Re: [UC] July meeting of FOCP

[Glenn]

"I can only say that I was at the meeting and that yes, Ed Halligan is 
ruthless.


-Wolfe"


You must have arrived fashionably late.  I'm going to add you to the 
tally of humans! Still far short of a quorum.


The park was full of lovely people that night!  Wasn't it funny to watch 
everyone ignore the improperly announced meeting?


Actually Matt, I believe that it is not technically defined as a 
"meeting" because of improper notice, as well as failing to have a 
quorum.  The definition of a meeting is explicitly written in the FOCP 
bylaws.  Of course, Robert's Rules of Order is also ignored when 
convenient to the inner circle.


Regular citizens have been invisible to the FOCP leaders, but that FOCP 
occurrence in Clark Park never legally became a meeting.  It was nothing 
more than a flash mob, but much more dangerous!.


Could you tell the list anything more about the discussion that night?

The FOCP members have long wanted the FOCP leaders to publicly disclose 
their meeting agendas and minutes.  It's because their organization is 
officially credited with "representation" of the community over a park 
that belongs to all the people of Philadelphia, that their DEALS 
seriously impact the "public."  It's extremely unethical and dishonest 
for the city or anyone to pretend that FOCP represents the people of 
Philadelphia or this neighborhood.  But that is the official position of 
the Parks and Recreation department as well as the UCD position.  FOCP 
business is therefore the business of all citizens of Philadelphia!


If you take the time to provide all the facts, I'll help analyze issues 
that are important to inform the grass roots in the community and any 
targeted activities.


Thanks,
Glenn



On 8/10/2011 10:39 PM, Wolfe J. Matthew wrote:
I can only say that I was at the meeting and that yes, Ed Halligan is 
ruthless.


-Wolfe


On Aug 10, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Glenn wrote:

It's been at least two years since the FOCP has been a barely 
legitimate organization under federal 501 c 3 law.  They haven't had 
the minimal 10% quorum at any of their dog and pony shows for at 
least that long, because people of the area find their crap and 
performances intolerable.


There were only 7 people at the July members meeting, plus Halligan, 
who is the current ruthless commander of FOCP.


I'm sorry for the late report but Sam and I were headed back to 
Boston early the next morning, and I observed the tiny gathering from 
my front window 30 minutes after the scheduled start .  (No banned 
citizens lived closer to the Clark park redesign than Sam and I, and 
we couldn't help seeing the attempt at a coven.)



The day before the lack of a quorum, FOCP posted a cryptic "agenda" 
on our public list about discussing the neighbors, who returned to 
park A after the lengthy closure (see list archives).  But in the UC 
Review, the FOCP leaders continued to defy their members and did not 
post any agenda for that meeting announcement, as their members 
ordered them to do 8 years ago.


Of course, they didn't want commoners to know that they were planning 
new ways to attack the rights of drummers, volleyballers, chess 
players, and the working class! That's why the newspaper announcement 
contained no agenda as required. And our public listserv and the FOCP 
members list got the cryptic coded agenda the prior day, so that 
neighborhood bullies would be encouraged to show up.


Clark park was closed for an extended period of time to make "those" 
people go away. (see the obnoxious ranting of Penn's mayor to better 
understand the principle).  FOCP leaders and their masters are 
currently furious that commoners have come back to the upscale 
redesigned park.  Continuing the long term philosophy of the anointed 
and the gentrification agenda of their masters, new attacks and 
arrests against the unwanted must be planned in Clark Park!



If people in this shopping district ever choose to take back Clark 
Park, I think you need to expose the FOCP organization for what it 
is, and show that they have never "represented the community" nor 
ever tried to be a legitimate organization following parliamentary 
procedure.  Representation has always been the Big Lie that Penn 
depends on to rubber stamp the gentrification and privatization of 
all city parks.  Legal remedy is the only hope to save all the city 
parks because the assholes in city hall serve the power not the people.


Ignoring FOCP and SHCA is not enough.  Silence and fear got us to 
this point, and silence means enslavement for future generations of 
USA consumers.


Glenn





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



__

J. Matthew Wolfe
Law Offices of J. Matthew Wolfe
4256 Regent Square
Philadelphia, PA  19104
(215) 387-7300
matt...@wolfe.org 






No virus found in this i

[UC] July meeting of FOCP

[Glenn]

It's been at least two years since the FOCP has been a barely legitimate 
organization under federal 501 c 3 law.  They haven't had the minimal 
10% quorum at any of their dog and pony shows for at least that long, 
because people of the area find their crap and performances intolerable.


There were only 7 people at the July members meeting, plus Halligan, who 
is the current ruthless commander of FOCP.


I'm sorry for the late report but Sam and I were headed back to Boston 
early the next morning, and I observed the tiny gathering from my front 
window 30 minutes after the scheduled start .  (No banned citizens lived 
closer to the Clark park redesign than Sam and I, and we couldn't help 
seeing the attempt at a coven.)



The day before the lack of a quorum, FOCP posted a cryptic "agenda" on 
our public list about discussing the neighbors, who returned to park A 
after the lengthy closure (see list archives).  But in the UC Review, 
the FOCP leaders continued to defy their members and did not post any 
agenda for that meeting announcement, as their members ordered them to 
do 8 years ago.


Of course, they didn't want commoners to know that they were planning 
new ways to attack the rights of drummers, volleyballers, chess players, 
and the working class! That's why the newspaper announcement contained 
no agenda as required. And our public listserv and the FOCP members list 
got the cryptic coded agenda the prior day, so that neighborhood bullies 
would be encouraged to show up.


Clark park was closed for an extended period of time to make "those" 
people go away. (see the obnoxious ranting of Penn's mayor to better 
understand the principle).  FOCP leaders and their masters are currently 
furious that commoners have come back to the upscale redesigned park.  
Continuing the long term philosophy of the anointed and the 
gentrification agenda of their masters, new attacks and arrests against 
the unwanted must be planned in Clark Park!



If people in this shopping district ever choose to take back Clark Park, 
I think you need to expose the FOCP organization for what it is, and 
show that they have never "represented the community" nor ever tried to 
be a legitimate organization following parliamentary procedure.  
Representation has always been the Big Lie that Penn depends on to 
rubber stamp the gentrification and privatization of all city parks.  
Legal remedy is the only hope to save all the city parks because the 
assholes in city hall serve the power not the people.


Ignoring FOCP and SHCA is not enough.  Silence and fear got us to this 
point, and silence means enslavement for future generations of USA 
consumers.


Glenn





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

Re: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore

[Glenn]

http://ucreview.com/ucd-unveils-phillys-first-parklet-ah-at-the-park-p2902-1.htm

"University City, like much of Philadelphia, has an unmet demand for 
pedestrian amenities," said Bergheiser. "Our pedestrian counts 
throughout the neighborhood grow and grow and we must keep pace. We are 
pleased to demonstrate that there are simple and low cost solutions to 
this growing demand for the infrastructure of walkability."




What a crock of "green" bullshit.  Parklets are an expansion of seating 
for an upscale eatery on the taxpayer's dime.  Local eateries have long 
known that they must stay loyal and serve the district to get their 
upscale cookies.  Where oh where will the next parklet appear?


Now the cycle is completed...

Ten years ago, they offered dog and pony shows to the public when they 
first demanded Clark Park.  They didn't get their way with local 
peasants.  Over the years, transparency and inclusion were REDEFINED as 
secret deals with civic associations, like the hotel deal and SHCA.  And 
now, "parklets" just appear without notice, as partnerships between 
Penn, Blackwell, and Parks and Recreation.  No need for the charade or 
civic associations anymore!


For those of you who remember the fundamentals of a republic, you will 
recognize that the plutocracy has fully arrived.  (Don't worry, I won't 
tell the thoughtpolice about your history crime.)  Some of us banned 
from UCNeighbors tried to warn the anointed that their illusion of power 
would disappear rapidly and there was no going back once we got to this 
point!


At least we're getting rid of the Oldies with their parking issues.  
Hahaha, UCD is going to wipe out the Oldies of the SHCA, who can't 
afford limo drivers.  The irony is pretty hilarious now that the civic 
association leaders are car driving old farts-haha!




On 8/5/2011 6:48 PM, Linda wrote:

About the "parklets":

http://www.westphillylocal.com/2011/08/02/phillys-first-parklet-at-43rd-and-baltimore/#comments 



-linda
p.s. You can sign up to get regular reminders/links to articles on 
westphillylocal.com



On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Karen Allen wrote:

I was riding past the Green Line this afternoon and saw the parking 
spaces on the 43rd Street side blocked off with sawhorses and the 
cars replaced with tables and chairs.

What's up with that?




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3822 - Release Date: 08/08/11 
14:35:00

Re: [UC] RE: [PFSNI] Fwd: Dangerous Pit Bull in Clark Park

[Glenn]

Nachmias writes: "I would contact University City District... and maybe 
they have more pull with the police."


Darco,

You and everyone else should be informed that Beau is often off leash 
too.  You should also know that in the past, leaders of civic 
associations have regularly called for "leash enforcement" while their 
own dogs were off leash.  Many people don't understand that civic 
association leaders and UCD cheerleaders have reason to believe that two 
extremely different enforcement policies will give them special 
privileges against draconian enforcement in this special district.  And 
they might be temporarily correct, like we saw with the bogus trash 
tickets. (Frank was part of the UCD/FOCP Quality of Life Task Force with 
me many years ago.  Quite frankly, Frank should never be walking Beau 
off leash, like Sam and I, but not because of a problem with Beau.)


The problem:

These zero tolerance "leash laws" will only destroy an important 
subculture of our community and will not make anyone any safer from any 
actual or manufactured problem!  The well loved well trained dogs that 
accompany their humans to play without a leash NEVER "kill and maim" 
"dogs and children"  BUT THEY WILL BE 99.9% OF THE VICTIMS OF LEASH 
LAWS, AND ALL HEALTHY DOGS WILL THEN DISAPPEAR FROM THIS SHOPPING 
DISTRICT.  Our neighborhood cranks would be on the phone to the cops 
daily until they were all gone. (Let's not buy into the bull; if Cy 
killed, maimed, or just drew blood, the cops and legal system could have 
and would have been used!)



The off leash dogs/humans deter aggressive dogs and are also known to be 
the best deterrent to human on human crime anywhere near Clark Park.  
Dogs enormously positive affects, upon the mental and physical health of 
the entire community, are only beginning to be partially understood!  
(e.g. The Clark Park dogs, like Sam, have often delivered much needed 
mental health treatment to children of the anointed, as well as love for 
the poor children.)



And these benefits from well socialized dogs will be completely 
destroyed if healthy well trained dogs are the target of zero tolerance 
leash laws.  Zero tolerance leash laws are nothing more than another 
"quality of life" weapon in the hands of aggressive humans!


 If you follow verified reports, the truly aggressive or uncontrollable 
dogs, who have attacked people or dogs, are walked with leashes.  If you 
see Sam or any other dog walking unleashed at the heel of a human, you 
know that everyone is 100% safe and no middle class anointed bully will 
physically attack anyone while we are present.


When the FOCP/UCD was calling for an end to "dogs killing and maiming 
children," I asked for the reports and it turns out that these were ALL 
lies and or severe hyperbole.  Nationally, the vast majority of dog 
bites are in the family home.  People who turn dogs into attack animals 
can and should be held accountable by appropriate laws and the people of 
the dog subculture do self police against any nuisance dogs. Once again, 
it is the well loved dogs who protect the community from leashed dogs 
who might attack someone.


(Unless a dog is deliberately mistreated, it won't be truly dangerous.  
The self policing that Linda described generally works with 
inexperienced dog owners who cannot properly train a dog or if the puppy 
was not properly socialized OFF leash around a wholesome dog culture 
like Clark Park.)  We should be thanking the lovely dogs (Beau included) 
of this community rather than making their humans feel threatened!


Quality of life or gentrification laws are generally "crank laws"  These 
are made for angry middle class bullies who wish cheap methods to use 
"enforcement" against those outside of their gangs!  Drug laws and Stop 
and Frisk were similarly designed around massive bullshit, to terrorize 
poor and minority neighborhoods not make anyone safer.


 Why has quality of life dropped so drastically during the era of 
quality of life laws?


Glenn



On 8/8/2011 7:02 AM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
In fact, other than fining the owner for having the dog off the leash, 
I don't see anything that can be done.
If Beau doesn't have any wounds, then it wasn't an attack, it was the 
other dog trying to be dominant.
If it was an attack, there would have been plenty of blood before you 
could have separated the dogs.



*From:* penn-fsni-boun...@groups.sas.upenn.edu 
[penn-fsni-boun...@groups.sas.upenn.edu] on behalf of Gayle Joseph 
[vi...@vet.upenn.edu]

*Sent:* Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:19 AM
*To:* Vivianne T. Nachmias
*Cc:* purple; pfsni
*Subject:* Re: [PFSNI] Fwd: Dangerous Pit Bull in Clark Park

I would contact University City District... and maybe they have more 
pull with the police. 215 243 0555


*Crime and Safety Tips: 
*http://www.universitycity.org/ucd_programs/public_safety/crime-information-and-safety-tips


UCD's 42 A

[UC] retina specialist

[Theresa]

Does anyone have experience with a retina specialist at Wills Eye Institute?
I am looking for a second opinion for a young adult who probably does not
have a serious issue, but is looking for confirmation.

 

[UC] update: lost tortie cat (with bad eye) is back home!

[Linda]

Just found out that kitty had been picked up by someone (nearby - she  
was not lost) and taken to ACCT (Animal Control).  (Too bad they  
didn't notice the flyers posted around...)  She's back home and is  
fine -- now with microchip (and hopefully a collar and tag).


L



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

[UC] Re: [PFSNI] Re: Fwd: Dangerous Pit Bull in Clark Park

[Andrew Diller]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Linda  wrote:

> :(
> Perhaps inappropriate language for the listservs...   I'd also say that the
> majority of pits are good and gentle dogs.
>



 Until they decide to kill or maim another dog/cat/child. Come on, WTF? Are
you serious?

-andy

Re: [UC] Re: Fwd: Dangerous Pit Bull in Clark Park

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

On 8/9/11 8:25 PM, Linda wrote:

:(
Perhaps inappropriate language for the listservs... I'd also say that
the majority of pits are good and gentle dogs. We know many wonderful
pitties in the area. Obviously some dogs are 'trained' to be aggressive,
or aren't trained at all. Blame the dog's owner.



Like.


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN







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

[UC] [Friends of Clark Park]: Are You Ready For Some . . . Soccer?!

[admin]

Friends of Clark Park has posted a new item, 'Are You Ready For Some . . .
Soccer?!'

While attention is focused on the beginning of pre-season (American) football
this week, we'll distract you for a few minutes with thoughts of Clark Park
Youth Soccer -- Fall season starts in just 6 weeks!

Our Fall season will run from Saturday, September 24th, through November 19th.
Updated information and forms are available on the Youth [...]

You may view the latest post at
http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?p=902
and feel free to comment as well. 

If you received this email because you were a member of our focp-announce list
on Yahoo, or you provided your email address to the Friends of Clark Park, you
can request removal by emailing f...@friendsofclarkpark.org. 


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

[UC] Man on bicycle casing cars on 4900-5000 Catharine St

[Naomi Fiordimondo]

>From Facebook this morning:

> A little while ago a man on a bike was casing out all the cars on the 4900
> block of Catharine Street, tried to intimidate a woman, and then pedaled up to
> the 5000 block of Catharine. She advised everyone to remove any valuables from
> your car (I'd even remove any spare change). Crimes in this area this summer
> have been happening at all times of the day... in broad daylight. (Someone
> posted about this in the Cedar Park Neighbors page a little while ago.)
> 
- Naomi

Re: [UC] The end of Philly Car Share as a "non-profit."

[Dave Axler]

Gerardo, 

Having served as the treasurer of a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
organization for over a decade, I have to disagree with two statements in your 
post.

>>...non-profit organizations, which do not pay taxes not because they are tax 
>>exempt, but because they do not have profits, you see, non-profit...

"Non-profit" does not mean "has no profits". It means "cannot DISTRIBUTE 
profits to other entities" (who would then be treated as receiving income from 
the non-profit).

A non-profit organization is actually allowed to make as much profit as it can. 
(Obviously, at a bare minimum, it has to break even in order to survive.)

What it cannot do is pass on those profits on to owners, shareholders, or 
similar entities. 
Instead, the profits are required to be retained for use by the organization in 
furtherance of the purposes stated in their articles of incorporation, charter, 
and/or by-laws. Any inappropriate use would render the organization's 
management liable for charges of malfeasance, misfeasance, and other nasty 
thangs.

For instance, if the Philly Art Museum makes a profit, they're required to put 
those profits into acquiring and displaying more art, providing more art 
education services, maintaining the museum building, etc.

>>...tax exempt religious organizations, that is really different, they do make 
>>a profit and they do not pay taxes...

Tax-exempt organizations -- be they religious, charitable, educational, 
fraternal, or any of the other varieties recognized by the IRS in section 501 
of the Revenue Code -- are only exempted from SOME taxes and fees, not all of 
them. 
They are exempt from paying Federal income taxes. (Though they have to file 
forms w/the IRS just like you and me.) 
In some states and localities, but not all, they are also exempt from paying 
state/regional income taxes. 
Some states also exempt them from paying sales tax on their purchases.
And many localities give them an exemption from real-estate taxes.
Other than that, they are generally subject to the same taxes, fees, and 
license charges as a for-profit business.

For instance, if they have employees, they still have to pay the employer's 
share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. If they have a cafeteria or gift 
shop, they have to collect sales tax and turn it over to the state. 

In that sense, contrary to Bill's claim, almost every tax-exempt organization 
is actually a "...tax paying, instead of tax consuming entity."  They don't pay 
to the same extent as a for-profit company, but they DO pay.

But the real issue here is this: If the nature of a non-profit business means 
that it is responsible for collecting a local tax or fee, and it fails to do 
so, it can be held legally responsible. It may be that management failed to do 
due diligence, didn't understand what they were doing, got bad legal/accounting 
advice, or just didn't care. Or, as in this case, a recent court decision 
rendered their previous approach null and void.

If Philly CarShare had chosen play it safe from the start -- to collect the 
local car rental fee from its users, and turn that money over to the city -- 
they wouldn't be in their current fix. However, they might also have had far 
fewer rentals and gone under as a result.  

On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:10 AM, Gerardo Razumney wrote:

> Do you mean to say that for profit, commercial entities actually pay for 
> Police and Fire services?  I don't think so.  They pay as much as non-profit 
> organizations, which do not pay taxes not because they are tax exempt, but 
> because they do not have profits, you see, non-profit...  If you or me do not 
> make enough money to pay taxes we get the same service.  It has nothing to do 
> with the status.  Now if you talk about tax exempt religious organizations, 
> that is really different, they do make a profit and they do not pay taxes, so 
> they do get free services.
> 
> Gerardo Razumney
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:33 PM, William H. Magill  
> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:23 PM, maru ca wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Aug 9, 2011, at 11:52 AM, William H. Magill wrote:
> >
> >> In any event, it is good to see that Private Enterprise has decided to 
> >> "support" the shared vehicle model and be a tax paying, instead of tax 
> >> consuming entity.
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >
> > Now this piques the curiosity.
> >
> >
> > In what way was PCS a "tax consuming entity"?
> 
> They get/got all of the benefits of city services (whichever they were) 
> without paying for them … Police, Fire, Trash…
> 
> Virtually all Non-Profits consume tax dollars because they depend upon City 
> Services. Consequently the Tax Payers of the City get hit twice by them…
> 
> Entities, like the University of Pennsy