Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)
Kimm, You are correct about the Calvary and the Woodlands being spin-offs of the UCHS. I am right about the Friends of the Firehouse Market being a spin-off of Cedar Park Neighbors and how these groups formed to make sure their agendas were pushed thorough against the express wishes of the community, the by-laws of their own organizations, and those who actually sought to protect the interests of the community. CPN had a separate Board of Directors for The Firehouse Market. When this entity sought to protect the community's interest in the Market instead of one individual's personal desire to wholly own the entity and remove the community from the business, The Friends was born. The Market existed primarily because of funds garnered from the Commonwealth to provide farm fresh PA produce to a neighborhood of low-to-middle income residents. The building was sold to the community for the cost of $1 for the same purpose. Apparently, that was a specious scenario because almost immediately the Market had no farmers whatsoever and took on a distinct tone quite different from what the community believed they would get when they signed the petitions that led to gaining funding. In fact, when leadership of the Firehouse Market Board was changed abruptly because it was determined the leader was working contrary to community interests he was supposed to uphold, The Friends bullied their way into a meeting of the Shareholders', (The CPN Board and the Firehouse Market Board), held off-site on someone's private property. They proceeded to write scurrilous articles and letters in the UC Review excoriating the Firehouse Market Board and CPN leadership. This by far goes beyond social slights, as you put it. We all know how the story ended. The community lost the Market, the individual who wanted to have sole ownership gained said ownership and the Market ultimately failed. Dock Street Brewery is there now, which attracts a different clientele than those who live nearby or a bit further west. This scenario has been played out before and no doubt will again. Those who will be affected are the only thing that changes, not the M.O. of those who wish to guide the agenda. On 2/12/09 1:02 AM, Kimm Tynan kimm.ty...@verizon.net wrote: Tony, I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or otherwise. That's not true. The Friends of Calvary is/was a spinoff or subgroup of the UCHS. I believe, but could be wrong, that the Friends of the Woodlands is/was as well. I don't believe Calvary . . . ever had a Friends of group attached to them. See above. Kimm On 2/11/09 10:32 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: I'm sure you're right, Wilma. People can be unkind and unfair and cruel to each other in any volunteer association. Social slights like these are always saddening. One always hopes one's group can engage in it as little as possible, but human nature comes with limits. I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or otherwise. Most Friends of... groups are created to provide single-interest community backing to public facilities that could benefit from additional input and assistance. Thus we have, in UC alone, Friends of Malcolm X Park and Friends of the Walnut Street West Library. They are, of course, widespread elsewhere and most public institutions welcome and foster them. I don't believe Calvary, the Firehouse Market or University City District ever had a Friends of group attached to them. They are really different community institutions, for several different reasons, and often aren't similar to each other either. Community associations are in a separate class of their own, with special features. Friends of 40th St. is kind of platypus, with features taken from many other classes. It too is not without precedents elsewhere, though. -- Tony West Still, there are community members who have joined the established UC community organizations over the years, who have pledged many hours/years and personal funds, and even slightly neglected their own families and relationships to support neighborhood issues their very credible community leaders charged them to do. The point is now many of those who have served faithfully are now without the powerful UC Community organizations backed Friends to advocate for them. The hurting thing is the opposing community members to this hotel project are desperately trying to uphold the original vision of the established UC leaders and community
Re: [UC] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue
In a message dated 2/11/2009 8:24:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kallena...@msn.com writes: This is the very type of thing I warned against my editorial letter in the Review back in October, 2007: bad precedent. Once one 10 story building can be built, there is no credible justification to stop another, and another, and yet another. And I agree with you that it seems that the developer was waiting for the Campus Inn to be resolved so that whatever it is that he has planned could ride in on those coattails, and any resistance could be swatted away by pointing to that precedent. No, wait! Hold the phone! I have it on the highest authority -- an unbiased local Realtor with nothing to gain by sucking up to Penn or anyone else associated with the Campus Inn -- that these two things have absitively no relationship to one another. Penn has been in the business of buying up land surrounding its campus ever since it moved to West Philadelphia from 9th and Chestnut in 1873, so I tend to think that they've gotten to be pretty good at it by now. More than this, the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States actually holds professionals in a given field legally responsible for the consequences of their business decisions. Not that many of us think that Anne Papageorge, Ed Datz, Esaul Sanchez, John McGarry, Tony Sorrentino, or any of that crew have demonstrated professionalism in any connotative sense... but this is what they're being paid for. Remember, you first read it here on the popu-list Alan Krigman **The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there. (http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi0002)
Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups
Thanks, Wilma and Kimm, for this fascinating history. So FoFM was a spinoff from a community association, CPN. But it was not a spinoff by CPN *leaders*; instead, it was a spinoff by *dissidents* against a third entity, the Firehouse Market itself, which was itself a spinoff by CPN leaders FoWC and FoC were spinoffs of UCHS. However, UCHS is not a community association in the general sense of the word, like CPN or Spruce Hill Community Association or Powelton Civic Association. Its focus is a single subject matter -- history -- within a given area. Does anyone recall any public controversies with regards to these properties? What all these groups -- along with others like Friends of Walnut St. W. Library and Friends of Malcolm X Park -- have in common is they formed around difficult properties. These properties were not able to attract the kind of investment, either private or public, to maintain them in ways some in the community wanted. So the 'Friends' groups formed to lobby for their preservation, restoration or attractive reuse in ways that were running counter to the market -- the contemporary path of least resistance for those parcels. -- Tony West Kimm, You are correct about the Calvary and the Woodlands being spin-offs of the UCHS. I am right about the Friends of the Firehouse Market being a spin-off of Cedar Park Neighbors and how these groups formed to make sure their agendas were pushed thorough against the express wishes of the community, the by-laws of their own organizations, and those who actually sought to protect the interests of the community. CPN had a separate Board of Directors for The Firehouse Market. When this entity sought to protect the community's interest in the Market instead of one individual's personal desire to wholly own the entity and remove the community from the business, The Friends was born. The Market existed primarily because of funds garnered from the Commonwealth to provide farm fresh PA produce to a neighborhood of low-to-middle income residents. The building was sold to the community for the cost of $1 for the same purpose. Apparently, that was a specious scenario because almost immediately the Market had no farmers whatsoever and took on a distinct tone quite different from what the community believed they would get when they signed the petitions that led to gaining funding. In fact, when leadership of the Firehouse Market Board was changed abruptly because it was determined the leader was working contrary to community interests he was supposed to uphold, The Friends bullied their way into a meeting of the Shareholders', (The CPN Board and the Firehouse Market Board), *held off-site on someone's private property.* They proceeded to write scurrilous articles and letters in the UC Review excoriating the Firehouse Market Board and CPN leadership. This by far goes beyond social slights, as you put it. We all know how the story ended. The community lost the Market, the individual who wanted to have sole ownership gained said ownership and the Market ultimately failed. Dock Street Brewery is there now, which attracts a different clientele than those who live nearby or a bit further west. This scenario has been played out before and no doubt will again. Those who will be affected are the only thing that changes, not the M.O. of those who wish to guide the agenda. On 2/12/09 1:02 AM, Kimm Tynan kimm.ty...@verizon.net wrote: Tony, I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or otherwise. That's not true. The Friends of Calvary is/was a spinoff or subgroup of the UCHS. I believe, but could be wrong, that the Friends of the Woodlands is/was as well. I don't believe Calvary . . . ever had a Friends of group attached to them. See above. Kimm On 2/11/09 10:32 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: I'm sure you're right, Wilma. People can be unkind and unfair and cruel to each other in any volunteer association. Social slights like these are always saddening. One always hopes one's group can engage in it as little as possible, but human nature comes with limits. I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or otherwise. Most Friends of... groups are created to provide single-interest community backing to public facilities that could benefit from additional input and assistance. Thus we have, in UC alone, Friends of Malcolm X Park and Friends of the Walnut Street West Library. They are, of course,
[UC] Nero will not be stopped, Inq.
Nutter forms new committee to increase corporate welfare. I would imagine Penn and the Deputy Mayor’s will find that the crisis demands massive increases to corporate welfare. You may have heard whisperings of the mayors ongoing meetings about this. Notice that government officials answerable to the people will not be permitted, only consultants. Stay helpless and terrified until the riches trickle down! Read below: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/Nutter_forms_committee_to_overhaul_tax_system.html Winning by attrition. This slick fella, defendant M. Nutter, knew that he couldn’t win his appeal of the court order against him. While the mayor has nearly the authority of emperor anyway, the injunction against library closures also supports the law that the mayor cannot completely circumvent the legislative branch of government and public hearings. Penn’s press machine has put a great deal of spin around the announcement that the mayor would not close libraries this fiscal year. Well, he couldn’t because of the court order! Then, he dropped the appeal against the injunction, again to great fanfare, as if the poor darling was responding to the voice of the people. Now using our tax dollars, his lawyers bring this motion to dismiss the case. Losing the appeal would have supported the existing city law that the mayor is not an emperor. But claiming that the original case is no longer relevant, he gets to start from scratch next year. Not only are the plaintiffs to be distracted with delay, the defendant gets a fresh start with his city funded lawyers, and plaintiffs need to find the time and expense to fight the thing from scratch. The mayor is defeating the clear will of the people by winning legal maneuvering through attrition. Consider the spin he has been creating about hearing the will of the people about the libraries and bringing in Praxis?? It’s all crap, as the data shows! Read below: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20090212_Nutter_to_assert_prerogative_on_libraries.html Glenn 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] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)
Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name Firehouse Farmers Market. The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the CPN and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into giving the private partner free reign. Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give the private owner free reign. The community faction for the most part lived west of 49th Street [racial code] and was black, while the private owner faction lived east of 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was also that the private partner's supporters used the black community to get the building and create the market, but once created, did something completely different and wanted to push that community out. The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black female supported by the community faction and the other was a white male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active election campaign, unusual by community association election standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of the Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests? The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record never seen before or since. The private owner candidate won, but then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the other Board candidates on the ballot helped count the votes with the current Board President, who was a private owner supporter. While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the election, I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if she was going to come vote in the CPN election, and she made an offhand reference that she already knew because she had gotten the flier at her door from someone in the neighborhood. I thought it was odd, because I didn't know anything about a flier and because my neighbor got a visit and a flier and I didn't. I asked if she still had it, but by then she had thrown it out. Once the vote controversy emerged, I started asking around, and finally someone I was allied with spoke to a white neighbor of hers, who did not want to be involved, but did direct her to look in the bags of trash set out on the curb. The flier supported the private owner candidate, and contained coded racial language. All of the people who would admit to receiving one were white. No one who was black knew anything about it. This led to a big contentious meeting where everyone was in an uproar. The people behind the fliers were identified, and our complaint was that the flier was racist because of the language and because it was circulated in secret to only white community members. One of the defenders of the flier pointed out that a black person who published his own community newspaper was openly advocating for the community candidate, and that the defender had the same First Amendment right to distribute the flier. I responded to her that while she had a right to distribute a flier, why would she have it distrtibuted selectively? Why would my neighbor get one and not me? Why did it seem like only white people got it? I pointed out that the publisher made his views known to all who wished to read them, and that he didn't excercise his First Amendment rights in secret to a select audience. Tensions were so high that it was decided to throw out the election results and
RE: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)
Karen, thank you, Wilma, and Kimm for sharing this important history! It is remarkable how many of these same despicable tactics that I also experienced at the hands of FOCP/SHCA!It's a well rehearsed bag of tricksused against new victims continually. While fair-minded peopletry totreat the neighborhood bullieslike mature adults, theyknow no bounds in what Melani calls, "the good fight." I had a survey selectively distributed by FOCP to destroy my Clark Park Music and Arts Community and the Woodland Ave Reunion. Everything about the survey was bogus. (I was told that here; it is common to distribute these things only to the homeowners.) Additionaly,FOCP attempted to pit ourtwo groups against each other in 1999,using their role as calendar keepers for the Dept of Recreation. Keeping the secret that both groups had accidentally chosen the same date, they made a last minute crusade to demand that one event had to be cancelled because more of their secret rules. When they lied about the Woodland Ave Reunion breaking the FOCP's specialized rules for porto-potties, I had to inform the Reunion of the FOCP plotting, and we began working together. Attack against the Woodlan Reunion: They inflated the size of the Reunion 5 fold, or 5000 attendees, then demanded that the Reunion not receive any more permits because it broke the rules. (The FOCP substituted their own absurd restrictive rule for the city's actual rule for special events.) A few years ago, Mr. West was caught adding secret votes at the dog park vote. Two years earlier when I challenged him for President, and it was clear that my supporters had the majority; I was told that Mr. West won by three votes! I could go on and on about the similaritiesin the tactics used to bully people in this community! These lifers like Haligan,West, and the SHCA zoning committteeknow no bounds when their power to bully is theatened. Most decent people come to these civic associations and end up leaving with terrible feelings about the ruling elite. I have heard these types of stories over and over. I honestly believe our community needss to come together to finally rid our neighborhood of these power gangs! We can now go back decades and see the exact same tactics that we each, in turn, suffer under. Then, let me add, that they always attack our characters, as being a bunch of loud mouth sore losers, when we tell the truth about these outrages. Like I found solidarity with the Woodland Ave Reunion against the FOCP/SHCA, we need to do this each time. We must all stand together and stop each of these gangs instead of allowing them to always attack us a few at a time! Thanks again for sharing this history. I want to recognize that it takes courage to tell these stories, because we have all seen the lengths that these creepoids will go to attack those who tell the truth Best, Glenn -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLENSent: Feb 12, 2009 12:15 PM To: UnivCity Listserv Subject: RE: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor) Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), but I knowa lot of the CPN part of it. Idistinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, throughCouncilman Lucien Blackwell's office,to deed the abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name "Firehouse Farmers Market". The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a numberof people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of theCPN and Firehouse boards and they tried tomanipulate those boards into givingthe privatepartner free reign.Two factions emerged which broke down asthose who wanted to preserve the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give the private owner free reign. The "community" factionfor the most part lived"west of 49th Street" [racial code]andwas black, whilethe "private owner" faction lived "east of 49th Street" [more racial code]and was pretty much white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping
Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups
A very interesting and informative summary, Karen. It certainly raises a new question for every one it answers. One is the practicality of the WPFHPI idea in the first place. I wasn't close to the Cedar Park business world in 1988, but what one saw of Baltimore Ave. then was, left to its own devices, the market would have turned the old firehouse into something like a garage or a storefront church, that probably would have catered more to the west of 49th Street community. So that move to set up a farmers' market instead -- was that popular both east and west? Does anybody else recall? -- Tony West KAREN ALLEN wrote: Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name Firehouse Farmers Market. The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the CPN and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into giving the private partner free reign. Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give the private owner free reign. The community faction for the most part lived west of 49th Street [racial code] and was black, while the private owner faction lived east of 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was also that the private partner's supporters used the black community to get the building and create the market, but once created, did something completely different and wanted to push that community out. The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black female supported by the community faction and the other was a white male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active election campaign, unusual by community association election standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of the Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests? The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record never seen before or since. The private owner candidate won, but then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the other Board candidates on the ballot helped count the votes with the current Board President, who was a private owner supporter. While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the election, I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if she was going to come vote in the CPN election, and she made an offhand reference that she already knew because she had gotten the flier at her door from someone in the neighborhood. I thought it was odd, because I didn't know anything about a flier and because my neighbor got a visit and a flier and I didn't. I asked if she still had it, but by then she had thrown it out. Once the vote controversy emerged, I started asking around, and finally someone I was allied with spoke to a white neighbor of hers, who did not want to be involved, but did direct her to look in the bags of trash set out on the curb. The flier supported the private owner candidate, and contained coded racial language. All of the people who would admit to receiving one were white. No one who was black knew anything about it. This led to a big contentious meeting where everyone was in an uproar. The people behind the fliers were identified, and our complaint was that the flier was racist because of the language and because it was circulated in secret to only white community members. One of the defenders of the flier pointed out that a black person who
Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)
Tony, There is NO need to thank either me, Karen or Kimm for this ³fascinating history.² Karen is correct. I was one of the few Black people who was given the slate of candidates to vote for outside of the election center at Hickman Temple in 1989. I was a member of the CPN Board AND its Secretary during the conflict. I bore witness to the conflicts mentioned by Karen when she left the CPN Board. Our accounts, (and others), bear witness to the legacy of hard feelings I mentioned before that present UC Community Officers may have inherited. MY questions to one as erudite as you are: Have you EVER learned ANYTHING from this ³fascinating history², or just continue to blow it off as rhetoric of misfits? Have you EVER really read it and honestly considered it or have you just invalidated the experiences of those who were affected? Are you truly able to make the mental cognitive synapse connections between what we and others have written about this ³fascinating history² and note the similarities to the present Campus Inn situation? Although you may not agree with these positions, would you still deny the stated scenarios took place in face of repeated written accounts of those who took the side of the community and were punished? Could you acknowledge there might be hurt feelings by those who may have supported the various UC community groups¹ agendas before, but NOW find themselves without ³Friends² now that it affects them? Do you deny there are accounts of public record, i.e. UC Review and minutes of SHCA and CPN that buffet these arguments? Whenever I post on this listserv about controversial community issues, I try to present my opinions using the facts as I know them. When someone makes an assertion I do not know, or proves me wrong with the facts, I have publicly said I stand corrected or apologized if I was brusque or in error. I request publicly you answer my questions or just the first one would be enough. On 2/12/09 12:15 PM, KAREN ALLEN kallena...@msn.com wrote: Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name Firehouse Farmers Market. The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the CPN and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into giving the private partner free reign. Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give the private owner free reign. The community faction for the most part lived west of 49th Street [racial code] and was black, while the private owner faction lived east of 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was also that the private partner's supporters used the black community to get the building and create the market, but once created, did something completely different and wanted to push that community out. The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black female supported by the community faction and the other was a white male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active election campaign, unusual by community association election standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of the Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests? The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record never seen before or since. The private owner candidate won, but then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the other Board candidates on the
Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups
Wilma, I always answer every question that is addressed me. It's a courtesy fundamental to honest discussion. Like your own discussion habits, which are admirable and which I too try to follow, hopefully as well as you someday. 1) I have learned many things and indeed just posted a request for more information. Since I never post a request for more rhetoric, or for more misfits, assume I respect your history. 2) I really read it and honestly considered it. Your experiences sound valid. Other people's experiences may sound equally valid, yet be different. That's why I'd like to hear more voices, without prejudging anybody's perspectives. 3) Between the CPN/Firehouse contretemps of 1988 and the SHCA/Campus Inn contretemps of 2008, there are some obvious parallels, but maybe a few more obvious differences. Both are true. 4) I have no idea what positions I agree or disagree with. I don't deny any scenarios at this time, now you've kindly given us a lucid account of yours. Your material can be fact-checked by the entire community, thanks. But remember: name-calling makes fact-checking harder, not easier, for the community. 5) Yes, hurt feelings! I see this constantly in the group I work with and it always pains me, so I know they have stung many other decent, goodhearted neighbors. It has nothing to do with your ideology or your faction; it mostly has to do with small-group dynamics. 6) Not at all. Readers just need referrals to them, thanks. -- Tony West MY questions to one as erudite as you are: • Have you EVER learned ANYTHING from this “fascinating history”, or just continue to blow it off as rhetoric of misfits? • Have you EVER really read it and honestly considered it or have you just invalidated the experiences of those who were affected? • Are you truly able to make the mental cognitive synapse connections between what we and others have written about this “fascinating history” and note the similarities to the present Campus Inn situation? • Although you may not agree with these positions, would you still deny the stated scenarios took place in face of repeated written accounts of those who took the side of the community and were punished? • Could you acknowledge there might be hurt feelings by those who may have supported the various UC community groups’ agendas before, but NOW find themselves without “Friends” now that it affects them? • Do you deny there are accounts of public record, i.e. UC Review and minutes of SHCA and CPN that buffet these arguments? Whenever I post on this listserv about controversial community issues, I try to present my opinions using the facts as I know them. When someone makes an assertion I do not know, or proves me wrong with the facts, I have publicly said I stand corrected or apologized if I was brusque or in error. I request publicly you answer my questions or just the first one would be enough. 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] History of neighborhood groups
Thank you Tony. As for name-calling, I advise you of the existence of written records of 501c3 UC Community organizations and implore you to read them yourself. I should rather you state what is is you have learned, (not just read or heard), from arguments on this listserv with regard to UC community groups, and if you are actually able to correlate with regard to the current Campus Inn situation. A simple recall and one-to-one correspondence is enough. On 2/12/09 7:52 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, I always answer every question that is addressed me. It's a courtesy fundamental to honest discussion. Like your own discussion habits, which are admirable and which I too try to follow, hopefully as well as you someday. 1) I have learned many things and indeed just posted a request for more information. Since I never post a request for more rhetoric, or for more misfits, assume I respect your history. 2) I really read it and honestly considered it. Your experiences sound valid. Other people's experiences may sound equally valid, yet be different. That's why I'd like to hear more voices, without prejudging anybody's perspectives. 3) Between the CPN/Firehouse contretemps of 1988 and the SHCA/Campus Inn contretemps of 2008, there are some obvious parallels, but maybe a few more obvious differences. Both are true. 4) I have no idea what positions I agree or disagree with. I don't deny any scenarios at this time, now you've kindly given us a lucid account of yours. Your material can be fact-checked by the entire community, thanks. But remember: name-calling makes fact-checking harder, not easier, for the community. 5) Yes, hurt feelings! I see this constantly in the group I work with and it always pains me, so I know they have stung many other decent, goodhearted neighbors. It has nothing to do with your ideology or your faction; it mostly has to do with small-group dynamics. 6) Not at all. Readers just need referrals to them, thanks. -- Tony West MY questions to one as erudite as you are: Have you EVER learned ANYTHING from this ³fascinating history², or just continue to blow it off as rhetoric of misfits? Have you EVER really read it and honestly considered it or have you just invalidated the experiences of those who were affected? Are you truly able to make the mental cognitive synapse connections between what we and others have written about this ³fascinating history² and note the similarities to the present Campus Inn situation? Although you may not agree with these positions, would you still deny the stated scenarios took place in face of repeated written accounts of those who took the side of the community and were punished? Could you acknowledge there might be hurt feelings by those who may have supported the various UC community groups¹ agendas before, but NOW find themselves without ³Friends² now that it affects them? Do you deny there are accounts of public record, i.e. UC Review and minutes of SHCA and CPN that buffet these arguments? Whenever I post on this listserv about controversial community issues, I try to present my opinions using the facts as I know them. When someone makes an assertion I do not know, or proves me wrong with the facts, I have publicly said I stand corrected or apologized if I was brusque or in error. I request publicly you answer my questions or just the first one would be enough. 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] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue
The following may be of relevance to this discussion: The property's tax info and other BRT data, per Hallwatch.org, shows the following... Market value as of 3/1/01: $318,700 Assessed value: $0.00 as of 5/1/89 Taxable building: $0.00 Taxable land: $0.00 Property Tax: $0.00 Exempt land: $37,907.00 Exempt building: $64,077.00 Last sale: 1/11/08, recorded 1/16/08, for $3.5 million. Current owner: Clarkmore LP Owner Address: Thylan Associates, Inc. 805 3rd Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 And a footnote: Hallwatch is closing as of 26 February. If you have any properties you want to check out via their services, for no charge, now's the time to do it... On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:23 PM, KAREN ALLEN wrote: RE: When I read that the demolition permit had a June, 2008 date crossed out and handwritten in was a January, 2009 date[...]. It seems pretty clear to me that the current owners of 4224 Baltimore had requested a permit to demolish last year with the expectation that the hotel project was close to a done deal, that the precedent for large non-residential projects had been established and that their project would thus be likely to win approval. Of course, the tough fight against the hotel upset their timetable and they had to get a new permit, one starting in January this year. I think one would have to be awfully naive not to suspect that the fix is probably in on the hotel project and that these guys have gotten the word. They are now set to proceed on whatever they have planned for two nineteenth-century structures and one of the last plots of open land in our community. Mary, Thanks for this report. This is the very type of thing I warned against my editorial letter in the Review back in October, 2007: bad precedent. Once one 10 story building can be built, there is no credible justification to stop another, and another, and yet another. And I agree with you that it seems that the developer was waiting for the Campus Inn to be resolved so that whatever it is that he has planned could ride in on those coattails, and any resistance could be swatted away by pointing to that precedent. As far as the suspicion regarding a fix being in, consider this from Inga Saffron of the Inquirer: http://www.hotel-online.com/News/2009_Feb_06/k.PPR.1233945542.html On Nov. 14, the commission -- now filled with Nutter's appointees -- made an attempt to reverse course, voting 7-3 to reject the Campus Inn tower. Almost immediately, commission chairman Sam Sherman was summoned to the office of Deputy Mayor Andrew Altman. The following month, a slightly revised version of the project was resoundingly approved, 8-2. Altman says he never asked Sherman to change the decision. I just wanted to understand why the commission voted the way it did, he explains. Sherman concurs, and says Altman was concerned because the Planning Commission had already given Campus Inn its blessing. Still, according to the Preservation Alliance's John Gallery, such an about-face is highly unusual. In my six years of observing the commission, I've never seen a reversal like this, he says. In our view, there were no material changes to the design to justify a second hearing. Regarding the defense that there are other 10 story buildings in UC: yes there are. The tall buildings on Penn's campus are in an area zoned for institutional uses. Garden Court, the Fairfax, and Hamilton Court at 39th and Chestnut were all built prior to the existing zoning regulations. Each building was archetecturally designed to be tall, and was intended to sit on a large lot with an area proportional to its height. None of these buildings were built as modern, out-of-character slabs, crammed as an afterthought into the side yards of much-older existing buildings. Garden Court has a garage; the Fairfax and Hamilton Court were built before the proliferation of cars. As far as the claim that there is nothing else Penn could do with this building, it stretches credulity to compare Penn with an individual property owner or investor who may have limited resources and who must make a profit to stay afloat. Even accepting the claim that Penn is in the education business, it can still raise money from its vast pool of donors. They recently raised money in the billions of dollars for its endowment fund, so I find it hard to believe that they could not have designated the building for an academic use and raised whatever money was needed from that pool of donors. In fact, Penn plans to build a three story structure around the corner on the vacant lot next to Allegra Pizza at 40th and Spruce. Why can't the Campus Inn be built on the vacant lot and 40th and Pine be refurbished for the other facility? As far as not knowing the site was historically designated: Penn has been in the business of buying up land surrounding its campus ever since it
[UC] Needed Furnished Room in House
A freind with whom I worked is looking for a furnished room to rent in Ucity. I told her that I would ask around. She is a mature working woman, and I am sure would be a good tenant. Thanks in Advance. You can contact me off line if you have anything. Joe Clarke -- Life is too important to be taken seriously. Oscar Wilde 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 on the 1st Praxis budget meeting
The demon gales were blowing, as if the pit of hell had opened up to breathe. An odoriferous sensation, like barnyard hooey, seemed to arise from all sides where Praxis staff were stationed. The usual Praxis stuff was present, exactly as predicted and not worth anything. Participant's goal was to score 100 bonus points. (Tony West, who was not in attendance, will correct me.) Here are the only interesting highlights which might surprise West Philadelphians: Sung by Praxis, The Deputy mayors, Sokoloff, and Satullo- Look... and see my pretty po..ny… He’s... my lovely little po…ny… You can look and love him too When you’re feeling very blue; Look... and see my pretty po…ny… Look... and see my little pup…py dog He’s... my lovely little pup…py dog You can ruff-ruff with him too While he pees upon your shoe; Look... and see my little pup...py dog That's civic engagement folks, Penn style! Citizen reporter, Glenn 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] History of neighborhood groups
Tony, It's not a very interesting and informative summary. It's a painful, gut-wrenching story. Please don't give Karen's story such short shrift. I am considering honoring what Karen just did by telling the story of the Friends of Calvary, which is remarkably similar. But it is hard and painful. What Karen just did is amazing. But you haven't heard a word that she said, and she obviously spent an enormous amount of time and emotional energy saying it. You just moved on to the practicality of the WPFHPI. Which is why this neighborhood can't get past this stuff - because the folks who need to listen refuse to. And frankly, if that is your reaction, then, aside from solidarity with Karen and Wilma, I see little reason to invest the time and energy to educate you further. Kimm On 2/12/09 6:55 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: A very interesting and informative summary, Karen. It certainly raises a new question for every one it answers. One is the practicality of the WPFHPI idea in the first place. I wasn't close to the Cedar Park business world in 1988, but what one saw of Baltimore Ave. then was, left to its own devices, the market would have turned the old firehouse into something like a garage or a storefront church, that probably would have catered more to the west of 49th Street community. So that move to set up a farmers' market instead -- was that popular both east and west? Does anybody else recall? -- Tony West KAREN ALLEN wrote: Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name Firehouse Farmers Market. The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the CPN and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into giving the private partner free reign. Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give the private owner free reign. The community faction for the most part lived west of 49th Street [racial code] and was black, while the private owner faction lived east of 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was also that the private partner's supporters used the black community to get the building and create the market, but once created, did something completely different and wanted to push that community out. The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black female supported by the community faction and the other was a white male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active election campaign, unusual by community association election standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of the Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests? The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record never seen before or since. The private owner candidate won, but then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the other Board candidates on the ballot helped count the votes with the current Board President, who was a private owner supporter. While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the election, I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if she was going to come vote in the CPN election, and she made an offhand reference that she already knew because she had gotten the flier at her door from someone in the neighborhood. I thought it was odd, because I didn't know anything about a flier and because my
Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project
Kimm Tynan wrote: Melani, If a small, vocal group of our UC neighbors continues to reject the restrictions which a local HD would impose, then, because of the increasing popularity of our neighborhood, we are probably beginning an era of tear-downs and requests for changes in height. This is a false dichotomy and red herring. There¹s absolutely no reason that a historic district is the only way to maintain height restrictions. It¹s not an either or choice. I agree, kimm. and this was spelled out here pretty early on, back in october 2007, about the proposed hotel at 40th and pine. how this a ZONING question, not a historic preservation question: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg20121.html it's odd that anyone would still be stuck on seeing this as an issue about historic preservation, and then use that false premise to justify support for a 10-story slab on that property. hotel opponents have been trying to protect a NEIGHBORHOOD, through responsible zoning, and have argued that neighbors would welcome 'responsible development' of the site: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg21283.html .. 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] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue
Thanks, Dave. The Philadelphia: Build page of LI's web site indicates that the previous owner of the property was the non-profit Women Against Abuse, which provides services, including housing, for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. Apparently, the tax-exempt status of the property was never adjusted when it was purchased by the for-profit real estate developer, Lenard Thylen, James Campenella's associate. So far, this owner seems to have avoided for over a year the payment of taxes on a property worth $3,500,000. Given the city's serious budget crisis, I find this somewhat annoying. Indeed, I would have thought, given Campenella's history, that he and his partners would be more careful about paying their taxes. By the way, Campenella's partners on previous real estate ventures have interesting histories themselves. One, Sean McDougall, specializes in building community-based correctional facilities (jails) while another, Eric Seidman, is notorious for threatening historic structures through his development efforts on behalf of Walgreen's drugstores ( two Art Deco buildings on Chestnut Street and the 18th-century tavern, The Black Horse Inn, on Bethlehem Pike). While I think it's unlikely that anyone would ever propose putting a jail or drug rehab center across the street from Clark Park, I do think it's reasonable to have some concerns about what may be planned for Baltimore Avenue. Mary **Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=floristncid=emlcntusyelp0002)