[UC] LOST Shih Tzu
from craigslist:Lost Dog - Shih Tzu named Gizmo (46th and Baltimore)Reply to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][?]Date: 2008-10-04, 11:42PM EDTGizmo was last seen on 46th and Baltimore at approx. 7:30pm on Sat Oct. 4th. He was not himself when he ran away and may not respond to his name.Please contact me if you have seen or found Gizmo. His family is very worried and he may be in need of medical attention.Contact Jennifer(215) 727-4085(443) 257-9352[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
If this was true -- and it makes some intuitive sense -- and if I were a Woodland Terr. resident, to whom esthetics absolutely would matter -- then I might try to present an argument rich in civil-engineering issues such as traffic when working PCPC, and to concentrate my esthetic concerns in other venues, ones I thought more disposed to hear them with respect. -- Tony West 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 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Report of SHCA private meeting
From UC Review, Sept. 24 “…The Spruce Hill Community Association has not yet voted on it but will meet privately to discuss the matter in the next few weeks before submitting its recommendation to the Spruce Hill Zoning Board said President Barry Grossbach. Added Grossbach, if either side has any new information that sheds light on the project then they are welcome to submit it for consideration.” It seems Ms. Contosta mixed up the SHCA Board and Zoning committee. But the rest of this is amazingly bold and contemptuous if Grossbach said this stuff. The community deserves a public explanation from Mr. Grossbach now that this has been published. For years we’ve been reading Penn press releases with claims that, “the community” wants this and “the community” wants that. Then, the quotes provided are always from the same small group of “leaders” in the civic ass. gangs like Mr. Grossbach. These “voice of the community” lies supporting Penn propaganda have outraged some of us for a long time. The civic association power brokers form a closed gang against outsiders from the community. They have no interest or connection to our diverse community, and act on their gang’s interests and agendas only. As reported in the DP, a large cross section of the community “unanimously” and loudly informed the SHCA zoning committee in February that the community didn’t want Penn's upscale hotel. Residents pleaded with the zoning committee! Background: The SHCA was exposed plotting a zoning committee meeting at their small clubhouse in February. A few days prior to the meeting, which became a public gathering anyway, the SHCA was obviously continuing the cover lie of the previous 4 months, that the Campus Inn developers and SHCA had been facilitating a series of open public forums about the Penn hotel all along. Because that latest SHCA plot was exposed, the venue was changed with a few days notice, to 42nd and Baltimore. Like the tabling by PCPC, Mr. Grossbach announced at the conclusion, that since a lawyer had been hired, SHCA would not get involved despite the overwhelming demands from the community for them to immediately reject the hotel or stay out of the way. It was a ridiculous excuse for the zoning committee to make. It was so obviously the typical delay tactic/justification setting up some weasel maneuver at a later date (just like this private meeting to give unanimous community support for Campus Inn now exposed in this news report). Mr. Grossbach, we were forced to take you and your discredited committee at your word. Stay out of the hotel issue! Do not have private meetings which will be ridiculed without mercy! Keep your SHCA out of this serious issue and leave this to responsible credible citizens in this community! We all know that your gang wants your cronies hotel, but your associations credibility died between Oct 2007 and February 2008. And why the hell should anyone waste their time submitting “new information” for your private consideration? SHCA has no credibility and SHCA has absolutely no intention of considering anything from anyone outside of your little gang. This “consideration” by your committee is laughable yet filled with “in your face” contempt! Mr. Grossbach, the entire community waited 4 months for you to admit that the development team had delivered false testimony about open public forums in Oct. 2007. Hours before the Feb. meeting, in writing and later that evening orally when the community had you cornered, you angrily insisted that the architect was only continuously repeating little mistakes which should be swept under the rug. I publicly asked for clarification (of what have proven to be lies) immediately after these were advanced at government hearings in Oct 2007. You chose to ignore these requests while I begged for clarification. Mr. Grossbach don’t make the community “shed light” on your lack of credibility more than has been already exposed. Please issue a very public statement of apology for the SHCA interference in this serious matter in 2007, and reaffirm that SHCA will stay out of this issue and all future important matters needing honest community discussion! Mr. Moyer West Philadelphia PS. Grossbach ignores polite requests for information from citizens in the community. If anyone has any respect for SHCA, please feel free to forward this e-mail to the clowns. Mr. Moyer chooses to treat the SHCA zoning committee with the respect they deserve. None! You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] The West wind blows was Scale and its adjudicators
This quotation derives from Nicole Contosta, who has covered this issue extensively for the University City Review for many months. Neither Contosta nor any other journalist is free of error. But I'll go with her report against that of a citizen journalist who faked an imaginary nursing home on Market St. on this very list, not one month ago. Every claim Glenn publishes at, or about, public meetings should be dismissed by choosy readers, unless backed by independent testimony. -- Tony West From UC Review Sept. 24 With regard to the hotel's height, Greenberger concluded that because Campus Inn had cut five rooms from its top floor, it had taken the bulk out of it and pulled it back by both sides. This is done in Vancouver as a matter of zoning, though I would prefer it to be smaller. Hahaha. It seems like the memory of that evil Glenn actually is confirmed by Ms. Contosta. Evil Glenn remembered that it was Mr. Greenberger making the comparison (not Jastrzab) and even remembered the correct city, Vancouver. Meanwhile, Mr. West (who was not in attendance) had his mistake corrected by evil lying Glenn. But Mr. West attacked the veracity of evil Glenn while continuing to make up a quote, attribute it unfairly to Mr Jastrzab, and continued to claim that it was reported in the UC Review. Hahaha-What the hell is wrong with West? The text of the West wind blowing, posted on the public list: And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC that you ignored in the original news article, and that you just ignored again: “Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories. But with the cut-outs, added Jastrzab in reference to the five rooms that were removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.” Evil lying Glenn's response posted on the public list: Had Mr West attended the hearings for which he provides expert analysis; he would know that Mr. Greenberger and not Mr Jastrzab had been the person (new Penn/Nutter director and commissioner) who interjected this charade. Mr. Greenberger compared the new, hidden, drawings/plan to another city (I believe Vancouver) and made comments similar to the ones above. Mr. Greenberger was ostensibly suggesting that PCPC commissioners had actually thought about the old drawings and new drawings and had arrived at some rational approval of this new bullshit as being a Penn improvement. -Original Message- From: Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 3, 2008 9:39 PM To: univcity Univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators This quotation derives from Nicole Contosta, who has covered this issue extensively for the University City Review for many months. Neither Contosta nor any other journalist is free of error. But I'll go with her report against that of a citizen journalist who faked an imaginary nursing home on Market St. on this very list, not one month ago. Every claim Glenn publishes at, or about, public meetings should be dismissed by choosy readers, unless backed by independent testimony. -- Tony West Glenn moyer wrote: And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC that you ignored in the original news article, and that you just ignored again: “Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories. But with the cut-outs, added Jastrzab in reference to the five rooms that were removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.” Had Mr West attended the hearings for which he provides expert analysis; he would know that Mr. Greenberger and not Mr Jastrzab had been the person (new Penn/Nutter director and commissioner) who interjected this charade. Mr. Greenberger compared the new, hidden, drawings/plan to another city (I believe Vancouver) and made comments similar to the ones above. Mr. Greenberger was ostensibly suggesting that PCPC commissioners had actually thought about the old drawings and new drawings and had arrived at some rational approval of this new bullshit as being a Penn improvement. Let that West wind blow, Mr Moyer, citizen journalist You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Glenn moyer wrote: As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant. well, the traffic study DID became relevant at some point. and that point was at pcpc's may 20 hearing. prior to may 20, the hotel's height and scale was THE issue -- in newspaper articles, at the spruce hill meeting, in inga saffron's column, and even for pcpc and the developer. it's why pcpc recommended rejecting the hotel on april 15, it's what the developer was responding to when he adjusted the plans on april 25, and it was these height/scale adjustments that pcpc said it would use to approve the hotel on may 20 (even while admitting 'it's still an 11-story building.') in other words, it was all about the height and scale, for everyone involved, up until may 20. but on may 20 the developer cited a traffic study, the pcpc tabled any decision until it could consider this traffic study, and finally in september the pcpc approved the hotel based on the traffic study, telling the neighbors that they would 'get used to' the 'overbearing' height and scale of the hotel. I come back to my original question: what happened to the main issue of the hotel's height and scale? .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Frank wrote: 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. thanks. what's still not clear is why the woodland terrace people were being 'informed' to focus on traffic before the may 20 pcpc hearing. traffic only became an issue AT that hearing, when the developer cited a traffic study and pcpc asked for a delay to consider it. how was it that the pcpc did not initiate any request for a traffic study (and prior to may 20 wasn't even considering traffic), and yet, in preparation for pcpc's may 20 hearing the woodland terrace group was being advised to focus on the traffic issue? (and the developer was planning to cite a traffic study)? who was it that initially decided that traffic was the issue -- the developer? the woodland terrace advisor? it wasn't pcpc and it wasn't the neighbors. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Not so at all. In the spring '07 1st Thursday meeting, more questions were about traffic than any other factor. In the first fall '07 Spruce Hill meeting, traffic concerns were frequently mentioned by neighbors along with parking, trash collection and sunlight blockage. Scale alone -- simply having to see a big thing where no big thing had stood before -- was one of many points raised. So that's what happened to the main issue; it never was the main issue. There never was any one main issue. Different people see it in different ways. The Campus Inn is a complex case, at least for urban planners. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: prior to may 20, the hotel's height and scale was THE issue -- in newspaper articles, at the spruce hill meeting, in inga saffron's column, and even for pcpc and the developer. it's why pcpc recommended rejecting the hotel on april 15, it's what the developer was responding to when he adjusted the plans on april 25, and it was these height/scale adjustments that pcpc said it would use to approve the hotel on may 20 (even while admitting 'it's still an 11-story building.') in other words, it was all about the height and scale, for everyone involved, up until may 20. I come back to my original question: what happened to the main issue of the hotel's height and scale? You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
