Re: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration

[Anthony West]

There has been a lot of hooraw on this list of late about Clark Park, 
which began with a recent post of misinformation on this listserve from 
a well-known source of nutty falsehoods. The latest round began with his 
"report" on chemical treatments involved in the rehabilitation of the 
North Park or "A" Park, between Baltimore and Chester Avenues.


Questions about such subjects are completely justified, always. That's 
one of the things Friends of Clark Park looks into, whenever it gets 
community feedback on concerns that matter to this community. We want 
this job done -- but we want it done right.


People who want the*real facts *on this process -- the restoration of 
our belovèd, but heavily damaged, North Park -- can swing by FoCP's 
table at the Spruce Hill May Fair this Saturday. The weather bids to be 
fair and you'll have a great time! So come to the park and meet your 
neighbors. They'll tell you everything you need to know.


--Tony West

Re: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration

[Glenn]

On 5/4/2011 11:24 PM, Anthony West wrote:
There has been a lot of hooraw on this list of late about Clark Park, 
which began with a recent post of misinformation on this listserve 
from a well-known source of nutty falsehoods. The latest round began 
with his "report" on chemical treatments involved in the 
rehabilitation of the North Park or "A" Park, between Baltimore and 
Chester Avenues.


Questions about such subjects are completely justified, always. That's 
one of the things Friends of Clark Park looks into, whenever it gets 
community feedback on concerns that matter to this community. We want 
this job done -- but we want it done right.


People who want the*real facts *on this process -- the restoration of 
our belovèd, but heavily damaged, North Park -- can swing by FoCP's 
table at the Spruce Hill May Fair this Saturday. The weather bids to 
be fair and you'll have a great time! So come to the park and meet 
your neighbors. They'll tell you everything you need to know.


--Tony West


Of course, Mr West didn't just give any facts on this public list.

The years of FOCP officers' ad hominem laced refusals to PUBLICLY answer 
ANY questions, fully confirms the years of reports about the DELIBERATE 
exclusion and secrecy behind the Clark Park privatization.  The 
fallacious attacks that we've seen recently are not new.


  What must be communicated to newcomers in the area was that the 
complete redesign of Clark Park was overwhelmingly rejected 7-8 years 
ago and PUBLIC MEETINGS were the reason it was stopped!  (The importance 
of public meetings to both neighborhoods and democracy is fundamental, 
as careful study of the Clark Park history demonstrates.)




Over the past 8 years, the FOCP leadership has insisted that the public 
must check the FOCP web site, give all feedback to an FOCP 
table(West/Siano), and give a $20 fee, as the only participation or 
information neighbors are permitted in important community decisions.   
To insist on such a ridiculous position should make people angry!  It's 
condescending to all of you expected to swallow it!  (Neighbors were 
also supposed to have private "coffee meetings" if they had concerns 
about the 11 story hotel, or about secret deals with SHCA and UCHS leaders.)



Newcomers may believe something about the attempts to portray them, and 
everyone else, as unobservant disinterested cranks, waiting to cause 
trouble until the FOCP insiders did their hard work .  Don't!


It has long been a civic association trick to mask secret processes by 
blaming the victims!  People are told that any comments are far too 
late, when the grabs for power are disclosed (e.g. the phone line to 
nowhere).  The deceivers claim that civic association leaders had a 
"democratic process" among themselves, and neighbors were too stupid and 
disinterested because they missed it.



Neighbors are supposed to blame themselves quietly and slink away in awe 
of the power of civic association leaders.


Your "input and suggestions" are never going to be considered by any 
civic association that uses this big lie against you.  Neither can you 
watch the misinformation delivered to your neighbors, nor the dissent 
coming from them as they are privately insulted!




Part of the reason I publicly reported about the secret meetings for so 
many years, while I was always personally attacked, was so that 
neighbors could see how important EXCLUSION was to the mission of FOCP, 
acting to protect the corporate, Penn led, privatization!


No you weren't unconcerned and stupid, you were excluded from an 
illegitimate process!  Neighbors need to ask each other, are we going to 
continue to be silenced by the big lie of the FOCP/UCD bullies???  Do 
you understand that everyone has lost citizen rights regarding public 
spaces, and that much more has happened in Clark Park than comments 
about a little maintenance


Glenn
PS:  I'll be in Boston during the May Fair.  Don't deal with those 
bullies unless you bring your friends and neighbors!  Don't take their 
bullshit anymore!  Power to the people!









No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3616 - Release Date: 05/04/11 
14:34:00

Re: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration

[Richard Conrad]

Good responses here Glenn.  Perhaps the reason they did not let my email 
through yet is the inclusion there of this list's subscription info.  Even 
Linda Lee did not (dare?) mention it before when I asked, I had to google it 
and then hunt it down like a detective...  Clark Park now looks like a lot like 
Tony West, about the same, but with a fancy tie and well-pressed suit.  It is 
all so much like the debacle that occurred involving the Swim Club... where 
they said "we need to redesign the club because the City said we need a H/C 
ramp in front".  Then they spend tons of unneeded $ rebuilding, we lost use of 
it (but not the cost of it for more than a year) and they don't even put in the 
H/C ramp which my mother could now really use.   Rick Conrad

On May 5, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Glenn wrote:

> 
> 
> On 5/4/2011 11:24 PM, Anthony West wrote:
>> 
>> There has been a lot of hooraw on this list of late about Clark Park, which 
>> began with a recent post of misinformation on this listserve from a 
>> well-known source of nutty falsehoods. The latest round began with his 
>> "report" on chemical treatments involved in the rehabilitation of the North 
>> Park or "A" Park, between Baltimore and Chester Avenues.
>> 
>> Questions about such subjects are completely justified, always. That's one 
>> of the things Friends of Clark Park looks into, whenever it gets community 
>> feedback on concerns that matter to this community. We want this job done -- 
>> but we want it done right.
>> 
>> People who want the real facts on this process -- the restoration of our 
>> belovèd, but heavily damaged, North Park -- can swing by FoCP's table at the 
>> Spruce Hill May Fair this Saturday. The weather bids to be fair and you'll 
>> have a great time! So come to the park and meet your neighbors. They'll tell 
>> you everything you need to know.
>> 
>> --Tony West
> 
> Of course, Mr West didn't just give any facts on this public list.
> 
> The years of FOCP officers' ad hominem laced refusals to PUBLICLY answer ANY 
> questions, fully confirms the years of reports about the DELIBERATE exclusion 
> and secrecy behind the Clark Park privatization.  The fallacious attacks that 
> we've seen recently are not new.   
> 
>   What must be communicated to newcomers in the area was that the complete 
> redesign of Clark Park was overwhelmingly rejected 7-8 years ago and PUBLIC 
> MEETINGS were the reason it was stopped!  (The importance of public meetings 
> to both neighborhoods and democracy is fundamental, as careful study of the 
> Clark Park history demonstrates.)   
> 
> 
> 
> Over the past 8 years, the FOCP leadership has insisted that the public must 
> check the FOCP web site, give all feedback to an FOCP table(West/Siano), and 
> give a $20 fee, as the only participation or information neighbors are 
> permitted in important community decisions.   To insist on such a ridiculous 
> position should make people angry!  It's condescending to all of you expected 
> to swallow it!  (Neighbors were also supposed to have private "coffee 
> meetings" if they had concerns about the 11 story hotel, or about secret 
> deals with SHCA and UCHS leaders.)
> 
> 
> Newcomers may believe something about the attempts to portray them, and 
> everyone else, as unobservant disinterested cranks, waiting to cause trouble 
> until the FOCP insiders did their hard work .  Don't!
> 
> It has long been a civic association trick to mask secret processes by 
> blaming the victims!  People are told that any comments are far too late, 
> when the grabs for power are disclosed (e.g. the phone line to nowhere).  The 
> deceivers claim that civic association leaders had a "democratic process" 
> among themselves, and neighbors were too stupid and disinterested because 
> they missed it.  
> 
> 
> Neighbors are supposed to blame themselves quietly and slink away in awe of 
> the power of civic association leaders. 
> 
> Your "input and suggestions" are never going to be considered by any civic 
> association that uses this big lie against you.  Neither can you watch the 
> misinformation delivered to your neighbors, nor the dissent coming from them 
> as they are privately insulted!  
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason I publicly reported about the secret meetings for so many 
> years, while I was always personally attacked, was so that neighbors could 
> see how important EXCLUSION was to the mission of FOCP, acting to protect the 
> corporate, Penn led, privatization! 
> 
> No you weren't unconcerned and stupid, you were excluded from an illegitimate 
> process!  Neighbors need to ask each other, are we going to continue to be 
> silenced by the big lie of the FOCP/UCD bullies???  Do you understand that 
> everyone has lost citizen rights regarding public spaces, and that much more 
> has happened in Clark Park than comments about a little maintenance
> 
> Glenn
> PS:  I'll be in Boston during the May Fair.  Don't deal with those bullies 
> unless you bring

Re: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration

[William H. Magill]

On May 5, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Richard Conrad wrote:

> Good responses here Glenn.  Perhaps the reason they did not let my email 
> through yet is the inclusion there of this list's subscription info.  Even 
> Linda Lee did not (dare?) mention it before when I asked, I had to google it 
> and then hunt it down like a detective...  Clark Park now looks like a lot 
> like Tony West, about the same, but with a fancy tie and well-pressed suit.  
> It is all so much like the debacle that occurred involving the Swim Club... 
> where they said "we need to redesign the club because the City said we need a 
> H/C ramp in front".  Then they spend tons of unneeded $ rebuilding, we lost 
> use of it (but not the cost of it for more than a year) and they don't even 
> put in the H/C ramp which my mother could now really use.   Rick Conrad

I must say, this is the first I've heard that the reason for "rebuilding" the 
UC Swim Club was the need for a H/C ramp, which in-fact was included and is 
used regularly by several members.

The "re-design" was because the pool had, quite literally, reached its life 
expectancy and was falling apart. The cost of repairs was projected as 
expensive and would not be guaranteed for more than three  years.

The fiasco of the extended closing was because, like virtually all contractors, 
the contractor selected had several other much more lucrative contracts to 
complete at the same time -- two of which had serious political muscle behind 
them -- and successfully predicted that the UC SwimClub would/could not 
prosecute them for "non-compliance," whereas the other contracts (with 
municipal governments) could have and would have gotten them black-listed. The 
lawsuit was quite ugly. And was still not settled when I dropped membership in 
the Swim Club.

The sad part of this issue is the fact that less than 50% of the Members 
(families) of the Swim Club participated in ANY of the debates or votes on the 
issue. In the several years I was Swim Club Secretary (surrounding the 
renovation)  we NEVER had a 50% turn out for any membership meeting or vote.  
Yes, those who did participate were vocal, and the discussions quite animated, 
but the majority of the members present at the various meetings still approved 
the proposed changes.

T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
mag...@mcgillsociety.org
mag...@me.com
whmag...@gmail.com





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

Re: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration

[Anthony West]

I must say Rick flatters me.

As of today (as anyone can see who looks at me), I look quite a bit 
older than I did 10 years ago, when the community first began pushing to 
revitalize Clark Park.


The park, on the other hand, is looking much younger all of a sudden. 
And that's good! The park needs rebirth much more than I do.


--Tony West



On 5/5/2011 12:08 PM, Richard Conrad wrote:
Clark Park now looks like a lot like Tony West, about the same, but 
with a fancy tie and well-pressed suit.

RE: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration

[Karen Allen]

 
RE:  (Neighbors were also supposed to have private "coffee meetings" if they 
had concerns about the 11 story hotel...)
 
I can attest to this because it was me that this happened to.  When I was 
speaking out against the hotel at 40th and Pine, Tom Lussenhop contacted me off 
list to discuss the hotel "over coffee".  I replied to him onlist that I had 
nothing to say to him that was not said in a  public venue in front of 
witnesses. I also ran into him accidentally in Dock Street pub and he tried the 
same thing...I walked away. 
 
I was not going to be used, fed spin, have my words distorted.
Karen Allen



Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 11:41:20 -0400
From: glen...@earthlink.net
CC: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Facts on the Clark Pk restoration




On 5/4/2011 11:24 PM, Anthony West wrote: 
There has been a lot of hooraw on this list of late about Clark Park, which 
began with a recent post of misinformation on this listserve from a well-known 
source of nutty falsehoods. The latest round began with his "report" on 
chemical treatments involved in the rehabilitation of the North Park or "A" 
Park, between Baltimore and Chester Avenues.

Questions about such subjects are completely justified, always. That's one of 
the things Friends of Clark Park looks into, whenever it gets community 
feedback on concerns that matter to this community. We want this job done -- 
but we want it done right.

People who want the real facts on this process -- the restoration of our 
belovèd, but heavily damaged, North Park -- can swing by FoCP's table at the 
Spruce Hill May Fair this Saturday. The weather bids to be fair and you'll have 
a great time! So come to the park and meet your neighbors. They'll tell you 
everything you need to know.

--Tony West

Of course, Mr West didn't just give any facts on this public list.

The years of FOCP officers' ad hominem laced refusals to PUBLICLY answer ANY 
questions, fully confirms the years of reports about the DELIBERATE exclusion 
and secrecy behind the Clark Park privatization.  The fallacious attacks that 
we've seen recently are not new.   

  What must be communicated to newcomers in the area was that the complete 
redesign of Clark Park was overwhelmingly rejected 7-8 years ago and PUBLIC 
MEETINGS were the reason it was stopped!  (The importance of public meetings to 
both neighborhoods and democracy is fundamental, as careful study of the Clark 
Park history demonstrates.)   



Over the past 8 years, the FOCP leadership has insisted that the public must 
check the FOCP web site, give all feedback to an FOCP table(West/Siano), and 
give a $20 fee, as the only participation or information neighbors are 
permitted in important community decisions.   To insist on such a ridiculous 
position should make people angry!  It's condescending to all of you expected 
to swallow it!  (Neighbors were also supposed to have private "coffee meetings" 
if they had concerns about the 11 story hotel, or about secret deals with SHCA 
and UCHS leaders.)


Newcomers may believe something about the attempts to portray them, and 
everyone else, as unobservant disinterested cranks, waiting to cause trouble 
until the FOCP insiders did their hard work .  Don't!

It has long been a civic association trick to mask secret processes by blaming 
the victims!  People are told that any comments are far too late, when the 
grabs for power are disclosed (e.g. the phone line to nowhere).  The deceivers 
claim that civic association leaders had a "democratic process" among 
themselves, and neighbors were too stupid and disinterested because they missed 
it.  


Neighbors are supposed to blame themselves quietly and slink away in awe of the 
power of civic association leaders. 

Your "input and suggestions" are never going to be considered by any civic 
association that uses this big lie against you.  Neither can you watch the 
misinformation delivered to your neighbors, nor the dissent coming from them as 
they are privately insulted!  



Part of the reason I publicly reported about the secret meetings for so many 
years, while I was always personally attacked, was so that neighbors could see 
how important EXCLUSION was to the mission of FOCP, acting to protect the 
corporate, Penn led, privatization! 

No you weren't unconcerned and stupid, you were excluded from an illegitimate 
process!  Neighbors need to ask each other, are we going to continue to be 
silenced by the big lie of the FOCP/UCD bullies???  Do you understand that 
everyone has lost citizen rights regarding public spaces, and that much more 
has happened in Clark Park than comments about a little maintenance

Glenn
PS:  I'll be in Boston during the May Fair.  Don't deal with those bullies 
unless you bring your friends and neighbors!  Don't take their bullshit 
anymore!  Power to the