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

[Richard Conrad]

Darco and Tony, There is a way to be sure we are getting onto the same page...

YOU HAVE SAID THAT NO ONE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PARK.  
SO THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS 
(eg.): TO PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, BEING 
EXERCISED THEREIN?

On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Glenn Moyer wrote:

>> The department of Recreation works for the taxpayers and is required to 
>> protect the rights of all citizens as directed by the US Constitution.  

Not more than a couple days ago the Supreme Court by a (5-4) or ($-4) vote, 
ignored the MAJOR body of definitions and precedents regarding CONTRACT LAW and 
FRAUD by saying a company (AT&T) could exclude patrons of due process - in 
recourse to Class Action Suits - merely by the insertion IN FINE PRINT of a 
clause stating that such was the case +/or a condition of having services 
provided through the contract(s).  IT TOTALLY BOGGLES MY MIND and I just hope 
and pray that MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING and SHARE MY ANGST! 
 It basically said that Corporations could make up the rules and ignore the 
concepts of "FAIR" actions in regards to contractual  understandings.  The 
constitution has been interpreted as protecting all our rights against (for 
what should be an ABSURD example), "deceitful intent to deprive citizens of 
basic interests" in regards to life, liberty, and property.  If that is not a 
"class action" what the hell is??  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-arkush/us-supreme-court-to-major_b_854714.html
 

   U.S. Supreme Court to Major Corporations: You Write the Rules
pubc.it
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with AT&T in AT&T Mobility v. 
Concepcion -- a decision with devastating consequences for consumer protection 
and civil rights.


I actually believe Penn is fairly trustworthy to make decisions when I am not 
involved... I REALLY want that to be true!

BUT I AM DAMNED SURE THE FIVE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT WHO MADE THIS AND 
MANY, MANY, LIKE DECISIONS, ARE NOT

NOT!  CAPABLE OF ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS NOR SERVING THE 
CONSTITUTION!!! 
NOT!  CAPABLE OF SERVING IN GOOD BEHAVIOR!

AS SOON AS CLARK PARK IS AVAILABLE AGAIN I SUGGEST WE USE IT FOR PEACEABLE 
ASSEMBLY... TO CONDUCT TEACH-INS... TO FOSTER GATHERINGS OF MASS 
CONSCIOUSNESS... AND TO DISCUSS AND ACT UPON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES. 

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

[Richard Conrad]

One thing seems to ring true, 
very sad, but sometimes also true I should say... 

In the realm of political debate:  
"One often only does one's best work when one's adversaries make it 
particularly difficult to do it!"

Now, enough!   Let us start to get along DAMN IT!


On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Glenn wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
>> 
>> I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone 
>> of most of Glenn’s emails is that the public is excluded from use of the 
>> park, of which I have seen little evidence
> 
> Darco, 
> 
> You just did it again.  Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, you 
> would not be so annoyed and annoying.  This is completely untrue!
> 
> I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user groups, 
> have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings and the 
> backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park.  Why do you continue to 
> seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed at the false 
> positions?
> 
> If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I am 
> committed to the principals of democratic societies.  Transparency and 
> inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and when a 
> society abandons these they will always lose their rights.  Those principles 
> and rights are not just vital for national issues but also for local issues.  
> The idea that these principles can be abandoned in hopes of trickle down 
> corporate money, and brought back when it's "really important" is absurd.  
> That is the stupidity that caused the collapsing of America, and the evil 
> that is being done to my oppressed brothers and sisters around the planet !
> 
> This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith in, 
> was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the mad rush 
> for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification model ten 
> years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a principled stand and 
> for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to wake up!  I happened to be 
> quite involved with Clark Park when Penn decided to "save" the neighborhood, 
> and called me and my neighbors criminals!  I was in the position to "blow the 
> whistle" and have always considered it my duty.  
> 
> 
>  "I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the 
> local conspiracy."
> 
> 
> What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body of 
> evidence that I made public using this listserv! Each time I publicly 
> demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was in fact 
> providing evidence that the public was excluded!  
> 
> Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave the 
> meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean spirited 
> comments attacking my character.  They could look at the University City 
> Review and see that the meetings, which should have been announced by order 
> of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they were able to know that 
> secret meetings were taking place at which they were unwelcome. The readers 
> on this list have watched this evidence for years.  I've continuously proved 
> that these meetings were not public.  Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls 
> this exclusion, "invitation only meetings."  It's fact and if you don't 
> believe me then you need to do a little work. 
> 
> What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us 
> attended?  Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to blowing 
> the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that they didn't 
> know that these abuses were occurring.  BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD
> 
> How do you respond to important evidence?
> 
> Darco writes:  "My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is 
> his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since 
> I’ve rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising."
> 
> So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem!  Ad hominem is 
> a fallacy of logic too.  For the past few years, FOCP leaders have claimed 
> that their members can always join any committee, and I alone was unwelcome 
> because I'm selfish.  I provided you evidence that proved that was not true, 
> whether or not you have the ability to understand it.  It also proved that 
> FOCP leaders continued to lie about inclusion continuously over many years.   
> Why should I look for more evidence for you, when you can't understand it, 
> and simply dismiss it as proof of my bad character? 
> 
> Regarding FOCP leaders, I'm not having a debate with reasonable mature 
> neighbors. I've concentrated on exposing bullying, lies, processes 
> unacceptable to any neighborhood in a democratic society, etc.  Under these 
> conditions, compromising is an absurd choice for your words.   

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

[Richard Conrad]

 Thank you Darco very much... I was really not expecting an apology (despite my 
quixotic claim to the contrary), and even a terse, partial, and perhaps 
conditional one felt rather warm and fuzzy to me...  You reason well and speak 
honestly and sincerely about your concerns but then you slam Glenn to the mat 
by 'representing' him through a broken glass bloodily.  Your in-kind 
conciliation minus your harsh hyperbole is a clear and formidable formulaic 
success!  Right or wrong your opinion can be judged on it's own merits without 
you also destroying Glenn's through your inappropriate 'restatements' of what 
he seems to you to have said.  I do see a huge return to civility and somewhat 
of a return to mutual understanding and respect.  As I said before, (though now 
let my sentiment be restated in Benj. Franklin's famous aphorism):  "we can all 
hang together or surely we will all hang separately."  If you truly feel 
someone is running around screaming the sky is falling ask them to tone down 
their screaming.  BUT!  If you restate it as "the sky is falling" and what they 
actually said was "it's raining more now than it used to do" then it is you and 
not they who deserves strict censure.  Rick Conrad

   
On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Glenn wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
>> 
>> I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone 
>> of most of Glenn’s emails is that the public is excluded from use of the 
>> park, of which I have seen little evidence
> 
> Darco, 
> 
> You just did it again.  Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, you 
> would not be so annoyed and annoying.  This is completely untrue!
> 
> I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user groups, 
> have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings and the 
> backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park.  Why do you continue to 
> seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed at the false 
> positions?
> 
> If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I am 
> committed to the principals of democratic societies.  Transparency and 
> inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and when a 
> society abandons these they will always lose their rights.  Those principles 
> and rights are not just vital for national issues but also for local issues.  
> The idea that these principles can be abandoned in hopes of trickle down 
> corporate money, and brought back when it's "really important" is absurd.  
> That is the stupidity that caused the collapsing of America, and the evil 
> that is being done to my oppressed brothers and sisters around the planet !
> 
> This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith in, 
> was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the mad rush 
> for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification model ten 
> years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a principled stand and 
> for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to wake up!  I happened to be 
> quite involved with Clark Park when Penn decided to "save" the neighborhood, 
> and called me and my neighbors criminals!  I was in the position to "blow the 
> whistle" and have always considered it my duty.  
> 
> 
>  "I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the 
> local conspiracy."
> 
> 
> What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body of 
> evidence that I made public using this listserv! Each time I publicly 
> demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was in fact 
> providing evidence that the public was excluded!  
> 
> Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave the 
> meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean spirited 
> comments attacking my character.  They could look at the University City 
> Review and see that the meetings, which should have been announced by order 
> of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they were able to know that 
> secret meetings were taking place at which they were unwelcome. The readers 
> on this list have watched this evidence for years.  I've continuously proved 
> that these meetings were not public.  Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls 
> this exclusion, "invitation only meetings."  It's fact and if you don't 
> believe me then you need to do a little work. 
> 
> What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us 
> attended?  Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to blowing 
> the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that they didn't 
> know that these abuses were occurring.  BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD
> 
> How do you respond to important evidence?
> 
> Darco writes:  "My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is 
> his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since 
> I’v

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

[Mike V.]

In my years of experience on this listserv, I have found that the best way to 
read Glenn's posts involve substituting "Penn" or "UCD" or "Clark Park 
Committee" or whoever his bogeyman-du-jour is with "the Martians", "Sasquatch" 
or, occasionally, "the pixies that live in my teeth".  Then I picture him 
typing away in his egg-stained bathrobe, an old remote control duct-taped to 
his forehead and his teeth blacked out with magic marker in an effort to keep 
the black helicopters from reading his neutral patterns.

Not only its this immensely entertaining, but I have found that it diminishes 
the cogency, relevance and believability of his rants not one iota.

- Mike V.

Glenn  wrote:

>
>
>On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
>> I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general 
>> tone of most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use 
>> of the park, of which I have seen little evidence
>
>Darco,
>
>You just did it again.  Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, 
>you would not be so annoyed and annoying.  This is completely untrue!
>
>I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user 
>groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings 
>and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park.  Why do 
>you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed 
>at the false positions?
>
>If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I 
>am committed to the principals of democratic societies.  Transparency 
>and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and 
>when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights.  Those 
>principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also 
>for local issues.  The idea that these principles can be abandoned in 
>hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's 
>"really important" is absurd.  That is the stupidity that caused the 
>collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed 
>brothers and sisters around the planet !
>
>This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith 
>in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the 
>mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification 
>model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a 
>principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to 
>wake up!  I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn 
>decided to "save" the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors 
>criminals!  I was in the position to "blow the whistle" and have always 
>considered it my duty.
>
>
>  "I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding 
>the local conspiracy."
>
>
>What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body 
>of evidence that I made public using this listserv!Each time I 
>publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was 
>in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded!
>
>Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave 
>the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean 
>spirited comments attacking my character.  They could look at the 
>University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been 
>announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they 
>were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they 
>were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for 
>years.  I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public.  
>Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, "invitation only 
>meetings."  It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a 
>little work.
>
>What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us 
>attended?  Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to 
>blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that 
>they didn't know that these abuses were occurring.  BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD
>
>How do you respond to important evidence?
>
>Darco writes:  "My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up 
>with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand 
>that, since I've rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising."
>
>So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem!  Ad 
>hominem is a fallacy of logic too.  For the past few years, FOCP leaders 
>have claimed that their members can always join any committee, and I 
>alone was unwelcome because I'm selfish.  I provided you evidence that 
>proved that was not true, whether or not you have the ability to 
>understand it.  It also proved that FOCP leaders continued to lie about 
>inclusion continuously over many years.   Why should I look for more 
>evidence for you, when you can't understand it, and simply dismiss it as 
>proof of my bad ch

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

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

On 4/29/11 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:

University City’s gentrification (I
don’t know what else to call it) over the last 15 years has had plenty
of positive as well as negative effects.




the main negative effect is that we now have a staunchly divided 
neighborhood. and it's a big effect, one which will continue to carry 
penn -- and its catspaws ucd and campus apartments and so-called 
community association leaders -- farther and farther. an advance that 
feeds the very divisiveness that fuels their progression.


in case you missed it first time around, you now get a second chance to 
watch, in real time, the same strategic university narratives as they 
begin their next mighty roll:




http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-05/news/24976839_1_drexel-university-neighborhood-university-city-district



http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-18/news/29443549_1_drexel-campus-drexel-university-powelton-village



[if you can detect the contradiction behind the fact that such articles 
even need to be written today, 15 years after penn has claimed such 
success in transforming university city, then count yourself as someone 
who's already pretty observant.]



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN














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

[Glenn]

On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general 
tone of most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use 
of the park, of which I have seen little evidence


Darco,

You just did it again.  Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, 
you would not be so annoyed and annoying.  This is completely untrue!


I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user 
groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings 
and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park.  Why do 
you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed 
at the false positions?


If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I 
am committed to the principals of democratic societies.  Transparency 
and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and 
when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights.  Those 
principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also 
for local issues.  The idea that these principles can be abandoned in 
hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's 
"really important" is absurd.  That is the stupidity that caused the 
collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed 
brothers and sisters around the planet !


This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith 
in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the 
mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification 
model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a 
principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to 
wake up!  I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn 
decided to "save" the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors 
criminals!  I was in the position to "blow the whistle" and have always 
considered it my duty.



 "I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding 
the local conspiracy."



What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body 
of evidence that I made public using this listserv!Each time I 
publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was 
in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded!


Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave 
the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean 
spirited comments attacking my character.  They could look at the 
University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been 
announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they 
were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they 
were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for 
years.  I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public.  
Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, "invitation only 
meetings."  It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a 
little work.


What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us 
attended?  Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to 
blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that 
they didn't know that these abuses were occurring.  BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD


How do you respond to important evidence?

Darco writes:  "My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up 
with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand 
that, since I've rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising."


So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem!  Ad 
hominem is a fallacy of logic too.  For the past few years, FOCP leaders 
have claimed that their members can always join any committee, and I 
alone was unwelcome because I'm selfish.  I provided you evidence that 
proved that was not true, whether or not you have the ability to 
understand it.  It also proved that FOCP leaders continued to lie about 
inclusion continuously over many years.   Why should I look for more 
evidence for you, when you can't understand it, and simply dismiss it as 
proof of my bad character?


Regarding FOCP leaders, I'm not having a debate with reasonable mature 
neighbors. I've concentrated on exposing bullying, lies, processes 
unacceptable to any neighborhood in a democratic society, etc.  Under 
these conditions, compromising is an absurd choice for your words.   How 
exactly does one compromise when power is abused to bully?  How did I 
organize Clark Park festivals, volleyball, and work on a world class 
health care research team, if I don't have the ability to work well with 
mature reasonable adults?



Darco writes:  "Does Penn have an idea of what they want to see in Clark 
Park, the neighborhood, and the City? Of course they do -- they have a 
vested interest in all of that. Are they not supposed to voice their 
opinions?"



He

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

[Lalevic, Darco]

But you see, I agree with Glenn on a basic level. Of course Penn wants to 
influence things around it. It's also always the people or companies with 
political power or money who have the greatest influence, that's how our 
society works (fortunately or unfortunately). But he takes it to another level. 
 I'm sorry, but Clark Park is just not that important to Penn.
And as far as conspiracies, I'm curious what reasoning the FOCP would have to 
"sell out" to Penn or any other entity. I mean, did I miss out where they were 
handing out cash to people to vote a certain way? After all, that is the Philly 
way when it comes to politics.

-Original Message-
From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On 
Behalf Of Brian Siano
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:16 PM
Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com"
Subject: Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

Lemme see if I have this straight.

Real-state investor uses a soapbox to yell about crazy, baseless conspiracy 
theories. Most of the evidence offered rests on assertions, suppositions, 
insinuations, and claims of fact that evaporate beyond the guy's say-so. 
There's also a comical insistence that he is the real community activist, the 
genuine patriot, the true American. But his history has been one of hostility 
to the concerns of others in his community. In fact, he's always characterized 
people who disagree with him as fools, knaves, fascists, foreign interlopers 
and thugs who want to interfere with his personal use of public space.

But the real estate investor continues. Because every so often, _someone_ out 
there is tricked into believing that he shares their interests and political 
outlook, and demagogues see followers as their personal vindication. And since 
refuting the claims would take more energy than they're worth, the guy goes 
unanswered... so he claims that the silence is his vindication, too.

Finally, when this nonsense has gone on long enough, the real-estate guy's 
targets respond. Maybe they, too, are a little testy, which is understandable 
after putting up with this for so long. But he claims this, too, as a 
vindication, as proof that he was right all along. "I made them _reply_. I made 
them _listen to me_. That makes me _important_."

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." 
To unsubscribe or for archive information, see 
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

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

[Brian Siano]

Lemme see if I have this straight.

Real-state investor uses a soapbox to yell about crazy, baseless
conspiracy theories. Most of the evidence offered rests on assertions,
suppositions, insinuations, and claims of fact that evaporate beyond
the guy's say-so. There's also a comical insistence that he is the
real community activist, the genuine patriot, the true American. But
his history has been one of hostility to the concerns of others in his
community. In fact, he's always characterized people who disagree with
him as fools, knaves, fascists, foreign interlopers and thugs who want
to interfere with his personal use of public space.

But the real estate investor continues. Because every so often,
_someone_ out there is tricked into believing that he shares their
interests and political outlook, and demagogues see followers as their
personal vindication. And since refuting the claims would take more
energy than they're worth, the guy goes unanswered... so he claims
that the silence is his vindication, too.

Finally, when this nonsense has gone on long enough, the real-estate
guy's targets respond. Maybe they, too, are a little testy, which is
understandable after putting up with this for so long. But he claims
this, too, as a vindication, as proof that he was right all along. "I
made them _reply_. I made them _listen to me_. That makes me
_important_."

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

[Lalevic, Darco]

I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone of 
most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use of the park, of 
which I have seen little evidence (disregarding law enforcement - see below).
While I tend to agree with many of Glenn's general opinions regarding rising 
corporatism and oppression of the middle and lower classes in society, I grow 
weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the local 
conspiracy. Most of his evidence presented is the rejection of his 
participation in FOCP - the exclusion of his voice. And honestly, it seems 
mostly vindictive to me. Very rarely does he present a cooperative attitude.

Ok, so the A park has been closed for some time for renovations. To me, I see a 
waste of money. Yes, I bet it will be nice and prettier - but it's still a city 
park and some efforts are wasteful in my opinion (reseeding grass in the bowl). 
But at the same time, if that money wasn't spent (wasted?) on Clark Park, it 
would have been elsewhere. Ok, so the dog park didn't happen (I'm a big 
supporter of the idea). But I also see the negative sides to it. University 
City's gentrification (I don't know what else to call it) over the last 15 
years has had plenty of positive as well as negative effects. Having a private 
party in the park is just as much a right for Penn as it is for any group to 
hold an event. Does Penn have an idea of what they want to see in Clark Park, 
the neighborhood, and the City? Of course they do - they have a vested interest 
in all of that. Are they not supposed to voice their opinions? Is UCD not 
mostly driven by Penn (and Drexel, and other University City power brokers)? Of 
course it is.

I have been critical of FOCP - and have disagreed with plenty of decisions. I 
have disagreed with some policies of the UCD. That's why I've become more 
involved.
And while the issue of police enforcement (harassment of people sleeping in the 
park, public drinking, etc) is a complicated one which I don't think is handled 
properly, I also understand that in fact, that is the law, whether or not I 
agree with it.

My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is his denial to be 
on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since I've rarely seen 
evidence of Glenn being compromising. While Tony and I have had disagreements 
regarding policies, he has actually encouraged me to become more involved. So, 
I'm faced with on one hand Glenn telling me how evil and bad FOCP is, and on 
the other being asked to participate, despite disagreeing with policies and 
plans of both UCD and FOCP. Now Glenn will surely say I am being assimilated 
and will shortly become a puppet of the evil FOCP.

Darco

PS- I wholeheartedly agree with Glenn regarding the "big picture" of our 
society and actually appreciate his emails most of the time. But occasionally 
they just annoy me enough that I need to respond.


From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On 
Behalf Of Richard Conrad
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:43 AM
To: Anthony West
Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11

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."

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

[Glenn]

Rick,

I tend to be optimistic.  For over a decade, I worked with serious drug 
addicts and ex-prisoners.  Only those of us with abundant optimism 
manage to do that work successfully-haha.



Darco seems reasonable and I hope he considers our criticism 
constructively.  I think it's out of character, and that is part of the 
reason I snapped back at him.


 I just dismiss tweets like Bill's and don't know anything about him 
other than being a block captain.  But I've noticed disturbing patterns 
with some other block captains in our area.  The current FOCP prez and 
former Spruce Hill Civic Association prez became my block commander as 
soon as he moved to West Philly!  That experience has been terrible!


But I would certainly accept a sincere apology from Bill, without prejudice.


Unfortunately, I've been dealing with Tony since 2003 and his behavior 
has always been consistent.  I'm not sure how long you've been 
subscribed to this list, but he has a long history here, and as the 
leader of the FOCP Board.  I haven't been the only target over the 
years.  Straw man is one of Tony West's favorite tactics.  And he will 
not stop, even when he should realize that he is making a fool of 
himself.  What I call his "Evil Ray" series is infamous!


I think he thought he was successful when he had a gang of people, who 
joined him in a type of group straw man tactic on the list.  Tony would 
create the straw man, and then the group would post a series of nasty 
posts at the target, as if they were all too stupid to understand the 
meaning of the original post.


 After their gangs' tactics were thoroughly exposed on this list, they 
left and formed a separate list sponsored by the Annenberg school at 
Penn. I believe you know this ucneighbors.  They used the threat of 
censorship to intimidate the other subscribers, who came from this 
listserv.  They were even caught bragging about their power to silence 
about 5 of us, who told the truth about neighborhood issues.  (A real 
estate agent named, Melani, thought it "would be heaven" if I were 
silenced with the power of Penn's computers-haha.)


After some of us made fun of them, they closed off the archives to the 
public-haha.  It was a violation of a couple of Penn's written policies. 
  (I informed the office of the President of the University that I 
intended to expose this as widely as I could manage, and I believe they 
were eventually kicked off the Penn system.)  It still bothers me that 
Penn allowed bold censorship against its neighboring community for such 
a long time!  (I spent years giving 100% for the reputation of Penn when 
I worked for the addiction treatment research center.)



But Tony has continued to use these discredited techniques here, without 
the ucneighbors back-up.  I've often deconstructed his posts to remind 
people about fallacious arguments and how they are used to bully.   He 
actually provides the list with great texts for study.


Take care,
Glenn




On 4/29/2011 9:42 AM, Richard Conrad wrote:

Dear Glenn,

I appreciate your gratitude and quite concur with your astute 
identification of "straw man" bullying.  I hope you are mistaken about 
Tony's message being all about power and still hope that he will come 
to his senses and apologize for his unfair behaviors in attacking you, 
and then me, but I won't predict the future.  The same goes for Darco 
and Bill.  If we intend to continue community growth and stave off 
fascistic corporate medievalism we had all better seriously watch our 
hands in dealing with those amongst our own ranks and neighborhoods.


Rick

On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Glenn wrote:


Ric,

I want to publicly thank you for confronting the use of a straw man.  
One of the reasons that this technique is so ubiquitous is to 
intimidate and silence everyone else.


Tony knows that he will never silence or intimidate me.  He is trying 
to send a message to the rest of the list and community when he 
attempts these techniques.  His message is all about power.


Anyone who dares to question the abuse of power is to watch how he 
attempts to crush his target.


Confronting these techniques empowers others in this community to 
stand up and speak out!  In the end, bully's are exposed.


Thanks,
Glenn
PS:  The other FOCP board members have left Tony unleashed to use 
these tactics against this community for years.  WHAT DOES THEIR 
SILENCE SAY ABOUT THE FOCP BOARD




On 4/29/2011 12:43 AM, Richard Conrad wrote:

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' 

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

[Richard Conrad]

Dear Glenn, 

I appreciate your gratitude and quite concur with your astute identification of 
"straw man" bullying.  I hope you are mistaken about Tony's message being all 
about power and still hope that he will come to his senses and apologize for 
his unfair behaviors in attacking you, and then me, but I won't predict the 
future.  The same goes for Darco and Bill.  If we intend to continue community 
growth and stave off fascistic corporate medievalism we had all better 
seriously watch our hands in dealing with those amongst our own ranks and 
neighborhoods.

Rick
 
On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Glenn wrote:

> Ric,
> 
> I want to publicly thank you for confronting the use of a straw man.  One of 
> the reasons that this technique is so ubiquitous is to intimidate and silence 
> everyone else.
> 
> Tony knows that he will never silence or intimidate me.  He is trying to send 
> a message to the rest of the list and community when he attempts these 
> techniques.  His message is all about power.  
> 
> Anyone who dares to question the abuse of power is to watch how he attempts 
> to crush his target.  
> 
> Confronting these techniques empowers others in this community to stand up 
> and speak out!  In the end, bully's are exposed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Glenn
> PS:  The other FOCP board members have left Tony unleashed to use these 
> tactics against this community for years.  WHAT DOES THEIR SILENCE SAY ABOUT 
> THE FOCP BOARD
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/29/2011 12:43 AM, Richard Conrad wrote:
>> 
>> 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 

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

[Glenn]

Ric,

I want to publicly thank you for confronting the use of a straw man.  
One of the reasons that this technique is so ubiquitous is to intimidate 
and silence everyone else.


Tony knows that he will never silence or intimidate me.  He is trying to 
send a message to the rest of the list and community when he attempts 
these techniques.  His message is all about power.


Anyone who dares to question the abuse of power is to watch how he 
attempts to crush his target.


Confronting these techniques empowers others in this community to stand 
up and speak out!  In the end, bully's are exposed.


Thanks,
Glenn
PS:  The other FOCP board members have left Tony unleashed to use these 
tactics against this community for years.  WHAT DOES THEIR SILENCE SAY 
ABOUT THE FOCP BOARD




On 4/29/2011 12:43 AM, Richard Conrad wrote:

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.






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3603 - Release Date: 04/28/11 
14:34:00

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   
> 

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 
&

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 

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 pa

[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