[UC] The councilwoman's opposition is official
A letter in the must-read issue of the University City Review today, from Councilwoman Blackwell to the ZBA, makes official her decision not to support the Campus Inn project. Followers of local issues will note that the reason she cites is the same as the objections to other ill-conceived projects in this community that turned out to be highly divisive and contentious. Namely, the total unwillingness of the people proposing the projects to engage in meaningful dialogs with the affected parties and to try to reach a real compromise. * Historic designation -- the primary objection was the cost and red tape associated with the punctilious requirements of the Historical Commission for precision in conforming to original materials and elements, and in covering parts of buildings technically visible from the public right of way but not unless a person stood at the right spot and looked in the right direction. A contingent of the opponents suggested that the Neighborhood Conservation Ordinance be used to protect the visual aesthetics of the neighborhood -- achieving most of what the proponents wanted but much less onerously. The proponents refused to discuss this compromise. * The BID/NID -- the primary objections were a) the artifice of calling the proposal a business district and picking on rental property owners to foot the bill for services that would be provided to everyone and b) the insistence of UCD and its supporters to continue spending lots of money on marketing and expensive programs (the Philadelphia Orchestra charged $80,000 to perform in Clark Park... or did you think they were free?) rather than go back to the fundamentals of clean and safe to which nobody objected other than in terms of possible excessive costs. UCD refused to compromise on either of these factors. * Now, the Campus Inn -- the design of the proposed slab of a building never changed in any material way and the objections to the Byzantine parking solution, the congestion, and the impact of such an overt commercial usage in a residential neighborhood that had maintained its ante-bellum and Victorian ambience by private efforts were never seriously considered as points needing resolution. Maybe there was no room for compromise on this one, given the premise that the building had to be at 40th Pine for reasons that have to do with covering up the RE Dept at Penn exercising astonishingly bad judgement in buying the property at the outset, refusing to seek appropriate uses for it or to maintain it once purchased, and get-rich-quick-with-no-money-down favoritism to a former colleague and a pet business partner that would shame even Rod Blagojevich. Remember, you first read it here on the popu-list Alan Krigman **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0003)
[UC] The Praxis 100 point game
Neighbors, I want to give you details of the Penn Praxis budget game designed as a pretense for civic engagement. Tonight and tomorrow, Praxis will hold two more of these games to cover-up the Mayor’s big business budget agenda and increase of corporate welfare. No crisis should ever be wasted in crisis capitalism. Phase 1: Either Chris Satullo or Tom Ferrick asks the panel of Deputy Mayor’s carefully rehearsed questions.Expert graphs and pie charts have been placed on all the children’s seats. These are frightening graphs without proper information, and the experts refer to them during the pretend questions to insure confusion and fear among the class. Phase 2 breaks the assembled kids into small groups. Pupils are assigned groups when they arrive. A long list of predetermined and onerous service cuts and regressive tax proposals are also provided on the seats with various point values associated with each. Each small group is focused on the same game. Children are told to focus on scoring a total of 100 points. Four categories are set-up to assign the points for the predetermined and outrageous list of cuts, “low hanging fruit” and “No way, no how” are the first two. The game is designed so that children never get to level 3 and 4 of the game. “Low hanging fruit” gets the argument going. For example, some kids say “close the libraries because the police must not be cut.” For “no way, no how” other kids shout out that “no way can the fire stations be cut.” Moderators pretend that the game is an exercise in democracy, as they ask for a vote each time and need 75% to award the points. Moderators keep children focused on the points of the game. By setting up an impossible goal, Praxis moderators achieve assistance from the game design in two main ways. From the beginning, all children have a visceral awareness that they must focus on various well known sound bites. Moderators keep them moving to get to the impossible 100 points, which is the primary goal. They can end any attempt to discuss important policies by indicating that the group must keep “working” toward the point total. If children stick to sound bites, they have a greater chance of getting quick points. If a child suggests that these are not the appropriate policy questions or priorities, he is seen as a troubled child holding the group’s point total down. For example, if someone wants to discuss ending the tax abatement, which is not included, he is keeping the other children from getting points. In any group where children indicate a desire to actually deal with real budget priorities and policies, the group will finish with an abysmal total. For example, WHYY reported that group 7 only received 26 points at the first game. The conclusion is that Philadelphia children are so disruptive and scatter brained that they would make the city bankrupt. I observed the larger group which received 60 points under the control of Sokoloff and Satullo. Some children would divisively and emotionally shout out that “police must not be cut” and others that “the need for homeless services would increase.” At the end, some children appear angry and most appear exhausted. There is no conclusion of the class as exhausted children simply start leaving. Some “journalists” are observed joking around with city officials. The Penn conclusion is that city budget decisions must be made secretively by Penn experts. No group of Philadelphia children are able to score 100 points and keep the city from collapsing. But Praxis is highly successful because children need an opportunity to shout at each other and blow off steam. Children are exhausted by the 100 point game and are to stop bellowing at the Penn experts who need to make the important city decisions. Penn believes that the children are now in awe of the difficulty faced by Penn budget experts, and they expect the angry exhausted kids to go home helpless and frightened and refocused on their play stations. That is an overview of what will occur tonight in Germantown and tomorrow in South Philly. If consumer children plan to attend, practice your sound bites so that you can break the 60 point record! Sincerely, Glenn, a citizen PS: If you check the literature on civic engagement and deliberative democracy, you will see that this Praxis game design is an almost perfect design against citizenshp and participatory democracy. Well done Praxis! 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] Rep Roebuck is now also on record as opposing the Campus Inn
The first of the open letters from two West Philadelphia Political Leaders to ZBA chair Susan Jaffe opposing the Campus Inn zoning variance was written by Representative Jim Roebuck (somehow, his name was omitted from the print edition). The second letter in opposition was, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, from Councilwoman Blackwell. Also, I did not mean to imply, as one follow-up posting noted, that the comments in my posting about unwillingness to compromise by proponents of proposals that have been relegated to the scrap heap in this neighborhood were those of the Councilwoman. They were my own takes on ideas that had underlying merit but serious flaws in the means being advocated for implementation. Flaws that might have been overcome had the initiators been receptive to inputs from the people who would have been affected by them, and been genuinely interested in alternatives that would have been more broadly acceptable. I don't mean to imply that anyone's personal business is subject to democratic approval. In fact, my position is quite to the contrary. People have individual rights. But they should realize that when these rights have serious impact on others, these rights should be exercised in a responsible way that does not cause damage to those others. The three examples I used -- the Historic District nomination, the NID, and the Campus Inn -- are all in this category. They damage others so the others have a right to become involved. In this instance, maybe an extended stay to accommodate visitors to hospital patients is a great idea. And, maybe it has to have some minimum number of rooms to be economically viable (after all, neither Campus Apts, Tom Lussenhop, or Hersha Hospitality is or should be required to act as a great philanthropic trust). But, if this is the case, then they should be looking for a suitable place to build it, and not try to make it a square peg in a round hole situation -- just because they can get a land lease at 40th Pine on the cheap from those wonderful folks in the Penn real Estate Dept. Remember, you first read it here on the popu-list Alan Krigman **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0003)
[UC] Moulin Rouge -- DeSales Night THIS COMING Saturday!
The biggest social event of the winter calender (because it is such a great value and lots of fun) is surely DeSales Night at the church hall of St. Francis de Sales Church at 47th and Springfield. This coming Saturday night, Feb. 21 from 8pm-midnight. This year's theme is Moulin Rouge and the hall will be decorated to the hilt with elements of the Folies Bergeres and the French Riveria and who knows what other racy things ... The event includes all of this! -- a FULL BUFFET French dinner, catered by ABBRACCIO -- an OPEN BAR -- LIVE BIG BAND with Second Vision -- and DANCING The PRICE is $40 per person, the best value in town for a grand night out! Abbraccio Restaurant is now closed, while we get ready to move up the street to 4800 Baltimore Avenue with The Gold Standard Cafe. But you can still enjoy Abbraccio food at DeSales night this Saturday! If you want to come, reply to this message with name and number of guests, or write to Mark Supple at msup...@comcast.net. If you have never gone to DeSales Night, you really owe it to yourself to see just how silly your neighbors can be when they let their hair down! So put on your beret, practice your high school French a bit, and come on over! All the best from Roger Harman
[UC] LOST DOG: teacup Yorkie (49thChestnut)
from today's craigslist: Lost Small 3lb Teacup Yorkie (University City) Reply to: comm-1039679...@craigslist.org [?] Date: 2009-02-18, 10:06AM EST We lost our little 3lb Yorkie Friday February 6th. He is mostly black with some brown. Top of his head is white. He was wearing a tan turtle neck. Last seen on Chestnut between 49th and 50th. He goes by the name Little Bit. Please call with any information. He comes from a loving family with four children. We are heart broken! 215 760-2143 or 215 748-0504 photo: http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/laf/1039679520.html
Re: [UC] Rep Roebuck is now also on record as opposing the Campus Inn
Wow. This is fabulous! On 2/18/09 11:10 AM, krf...@aol.com krf...@aol.com wrote: The first of the open letters from two West Philadelphia Political Leaders to ZBA chair Susan Jaffe opposing the Campus Inn zoning variance was written by Representative Jim Roebuck (somehow, his name was omitted from the print edition). The second letter in opposition was, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, from Councilwoman Blackwell. Also, I did not mean to imply, as one follow-up posting noted, that the comments in my posting about unwillingness to compromise by proponents of proposals that have been relegated to the scrap heap in this neighborhood were those of the Councilwoman. They were my own takes on ideas that had underlying merit but serious flaws in the means being advocated for implementation. Flaws that might have been overcome had the initiators been receptive to inputs from the people who would have been affected by them, and been genuinely interested in alternatives that would have been more broadly acceptable. I don't mean to imply that anyone's personal business is subject to democratic approval. In fact, my position is quite to the contrary. People have individual rights. But they should realize that when these rights have serious impact on others, these rights should be exercised in a responsible way that does not cause damage to those others. The three examples I used -- the Historic District nomination, the NID, and the Campus Inn -- are all in this category. They damage others so the others have a right to become involved. In this instance, maybe an extended stay to accommodate visitors to hospital patients is a great idea. And, maybe it has to have some minimum number of rooms to be economically viable (after all, neither Campus Apts, Tom Lussenhop, or Hersha Hospitality is or should be required to act as a great philanthropic trust). But, if this is the case, then they should be looking for a suitable place to build it, and not try to make it a square peg in a round hole situation -- just because they can get a land lease at 40th Pine on the cheap from those wonderful folks in the Penn real Estate Dept. Remember, you first read it here on the popu-list Alan Krigman Need a job? Find an employment agency near you http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp 0003 .
