Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Richard Conrad]

You are reading in.  You don't play fair.  You just can't admit it.  

Glenn does not say as Darco implied that "people were excluded from the park" 
(and actually people have been - you and everyone else can probably realize 
that people are routinely told to leave the park, for sleeping overnight and 
other reasons).  Maybe Glenn refers to private Clark Park banquets with high 
priced entry fees.  Maybe he refers to private gatherings hosted by Penn where 
the public is excluded.  'Penn Control' is something about which while Glenn 
has held back from giving it ultimate vilification, he warns people to be 
concerned.  'Secrecy' is the most difficult to prove (duh, it's a secret), but 
in any case you ridicule by hyperbole, misrepresent his remarks, and say things 
that are not true.  

You now seem to be practically accusing me of being a Trump conspiracy talk 
supporter.  You clearly haven't read much of what I have written (or you are 
resorting to damaging written public falsification again).  

I am actually a true "Balder" who believes Donald Trump can't be Pres. because 
he can't prove his hair was born in the U.S.A.  Here is something of mine I 
posted to FB:  

"Saying Trump appeals to masochistic dupes with no sense of mathematics, to 
sadistic voyeurs who wish they had balls, or to racist instincts in those of 
lesser intelligence, is all the same... they're just the facts Jack!"

Bill Mahr did better:  Bill Maher says, "Hey Trump, what's the "biggest scam 
ever" NOW? I'd say its a guy with 3 bankruptcies telling America how to get its 
financial house in order."

"Crackpot."  That is what you say Tony, instead of answering others criticisms! 
 Surely you are big enough to deal with others concerns and not to only resort 
to name calling.  Be fair.

Rick

On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Anthony West wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> I quote from Glenn's text, which Darco and I have read quite clearly:
> 
> "The master plan for 'revitalization' of Clark Park was always a master plan 
> for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!"
> 
> Glenn has, for years, been publishing on this list false allegations that 
> various users were planned to be excluded from the park by this nefarious 
> conspiracy. Since none of them ever were, in fact, excluded from the physical 
> park, and there were, in fact, no plans that any users should be excluded 
> from the park -- he is now attempting to befuddle you -- as well as 
> unsuspecting newcomers -- by pretending some users were excluded from 
> planning for the park. And he's trying to muddle the two together with murky 
> conspiracy-theory language, where what we're talking about shifts every time 
> a claim of fact is contested.
> 
> Of course, nothing of the sort ever happened. (There wasn't any "secrecy" or 
> any "Penn control" either.) I looked into these allegations very carefully in 
> 2002-03. 
> 
> Typical Trump talk, in my opinion. But if this is what floats your boat, I 
> sure can't stop you. Conspiracy-theory crackpots never run out of gas, do 
> they?
> 
> --Tony West
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/28/2011 11:28 PM, Richard Conrad wrote:
>> 
>> O.K. let's get real!  Darco represents Glenn as saying something he did not. 
>>  Darco asks: 
>>  
>> "do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park?"
>> 
>> Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the 
>> park.
> 

Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Anthony West]

Richard,

I quote from Glenn's text, which Darco and I have read quite clearly:

"The master plan for 'revitalization' of Clark Park was always a master 
plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!"


Glenn has, for years, been publishing on this list false allegations 
that various users were *planned to be excluded from the park *by this 
nefarious conspiracy. Since none of them ever were, in fact, excluded 
from the physical park, and there were, in fact, no plans that any users 
should be excluded from the park -- he is now attempting to befuddle you 
-- as well as unsuspecting newcomers -- by pretending some users were 
excluded from *planning for the park. *And he's trying to muddle the two 
together with murky conspiracy-theory language, where what we're talking 
about shifts every time a claim of fact is contested.


Of course, nothing of the sort ever happened. (There wasn't any 
"secrecy" or any "Penn control" either.) I looked into these allegations 
very carefully in 2002-03.


Typical Trump talk, in my opinion. But if this is what floats your boat, 
I sure can't stop you. Conspiracy-theory crackpots never run out of gas, 
do they?


--Tony West



On 4/28/2011 11:28 PM, Richard Conrad wrote:
O.K. let's get real!  Darco represents Glenn as saying soething he did 
not.  Darco asks:

"do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park?"

Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded 
from the park.

Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Richard Conrad]

O.K. let's get real!  Darco represents Glenn as saying soething he did not.  
Darco asks: 
 
"do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park?"

Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the 
park.

Whether he said something else with which you disagree, Tony... he most 
certainly did not say what Darco said he did!  You ignored that fact in your 
email!  Do you deny that 'mistake' to be the case?!  

As far as people being excluded from planning sessions I do believe Glenn, who 
cited much more than you credited him with.  De Facto exclusion sounds fairly 
patently exhibited.  Your statements regarding Glenn are perhaps even closer to 
libel than Darco's who seems to have misread rather than misrepresented Glenn.  
Whatever your feelings about him are, you both owe him an apology! 

Bill:  There are houses all over the Wissahickon Valley built on (and 
completely surrounded by) formerly public (park) property.  What you are not 
aware of may yet be extant; believe it.  The issue of City sales of Fairmount 
Park property is very current news whether you know it or not.  What you said 
about Glenn was abstruse; and it sounded quite unnecessarily nasty. 

Rick


On Apr 28, 2011, at 9:41 PM, Anthony West wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> I would have to say Darco's reading is quite skilled. Glenn's "overwhelming 
> evidence" is either imaginary, or self-fabricated. The 10-year-old article he 
> is fond of citing offers one (1) piece of hard evidence that people were 
> being "excluded" from Clark Park planning: an unsupported, quoted assertion 
> by -- none other than himself! That's all there's ever been; he has no other 
> evidence to offer.
> 
> I note that, since you too know of no instances where anyone has actually 
> been excluded from Clark Park or its planning, you have just shifted the 
> discussion to Fairmount Park. Here, I have to question your statement that 
> "control by private parties" is increasing in Fairmount Park. All of the 
> private facilities there I can think of -- Boathouse Row, etc. -- have been 
> in place for a long time. So in fact I might point out that what you are 
> worried might happen here, hasn't even been happening there.
> 
> So this thread is debating an alleged problem which hasn't happened here; 
> which hasn't happened there; and which hasn't happened anywhere. It is on a 
> level with the problem with Barack Obama's birth certificate.
> 
> ---Tony West
> 
> 
>> Darco,  
>> 
>> I must agree with Glenn that you have most clearly misinterpreted what Glenn 
>> wrote and you should read it again more closely.  
>> 
>> Although, in fact I might point out, as control by private parties 
>> increases, particularly when park spaces are leased or sold to private 
>> parties, it can become a matter of others being excluded.  
>> 
>> There are many places in Fairmount Park right now which are private 
>> property, and where you are quite forbidden to trespass.   
>> 
>> Rick Conrad   
> 

[UC] LOST orange & white cat - 46th & Walnut

[Linda Lee]

from craigslist:LOST ORANGE AND WHITE CAT (46 and walnut)Date: 2011-04-28, 10:39PM EDTReply to: sar...@stu.aii.edu [Errors when replying to ads?]Simon has been missing for less than 24 hours, but I already miss him dearly. Someone in my household let this INDOOR gentle giant outside while I was sleeping, knowing he never goes outside. So needless to say, I'm incredibly upset. Please contact me if you see a big orange cat that responds to the name, "Simon." 570-417-8485 Sarah 

[UC] Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are at Curio Theatre!

[Gay Carducci]

Sold out house again tonight! Get your tickets early!! Read what the reviewers 
have to say!
 
http://stagepartners.org/2011/04/rosencrantz-guildenstern-come-to-the-curio-theatre-company%e2%80%99s-stage-in-a-%e2%80%9cfull-speed-ahead%e2%80%9d-production/
 
http://http%253A%252F%252Farticles.philly.com%252F2011-04-26%252Fnews%252F29474750_1_hamlet-rosencrantz-and-guildenstern-keller/
 
http://www.citypaper.net/arts/2011-04-28-curio-theatre-co-rosencrantz-and-guildenstern-are-dead.html





























CURIO THEATRE COMPANY 
presents
 Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
by Tom Stoppard
Directed by Liz Carlson
 

Photo by Kyle Cassidy 

 
Join us! See CJ Keller and Eric Scotolati play Guildenstern and Rosencrantz (or 
rather Rosencrantz and Guildenstern respectively). Also with Brian McCann as 
The Player, and Jen Summerfield, Rachel Gluck, Ryan Walter, Harry Slack, Josh 
Hitchens, and Steve Carpenter in various other roles. 
 
Borrowing from Beckett and stealing from Shakespeare, Stoppard puts together a 
play about two minor characters from Hamlet. The neurotic Guildenstern and the 
hapless Rosencrantz do their best to understand their place in the world, and 
figure out what they want and how to get it. All the while they debate complex 
philosophical concepts of which they seem to have no understanding. But don’t 
worry, it’s not all angst and intellectualism, there is plenty of slapstick 
comedy to keep this show moving and humorous.
 
This show is a must see! 
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard 
runs from April 14 to May 14 every Thursday, Friday and Saturday 
evenings at 8pm. 3pm matinée performances are Saturday May 7th and May 14. 
Limited seating, reserve online today! Ticket prices are $10.00-$15.00.
 








Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard 



Apr 14/11 to May 14/11 Two of Shakespeare’s insignificant characters get a play 
of their own in Tom Stoppard’s comedic masterpiece.The play tells the story of 
Hamlet from the point of view of his school-friends-turned-spies as they 
struggle against their fate and the play’s inevitable conclusion.













Curio Donation 


Help Curio continue to bring high quality theatre and arts education to West 
Philadelphia! Curio Theatre Company is a 501(c)3 non-profit company, all 
donations are 100% tax deductible.





 
 


 



Gay Carducci-Kuhn
General Manager
Curio Theatre Company
815 S. 48th St.
Philadelphia,Pa. 19143
office 

Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[William H. Magill]

On Apr 28, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Glenn wrote:

> "Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one 
> example of someone being excluded from the park."
>  
> No, I will not answer your silly question.   There is overwhelming evidence 
> that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committees over the past 
> 10 years.
> 
> Your question suggests a possible reading comprehension problem.  As in the 
> past, I'd be happy to answer any serious questions.  I respect you and 
> deserve a serious response from you.  All the best.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Glenn
This answer says everything there is to say about Glenn.




William H. Magill
Block Captain
4400 Chestnut Street

mag...@mcgillsociety.org
whmag...@gmail.com
 4428 Chestnut Street
 Philadelphia, PA 19104-2914
 (267-402-0529)










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

Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Anthony West]

Richard,

I would have to say Darco's reading is quite skilled. Glenn's 
"overwhelming evidence" is either imaginary, or self-fabricated. The 
10-year-old article he is fond of citing offers one (1) piece of hard 
evidence that people were being "excluded" from Clark Park planning: an 
unsupported, quoted assertion by -- none other than himself! That's all 
there's ever been; he has no other evidence to offer.


I note that, since you too know of no instances where anyone has 
actually been excluded from Clark Park or its planning, you have just 
shifted the discussion to Fairmount Park. Here, I have to question your 
statement that "control by private parties" is increasing in Fairmount 
Park. All of the private facilities there I can think of -- Boathouse 
Row, etc. -- have been in place for a long time. So in fact I might 
point out that what you are worried might happen here, hasn't even been 
happening there.


So this thread is debating an alleged problem which hasn't happened 
here; which hasn't happened there; and which hasn't happened anywhere. 
It is on a level with the problem with Barack Obama's birth certificate.


---Tony West



Darco,

I must agree with Glenn that you have most clearly misinterpreted what 
Glenn wrote and you should read it again more closely.


Although, in fact I might point out, as control by private parties 
increases, particularly when park spaces are leased or sold to private 
parties, it can become a matter of others being excluded.


There are many places in Fairmount Park right now which are private 
property, and where you are quite forbidden to trespass.


Rick Conrad

Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Richard Conrad]

Darco,  

I must agree with Glenn that you have most clearly misinterpreted what Glenn 
wrote and you should read it again more closely.  

Although, in fact I might point out, as control by private parties increases, 
particularly when park spaces are leased or sold to private parties, it can 
become a matter of others being excluded.  

There are many places in Fairmount Park right now which are private property, 
and where you are quite forbidden to trespass.   

Rick Conrad   

On Apr 28, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Glenn wrote:

> "Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one 
> example of someone being excluded from the park."
>  
> No, I will not answer your silly question.   There is overwhelming evidence 
> that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committees over the past 
> 10 years.
> 
> Your question suggests a possible reading comprehension problem.  As in the 
> past, I'd be happy to answer any serious questions.  I respect you and 
> deserve a serious response from you.  All the best.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Glenn
> 
> 
> On 4/28/2011 3:59 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
>> 
>> So, I’m curious. While I tended to disagree with some of the revitalization 
>> plan, do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? And don’t 
>> give me general intimidation that you have felt – I would like a concrete 
>> example of someone being excluded. And no, the fence being up while the 
>> changes are made does not count as exclusion since (regardless of it’s 
>> merits) the revitalization does require people to stay out of the 
>> construction.
>>  
>> Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one 
>> example of someone being excluded from the park.
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Darco
>>  
>>  
>> From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] 
>> On Behalf Of Glenn
>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:11 PM
>> To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
>> Subject: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
>>  
>> Dear Newcomers,
>>  
>> I’m glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the 
>> privatization of Clark Park.  Many long term West Philly residents didn’t 
>> have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening before the fence 
>> went up, and neither could you.  As we enter the 2nd season of the closure 
>> and fencing of the north part, it is a very relevant time for all to learn 
>> or review the history of the past ten years. 
>>  
>> The master plan for “revitalization” of Clark Park was always a master plan 
>> for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!  You need to know 
>> that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from beginning 
>> to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion of the public, 
>> and exclusion of park subcultures!  (Except for replacing trees, it's 
>> completely different from the earlier version.)
>>  
>>  
>>  The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED 
>> before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 10 
>> years ago!  This committee was filled by local corporations and politicians 
>> called stakeholders.  These individuals did not tend to attend the actual 
>> meetings, which were closed and secret with no public records.
>>  
>> Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional 
>> civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret committee.  
>> Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP),   Spruce 
>> Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic association joined. 
>>  
>> For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP leaders 
>> because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark Park Music 
>> and Arts Community (CPMAC).  At the time, the FOCP had no recognized power 
>> and was the laughing stock by department of recreation employees.  They were 
>> widely recognized as ridiculous bullies, "neighborhood cranks."  (See The 
>> Battle of the Bowl, City Paper, 2001)
>> http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1
>>  
>> Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years ago; I 
>> immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder groups as well 
>> as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely involved and saw the 
>> privatization coming).  I knew the goals of the FOCP leadership to control 
>> the park, and so I had inside understanding of the serious importance of 
>> breaking through the iron wall of the secret committee.  (The Master Plan 
>> Steering Committee was organized through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in 
>> the real estate department).
>>  Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully barred 
>> from the secret meetings!
>>   
>> Chronology:  First we had this UCD master plan committee.  Their plan was 
>> largely rejected by locals.  On the first try, they attempted to use PUBLIC 
>

Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Glenn]

"Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of 
one example of someone being excluded from the park."



No, I will not answer your silly question.   There is overwhelming 
evidence that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committees 
over the past 10 years.



Your question suggests a possible reading comprehension problem.  As in 
the past, I'd be happy to answer any serious questions.  I respect you 
and deserve a serious response from you.  All the best.



Sincerely,
Glenn



On 4/28/2011 3:59 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:


So, I'm curious. While I tended to disagree with some of the 
revitalization plan, do you have evidence of people being excluded 
from the park? And don't give me general intimidation that you have 
felt -- I would like a concrete example of someone being excluded. And 
no, the fence being up while the changes are made does not count as 
exclusion since (regardless of it's merits) the revitalization does 
require people to stay out of the construction.


Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of 
one example of someone being excluded from the park.


Thanks.

Darco

*From:*owner-univc...@list.purple.com 
[mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] *On Behalf Of *Glenn

*Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:11 PM
*To:* UnivCity@list.purple.com
*Subject:* [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

Dear Newcomers,

I'm glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the 
privatization of Clark Park.  Many long term West Philly residents 
didn't have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening 
before the fence went up, and neither could you.  As we enter the 2^nd 
season of the closure and fencing of the north part, it is a very 
relevant time for all to learn or review the history of the past ten 
years.


The master plan for "revitalization" of Clark Park was always a master 
plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!  You need 
to know that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous 
from beginning to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, 
exclusion of the public, and exclusion of park subcultures!  (Except 
for replacing trees, it's completely different from the earlier version.)


 The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and 
CLOSED before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly 
revealed 10 years ago!  This committee was filled by local 
corporations and politicians called stakeholders.  These individuals 
did not tend to attend the actual meetings, which were closed and 
secret with no public records.


Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most 
dysfunctional civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the 
secret committee.  Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park 
(FOCP), Spruce Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic 
association joined.


For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP 
leaders because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark 
Park Music and Arts Community (CPMAC).  At the time, the FOCP had no 
recognized power and was the laughing stock by department of 
recreation employees.  They were widely recognized as ridiculous 
bullies, "neighborhood cranks."  (See The Battle of the Bowl, City 
Paper, 2001)


http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1

Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years 
ago; I immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder 
groups as well as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely 
involved and saw the privatization coming).  I knew the goals of the 
FOCP leadership to control the park, and so I had inside understanding 
of the serious importance of breaking through the iron wall of the 
secret committee.  (The Master Plan Steering Committee was organized 
through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real estate department).


 Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully 
barred from the secret meetings!


Chronology:  First we had this UCD master plan committee.  Their plan 
was largely rejected by locals.  On the first try, they attempted to 
use PUBLIC presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely 
tightened after this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed 
immediate implementation of the park redesign as early as 2003.  (It 
was a great example of the simple power and need for public meetings.  
The public meetings represented the public, and their opinions about 
the park were right on target.)


Next, the master plan steering committee was transformed into the FOCP 
planning committee for several years.  Members were kept anonymous.  
This was justified as a matter of confidentiality.  Meetings were kept 
secret with no public information.  This FOCP committee was called 
"the community" for several years in all of the press releases 
designed to silence any public dissent about the privatizati

RE: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Lalevic, Darco]

So, I'm curious. While I tended to disagree with some of the revitalization 
plan, do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? And don't 
give me general intimidation that you have felt - I would like a concrete 
example of someone being excluded. And no, the fence being up while the changes 
are made does not count as exclusion since (regardless of it's merits) the 
revitalization does require people to stay out of the construction.

Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one 
example of someone being excluded from the park.

Thanks.

Darco


From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On 
Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:11 PM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

Dear Newcomers,

I'm glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the privatization 
of Clark Park.  Many long term West Philly residents didn't have a reasonable 
chance to understand what was happening before the fence went up, and neither 
could you.  As we enter the 2nd season of the closure and fencing of the north 
part, it is a very relevant time for all to learn or review the history of the 
past ten years.

The master plan for "revitalization" of Clark Park was always a master plan for 
secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!  You need to know that 
nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from beginning to end 
(2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and 
exclusion of park subcultures!  (Except for replacing trees, it's completely 
different from the earlier version.)


 The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED before 
the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 10 years ago! 
 This committee was filled by local corporations and politicians called 
stakeholders.  These individuals did not tend to attend the actual meetings, 
which were closed and secret with no public records.

Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional civic 
associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret committee.  
Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP), Spruce Hill Civic 
Association and Regent Square civic association joined.

For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP leaders 
because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark Park Music and 
Arts Community (CPMAC).  At the time, the FOCP had no recognized power and was 
the laughing stock by department of recreation employees.  They were widely 
recognized as ridiculous bullies, "neighborhood cranks."  (See The Battle of 
the Bowl, City Paper, 2001)
http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1

Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years ago; I 
immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder groups as well as 
our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely involved and saw the 
privatization coming).  I knew the goals of the FOCP leadership to control the 
park, and so I had inside understanding of the serious importance of breaking 
through the iron wall of the secret committee.  (The Master Plan Steering 
Committee was organized through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real 
estate department).
 Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully barred 
from the secret meetings!

Chronology:  First we had this UCD master plan committee.  Their plan was 
largely rejected by locals.  On the first try, they attempted to use PUBLIC 
presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely tightened after 
this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed immediate implementation of 
the park redesign as early as 2003.  (It was a great example of the simple 
power and need for public meetings.  The public meetings represented the 
public, and their opinions about the park were right on target.)

Next, the master plan steering committee was transformed into the FOCP planning 
committee for several years.  Members were kept anonymous.  This was justified 
as a matter of confidentiality.  Meetings were kept secret with no public 
information.  This FOCP committee was called "the community" for several years 
in all of the press releases designed to silence any public dissent about the 
privatization or redesign.

Friends of Clark Park leaders acted as shields for secrecy and exclusion over 
these years.  It was their job to keep the meetings away from the public and 
bar participation from park user groups!  (I often publicly confronted their 
leaders during that time forcing them to use various techniques to silence my 
demand for public meetings and inclusion.)


A hopeful moment:  In 2004, I publicly brought a motion to the FOCP general 
membership that would have allowed identification and inclusion of all park 
stakeholders at meetings which would be made public. The membership

[UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

[Glenn]

Dear Newcomers,

I'm glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the 
privatization of Clark Park.Many long term West Philly residents didn't 
have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening before the 
fence went up, and neither could you.As we enter the 2^nd season of the 
closure and fencing of the north part, it is a very relevant time for 
all to learn or review the history of the past ten years.


The master plan for "revitalization" of Clark Park was always a master 
plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!You need to 
know that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from 
beginning to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion 
of the public, and exclusion of park subcultures!  (Except for replacing 
trees, it's completely different from the earlier version.)


 The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED 
before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 
10 years ago!This committee was filled by local corporations and 
politicians called stakeholders.These individuals did not tend to attend 
the actual meetings, which were closed and secret with no public records.


Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional 
civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret 
committee.Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP), 
Spruce Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic association joined.


For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP 
leaders because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark 
Park Music and Arts Community (CPMAC).At the time, the FOCP had no 
recognized power and was the laughing stock by department of recreation 
employees.They were widely recognized as ridiculous bullies, 
"neighborhood cranks."  (See The Battle of the Bowl, City Paper, 2001)


http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1

Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years 
ago; I immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder 
groups as well as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely 
involved and saw the privatization coming).I knew the goals of the FOCP 
leadership to control the park, and so I had inside understanding of the 
serious importance of breaking through the iron wall of the secret 
committee.(The Master Plan Steering Committee was organized through U of 
Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real estate department).


 Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully 
barred from the secret meetings!


Chronology:First we had this UCD master plan committee.Their plan was 
largely rejected by locals.On the first try, they attempted to use 
PUBLIC presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely 
tightened after this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed 
immediate implementation of the park redesign as early as 2003.  (It was 
a great example of the simple power and need for public meetings.  The 
public meetings represented the public, and their opinions about the 
park were right on target.)


Next, the master plan steering committee was transformed into the FOCP 
planning committee for several years.Members were kept anonymous.This 
was justified as a matter of confidentiality.Meetings were kept secret 
with no public information.This FOCP committee was called "the 
community" for several years in all of the press releases designed to 
silence any public dissent about the privatization or redesign.


Friends of Clark Park leaders acted as shields for secrecy and exclusion 
over these years.It was their job to keep the meetings away from the 
public and bar participation from park user groups!  (I often publicly 
confronted their leaders during that time forcing them to use various 
techniques to silence my demand for public meetings and inclusion.)


A hopeful moment:In 2004, I publicly brought a motion to the FOCP 
general membership that would have allowed identification and inclusion 
of all park stakeholders at meetings which would be made public. The 
membership approved the directive, but the leaders fought against it and 
followed up by betraying their members!!  (Another installment will be 
necessary)  These civic associations do not follow by-laws or rules of 
order, so in order to speak with their general members, you must always 
show up and be prepared to be silenced.


I was permanently barred from the FOCP from that time forward because 
the leadership could never win a public debate on these principles of 
democracy.I seemed to be the sole whistle-blower, also speaking about 
transparency, so no holds were barred against me. Beginning around 2007, 
when it was leaked that the redesign of the park and privatization would 
move forward, I forced the FOCP leaders to repeatedly deny me a 1 minute 
statement at their meetings. The purpose was to publicly expose and 
rec

[UC] LOST small black kitty - 44th & Baltimore

[Linda Lee]

LOST small black semi-feral kitty (44th & Baltimore - Univ City / W. Philly)Taggart ("Tag") escaped from his mom's apartment yesterday (4/27) when movers left the doors open. Location 44th & Baltimore. He is a fixed and microchipped semi-feral (no ear tip), and is only friendly towards his mom. Call Sammi if you think you have seen him - 267-253-9973. Even though he knows the territory his mom is very worried about him!  email: paynekiller1...@yahoo.commany thanks! 

Re: [UC] School district to lose 3820 jobs

[Glenn]

Charter schools and vouchers were never intended to improve public 
education.  Destroying it was always the goal and was accomplished at 
many levels simultaneously.  Corporate media played its part with its 
coverage of "education reform"  Like with health care reform, it burned 
out its consumers with distractions while keeping the real issues top 
secret.



Privatizing and commodifying all public assets, busting unions, and 
turning teachers into low wage technicians was always the goal sold to 
the bewildered and valueless middle class.  But like with health care, 
the quiet goal was transferring public assets to the criminal parasite 
class so that 50% of all resources go directly in cronies pockets.


The American middle class has accepted the ideology that parasites are 
the "invisible hand of the market" or God.  Public assets like 
education, libraries, and parks make freeloading commoners lazy and 
evil, and thus they must be turned into commodities unavailable to the 
lazy devils.


Read the pages of comments after the report I posted to see how the 
indoctrination of these concepts helped foment hatred and racism among 
the ignorant.  Julian Assange and I are no longer the lowest, most evil, 
forms of life on earth.  Teachers are!  And unions are terrorists who 
emerged straight out of hell.


Glenn


On 4/27/2011 6:52 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote:

What about the current embrolgio with SRC Chair Robert Archie, Associate
Superintendent Leroy Nunnery, State Rep. Dwight Evans about the $50
million dollar deal to turn MLK High School into a charter that fell
through?  SRC Chair Robert Archie had to recuse himself from the vote
because his law firm was representing Foundations, Inc. which as a parent
company to Mosaic in Atlanta, GA who backed out of the deal?  A five-year
deal for $50 million dollars! Superintendent Ackerman knew nothing about
this until after SRC Chairman informed her.

I remember when she first arrived and declared, "Adults MUST be held
accountable."

What about the New Media Charter which was supposed to teach children
state of the art technology, web design, digital video etc. that had
hardly a computer ad over $500,000 is unaccounted for?

SRC Chair Robert Archie's wife was chair of that Charter School Board
until the end of 2009.

The top of the cap is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who got the State
Standardized Test Scores this week.
His charter/voucher school did a lot worse than WI public schools, so he
is going to expand his Carter/Voucher schools plan, with the caveat they
be exempt from Standardized State Testing. Only WI public schools will be
obligated to take the tests, even though Charters/Vouchers are subsidized
with US taxpayers money.

They need to declare this school reform corporate/business thing is not
working.  In PA alone from 1996-2007 the research data show Charter school
did not out perform Philadelphia Public Schools.  Nationwide only 17% of
Charters since 1994 have out done public school districts even though we
share our budget with them, have less money and resources, take students
they "counsel out" and do not get the private and corporate contributions
Charters receive.

Consider this.

On 4/27/11 3:54 PM, "Glenn"  wrote:


Here is the report on philly com.

Detroit recently went to a class size of 60


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/An-SRC-meeting-to-watch.html

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
.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3600 - Release Date: 04/27/11 
02:34:00