Mike, 
but there must be an answer in code or case law somewhere: how close to 
a given zoning variance do you have to live -- or own property -- in 
order to have a voice in the "public input" part of a zoning hearing? 
(As a side question -- does zoning law draw a distinction between owners 
and renters?)


It seems intuitively fair that if I want to enclose my porch, and all 
the neighbors on my block swear in court they're cool with that, they 
couldn't then be outweighed by two busloads of open-porch lovers who 
show up at my zoning hearing from Pittsburgh to condemn my project.


But is this how the law works? Somebody, somewhere must have dealt with 
this problem. A neighborhood list like this one, stuffed with lawyers 
and landlords and contractors, should have at least a couple of readers 
who can dare venture an answer.


-- Tony West


I don’t believe if you live at 47^th and Osage or 48^th and 
Springfield you can not honestly be considered part of the 
neighborhood affected by this. 48^th and Springfield is 11 or 12 
blocks from the location. It would be like someone in Rittenhouse 
Square complaining about a project on Washington Square in center city.


I am truly disappointed by the number of irrational or irrelevant 
arguments I’ve heard in opposition to this project.


Cheers,

Mike

“When one has finished building one’s house, one suddenly realizes 
that in the process one has learned something that one really needed 
to know in the worst way – before one began.” Nietzsche




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

Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD

[Frank]

On Feb 18, 2008, at 09:42 PM, Anthony West wrote:


What did this remark mean, Frank?


Which remark?

You complained a certain kind of internet work was very time- 
consuming for you. Brian responded with an explanation of how he did  
it without consuming much time. He sounded very helpful, to my  
untutored ear.


I stated, not complained, that working with video was time-consuming.  
Brian offered an alternative which was no alternative at all for me as  
I explained. He wants it online, It will be online but someone else is  
doing it so the timing of it is not under my control. I taped the  
event and made DVDs which were requested of me. What's the problem here?


So what do you mean, then, "your shift"? It sounds like a sarcastic  
and hostile remark ... what a person might fairly call  
"aggressive" ... but in all honesty, like many of your comments on  
line, it doesn't mean very much in the end. There's a nasty twist to  
it, that doesn't result in anything.


Yes, it was sarcastic. So? Is sarcasm not permitted on the list now?  
If sarcasm is too aggressive for you, I suggest you add my posts to  
your kill file because there's more to come.


Equally aggressive is your irrelevant aside about the SHCA Zoning  
Committee. It's well known Brian is not involved with this body. Why  
do you drag it into a conversation with Brian? I hope you are not  
trying to fake a connection between Brian and the Zoning Committee.  
He's just a neighbor like you and he deserves the same respect you  
deserve.


This is a thread on a listserv, not a private conversation with Brian.  
It was a response to some non-helpful help which made some arrogant  
assumptions about my time and experience. Anyone can join in, as you  
have. Are some topics off limits on the list now also? In my opinion,  
SCHA and their Zoning Committee are quite relevant to this  
conversation. As a matter of fact, they are central to the  
conversation. I never said Brian was a member of anything.


In any event, why should this Zoning Committee seek you out for your  
assistance? Who are you? What courteous business gesture did you  
ever make to this Zoning Committee, that might inspire them to  
recruit your assistance? All I've seen you publish about this Zoning  
Committee is complaints. Yet you take it as a point of pride that  
you never, under any circumstances, will talk to any people you're  
complaining about. Why, then, should they seek your assistance in  
conducting their business?


I didn't ask the Zoning Committee to seek me out for anything but they  
*did* seek me out as a member of the community to attend this meeting  
and ask questions. I believe I spoke clearly to several of the people  
I have issues with regarding this project at the meeting on Wednesday  
night, none of whom were/are SCHA Board or Zoning Committee members. I  
have videotape and a keepsake DVD of it. When John posts the footage  
online, I'll make sure you know just where to look so you can see how  
secret I'm not being.


Does the Zoning Committee only respond to "business gestures?"

My concerns until Wednesday not been with the Zoning Committee. In  
fact, I was happy they moved this meeting to a larger venue. I  
certainly can't disagree with their decision since they haven't made  
one yet. The only thing i suggested was that they reschedule the "open  
and public" meeting that they forgot to publicize. It's my one and  
only criticism about them. Is it unreasonable? I thought this meeting  
might make up for it but the public was consistently asked to stick to  
a Q&A format and not make statements so I still think another public  
meeting is in order.


You're obviously a good man in many ways, Frank. But this sort of  
criticism is useless. It wastes the neighborhood's time.


I was responding "in kind" to exactly the sort of useless criticism  
you accuse me of engaging in.

.

-- Tony West


PS. I would like to join Maggie in her feelings about your private  
posting to her of your complaints about me. I think it proves that you  
have no interest in doing anything but stirring the pot. Her question  
was asked on the list. Why was it not answered on the list? Also  
dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to this lists to the  
ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know the ones. They compare  
the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of strangers from  
Pittsburgh and ask for legal precedents for marginalizing renters and  
students. It's hateful, arrogant behavior.





Frank wrote:

This must be your shift, Brian. Welcome! 

By the way, no one from the Spruce HIll Community Association or  
their Zoning Committee has contacted me about obtaining a disc, nor  
has a single one of them said "Thank you." Sadly, some of them only  
seem interested in criticizing their neighbors' efforts to  
distribute a verbatim record of a public meeting. It would be just  
as easy for SCHA to tape these meetings and put th