RE: [UC] UCD is innocent
As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it did not occur. Darco, Thanks for speaking your views. It is not easy when everyone knows that any questioner/dissenter will be called paranoid leftists, liars, etc. This type of intimidation works against many neighbors, so the voices of reason are precious. I agree with your statement, but wish to add further clarification and emphasis. The patterns of abuse from entities like UCD, Department of Streets, FOCP, L I,(back room deals, misinformation, hidden agendas, refusal of accountability, etc.) show that the process itself is what must be rejected! Trustworthy entities asking for power over public policy understand the sacrosanct processes and principles acceptable in even remotely democratic or reputable systems. I worked in health care research for years. If I had ever refused to show data, processes, or answer questions like these entities, I would have been laughed at and completely rejected. The demand to trust these disreputable entities, until each hidden agenda is conclusively proven while their pawns hurl insults and misinformation, is also laughable. It is very important that more people understand that these dishonorable and unaccountable entities must ALWAYS be rejected until they show a real commitment to acceptable processes and accountability forever more! These entities always say, trust us; we are good and we are fighting for freedom and democracy and cleaner safer streets. Then they call people names and demand proof of their dishonest back room deals, at the same time as we watch buildings rise on Baltimore Ave or discover that Clark park has been privatized. (People should go back and look at how often Mr West calls people paranoid, while he is defending back room deals.) I published an article 7 or 8 years ago telling our neighbors that Penn was trying to privatize Clark Park and that UCD had community domination, rather than a cleaner safer agenda. I wish more of our neighbors had considered processes and credibility back then instead of voyeuristically watching me defend myself against UCD pawns like Mr. West. When you weigh the benefit of UCD street cleaning, also consider disempowerment of the community residents and loss of democracy for future generations when you do the calculations. Thanks again, Glenn PS: You and Karen are correct about the Vet school building. The marketing to the community was all billed as improving traffic flow. I saw announcements of a new Vet school building, only in communications designed for the Penn community, and the location was never clear. No where did they say they were taking over a public street! -Original Message- From: Lalevic, Darco lale...@wharton.upenn.edu Sent: May 18, 2010 11:23 PM To: Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net, UnivCity listserv univcity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] UCD is innocent Of course not, I was merely pointing out that there is ample evidence and historical events that lend credence to the theory of back room deals, and that powerful organizations and people usually work in their own self interest. In the case of University City/West Philly, those people and organizations often do things that individuals may find to be detrimental. Certainly UCD has done many positive things, even if some of us disagree with some of their decisions. So assuming that LI sweeps were prompted by an organization such as UCD (or someone associated) is not far fetched, and is just as likely to have occurred as not. As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it did not occur. Darco From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Anthony West [anthony_w...@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:15 PM To: UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent Darco, do you envision a world in which no individuals at high levels can ever let their preferences be known in private conversations? Powerful people talk to other powerful people all the time, in every society humanity has devised. It is not presumptively evil or unfair for them to do so; even if it were, it is as impossible to remove this element from society as it is to remove oxygen from the atmosphere. Picture yourself in the role of a City agency. Do you have a mission to listen to input from the various communities you serve, about their specific needs? Would you look like a jackass if you didn't? Would the same purists who hammer you for listening to a reputable agency from a particular community, NOT hammer you just as hard for refusing to listen, if it came to you with a concern? You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Equal
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Glenn moyer wrote: As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it did not occur. back in 2003, ucd used l+i to get rid of undesirable established businesses. now that it's 2010 and ucd has the 'right' new businesses on baltimore avenue [many re-façaded in ucd colors -- or is it campus apartments?], ucd is warning businesses of an l+i sweep and helping them to prepare for it. whether it's 2003 or 2010, ucd knows how to apply l+i to baltimore ave, is in close communication with l+i, and knows in advance of unsuspecting businesses what l+i plans to do. 1 oct 2003: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg04748.html letter to uc review from chris white: I talked to Eli Masser [ucd's corridor manager for baltimore ave] when I saw him at the Neighbor to Neighbor Street Festival, the Saturday of Labor Day Weekend. I confronted him about the rumors that he had been calling LI. He admitted to calling LI and pushing for a general crackdown on businesses on Baltimore Avenue. I don't expect you to agree with me about this, said Masser, but new businesses can't compete with neighboring businesses that are totally illegal. We debated for about half an hour. During this time, he made many slanderous remarks about Baltimore Avenue businesses saying that they do not pay their taxes or care about the community. I asked him why he thought new businesses would compete with established ones, especially when they are offering different products and services. I defended merchants he spoke against as businesses I depend on for my needs. And I challenged him to find out from business owners what would really help them improve their businesses besides urging them to go into debt for facade changes. 12 may 2010: http://tinyurl.com/325envq the uc review reports: Joe McNulty, the Commercial Corridors Manager for the University City District joined them [Editor Robert Christian and Staff Reporter Nicole Contosta] to announce an LI sweep of Baltimore Ave from 40th through 52nd Street starting the week of June 14th. An inspector will visit every business to make sure that it has the proper licenses and zoning, said McNulty. As the conversation unfolded, McNulty explained that some of the most pressing concerns facing those businesses along Baltimore Ave include making sure owners have an up to date privilege license and other applicable licenses such as for liquor. Also, is not currently legal for a business to provide outdoor seating unless it is in the bounds of that property, added McNulty. In an effort to help business owners along Baltimore Ave prepare for the upcoming inspection, McNulty has asked an inspector to come to the next Baltimore Ave Business Association Meeting on June 1st. Note: The UCD is in no way involved with the LI Sweep, it would simply like to help businesses prepare for it so the Avenue can maintain its vitality. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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] UCD is innocent
Yet, a constant stream of bashing against UCD, Penn, FOCP, or any other entity yields nothing except a population numb to it and therefore indifferent. Rejecting the process itself is a wonderful idea, but it disenfranchises the population. The process is part of our political system - that is unlikely to change on any level, but where citizens can have the most influence is on the city level. Back room deals are unfortunately a systematic issue in any politics, and in Philadelphia (IMO) borders at time on illegal corruption. Additionally, how do you expect Penn, Campus Apartments, or any entity to behave? Just like most individuals, they have their own best interests to look out for. It is a constant negotiation that any large entity has with the public around it. Individuals may have a wide range of response. Clearly there are many people who are willing to accept the negatives for the positives. I certainly disagree with many things Penn does, yet I also respect the many things it does right. What makes Penn need to be held accountable to neighborhood response? It doesn't need to, it can go back to the 70s when it shut itself off from the neighborhood. Instead, Penn finally recognized that it needed to embrace the neighborhood, that the University and the neighborhood are intertwined, for good or bad. Is Penn only expected to give out of charity to the neighborhood? Do we, as beneficiaries of having Penn as a neighbor, have an obligation to concede some to Penn? I would argue that we do - not all big corporations are evil (Comcast and Verizon may be the exceptions, along with most large financial corporations, but that's another topic). Right or wrong, UCD is a creation of Penn. Most of it's board are either representatives of one of the Universities or Real Estate Developer/Agents. So of course most of it's agenda will benefit those groups. Privatization of public resources is rampant throughout the country. It's the new politically in thing to do - reduce public costs by privatization. Rejecting the organizations will do little to change things. Voting and public pressure on local, city, and state representatives is the only recourse. Darco -Original Message- From: Glenn moyer [mailto:glen...@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:24 AM To: Lalevic, Darco; Anthony West; UnivCity listserv Subject: RE: [UC] UCD is innocent As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it did not occur. Darco, Thanks for speaking your views. It is not easy when everyone knows that any questioner/dissenter will be called paranoid leftists, liars, etc. This type of intimidation works against many neighbors, so the voices of reason are precious. I agree with your statement, but wish to add further clarification and emphasis. The patterns of abuse from entities like UCD, Department of Streets, FOCP, L I,(back room deals, misinformation, hidden agendas, refusal of accountability, etc.) show that the process itself is what must be rejected! Trustworthy entities asking for power over public policy understand the sacrosanct processes and principles acceptable in even remotely democratic or reputable systems. I worked in health care research for years. If I had ever refused to show data, processes, or answer questions like these entities, I would have been laughed at and completely rejected. The demand to trust these disreputable entities, until each hidden agenda is conclusively proven while their pawns hurl insults and misinformation, is also laughable. It is very important that more people understand that these dishonorable and unaccountable entities must ALWAYS be rejected until they show a real commitment to acceptable processes and accountability forever more! These entities always say, trust us; we are good and we are fighting for freedom and democracy and cleaner safer streets. Then they call people names and demand proof of their dishonest back room deals, at the same time as we watch buildings rise on Baltimore Ave or discover that Clark park has been privatized. (People should go back and look at how often Mr West calls people paranoid, while he is defending back room deals.) I published an article 7 or 8 years ago telling our neighbors that Penn was trying to privatize Clark Park and that UCD had community domination, rather than a cleaner safer agenda. I wish more of our neighbors had considered processes and credibility back then instead of voyeuristically watching me defend myself against UCD pawns like Mr. West. When you weigh the benefit of UCD street cleaning, also consider disempowerment of the community residents and loss of democracy for future generations when you do the calculations. Thanks again, Glenn PS: You and Karen are correct about the Vet school building. The marketing
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
In this case, we have evidence that it did not occur. Andy Frishkoff, who is in a position to know, has posted a definitive answer. He said LI was just doing its job, and he was proud of the job it has done on this project. We also have evidence posted by me that ticket sweeps in general have dramatically increased in the city, in such numbers that no one organization like UCD, covering just 3% of the city, could possibly account for all this increase. Hence, Occam's razor holds. Given incomplete information, the simplest working explanation is the best. In this case: tickets are up in University City because tickets are up in Philadelphia, and University City (perhaps to the amazement of some) is part of Philadelphia. Further evidence may always turn up that Andy's statement is incorrect or inadequate. But it's not Andy's job to turn up further evidence that he's correct. The burden of proof now falls on accusers. If they don't have any proof, then they have nothing further of value to say in this instance. They are free to continue to be suspicious; but they cannot assert that their very suspicions are proof that their suspicions are well-founded. Appealing to other cases in previous years is no form of proof at all. The fact the Teapot Dome Scandal of 1922 was improper, does not constitute evidence that the Whitewater Scandal of 1993 was improper. Cheers, -- Tony West E.g.: So assuming that LI sweeps were prompted by an organization such as UCD (or someone associated) is not far fetched, and is just as likely to have occurred as not. As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it did not occur. Darco 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] UCD is innocent
Translation: a Business Improvement District (BID), whose sole raison d'être is to help neighborhood businesses in a given area, has liaisoned with LI to help execute an LI initiative in such a way that it hurts neighborhood businesses in its area as little as possible. In order to do so, UCD must know how to communicate LI's plans for Baltimore Ave. to Baltimore Ave. It must remain in close communication with LI. And it must know in advance of unsuspecting businesses what LI plans to do, in order to communicate those plans to those businesses, so that they will no longer be unsuspecting. All of which, UC-list readers are asked to believe, has harmed our neighborhood in some ineffable manner Deceptive paranoid bumf rises like a zombie from the grave of UC-list's archives. -- Tony West On 5/19/2010 10:13 AM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: back in 2003, ucd used l+i to get rid of undesirable established businesses. now that it's 2010 and ucd has the 'right' new businesses on baltimore avenue [many re-façaded in ucd colors -- or is it campus apartments?], ucd is warning businesses of an l+i sweep and helping them to prepare for it. whether it's 2003 or 2010, ucd knows how to apply l+i to baltimore ave, is in close communication with l+i, and knows in advance of unsuspecting businesses what l+i plans to do. 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] UCD is innocent
Hi Andy,Sorry for the delay. I dont have much computer time in Spain.The inappropriate use of L I departments is going on around the country. It is usually to circumvent the need for warrants, as was demonstrated in Phila. against some kids protesting police brutality.You probably dont remember that several years ago UCD bragged about using L I in the Phila. Business Journal. When other publications broke the news, it was reported that businesses on Baltimore Ave that did not accept UCD demands for upscale facades were getting harrassed with extraordinary violations. Then, UCD denied any involvement assuming that no one would discover the differing stories.We also know that UCD feeds addresses to the streets department for bogus trash tickets. (Ive gotten 19 over the years.) When confronted, Carlton Williams and UCD lie about a worst offenders list and claim their working relationship is just to make us cleaner and safer. I publicly reported my encounter with Dexter while surrounded by massive trash violations at 41st and Pine. There is no worst offenders list at UCD, only an enemies list. (Note: The UCD street staff does not know anything about a worst offenders list, like most city employees dont know about all the back room deals with Penn.)The community court continues to feed indentured servants to UCD after police sweeps in Clark Park. This was restarted immediately after UCD was caught violating federal law. (They dishonestly pinned the blame on John Fenton.)UCD does not have a bit of credibility and simply lies when it is caught doing backroom deals with city departments.The City: The city hired Penn Praxis to dishonestly defend Penns budget for the city last year. Taxpayers are currently paying Penn Praxis for a plan to privatize our parks city wide. They call these underutilized spaces. (Did you also notice that a 12% property tax has been attempted city wide. UCD and CCD wanted this done several years ago in our neighborhood and called it a BID. However, under the doctrine of crisis capitalism, the depression provided the opportunity for taking the BID city wide.) I could site many more examples.I have no doubt that the vast majority of city employees do not know about these back room deals. But, we have patterns of abuse that can not be swept under the rug. Back room deals can not be proven immediately, but the patterns are obvious afterward. We know that Penn power brokers/ plutocrats have no credibility. We know that city departments cooperate with them and then lie about the inappropriate conduct. I believe you are sincere, and I also believe that LI is a tool of plutocracy operating in bad faith.Gotta go,Glenn -Original Message- From: Andy Frishkoff <afrishk...@hotmail.com> Sent: May 17, 2010 11:58 PM To: anthony_w...@earthlink.net, univcity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] UCD is innocent Tony writes: "A well-organized educational advance tour suggests someone has been talking to LI about the needs of burgeoning, but inexperienced, neighborhood businesses. Who might that be?"Actually, that would be my colleagues and me in the Commerce Department working with LI to make code enforcementa more business-friendly process. We have encouraged more advance notice to businesses and outreach to community groups so that they can help the businesses understand what they need to do to comply with issues like signage codes. This is particularly important for business owners who speak English as a second language. I believe that the Welcoming Center has been providing support to many such business owners in West and Southwest Philadelphia, including some on Baltimore Avenue. Andy Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .
RE: [UC] UCD is innocent
Unfortunately Tony, whether true or not, most people assume that people and organizations which wield political power (Penn, UCD, local politicians, etc) are regularly influencing these organizations. And, of course there won't be any evidence, nor is Andy necessarily lying (I would assume he is not). It would be doubtful that UCD, Penn, or any organization would openly pressure, but rather individuals at high levels would let their preferences be known in private conversations. Can Andy absolutely state that no member of the UCD board ever influenced LI, in any way? I know for a fact that is not true as I've heard that directly from a board member. Is it coincidence that any number of actions by LI, the PPD, Streets Dept or any other entity focuses efforts at a particular time and place? Maybe, but there have been plenty of incidents in the past to assume otherwise (for example the Streets departments redesign of the 38th/Baltimore/University Avenue intersection was at the time promoted by the City as an effort to improve traffic. It shortly became clear that it was in fact to build the new Vet building). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and hearsay to assume that any LI efforts are being influenced by local power brokers - and therefore we can assume that it is the case as it is more likely than not. And that's not even with factual evidence such as Glenn points out with the Business Journal article or the use of UCD workers for political causes. Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly LI has plenty of positives, as does the UCD. And I would argue that more often than not, the overall effect is positive. However, how many other neighborhoods in the city get tickets for high grass, trash outside when it isn't supposed to be, etc? It is illegal to selectively apply enforcement. And in this neighborhood it is clearly being done. Darco From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Anthony West Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:06 PM To: UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent Wilma, Andy Frishkoff, who speaks from a position of authority, has already explained why LI is coming. He says it has nothing to do with UCD. I am taking him at his word. You are not. You are calling him a liar. What proof do you offer for your claim that Andy is lying, and that UCD is secretly behind increased LI inspections all across Philadelphia? If you have no evidence, you should quit making such claims. They don't amount to anything. In the meantime, I want you to prove LI did NOT come because of you! Face the challenge of proving a negative. If you can't cope with this challenge .. and it's completely unreasonable that anybody could ... then don't expect UCD or me to do better than you. -- Tony West On 5/17/2010 9:37 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: This is not a debate. I want YOU to prove that LI did NOT come, after all these many years, because of the UCD. No back and forth please. Since I did not make the assertion that it was business as usual, I have NO burden of proof whatsoever! I MEAN it!
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Darco, do you envision a world in which no individuals at high levels can ever let their preferences be known in private conversations? Powerful people talk to other powerful people all the time, in every society humanity has devised. It is not presumptively evil or unfair for them to do so; even if it were, it is as impossible to remove this element from society as it is to remove oxygen from the atmosphere. Picture yourself in the role of a City agency. Do you have a mission to listen to input from the various communities you serve, about their specific needs? Would you look like a jackass if you didn't? Would the same purists who hammer you for listening to a reputable agency from a particular community, NOT hammer you just as hard for refusing to listen, if it came to you with a concern? You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Equal enforcement sounds fine in theory. But every public agency also tries to fine-tune its responses with selective-enforcement strategies, when it identifies hot spots or unique local issues. Take a number and wait is a good model for delivery of many public services, but it cannot be the sole rule. Statistical evidence (cf. that 4/28 Daily News article) is that all sorts of tickets are being handed out in all sorts of neighborhoods at an accelerated rate. There may be neighborhood biases in such a surge (+40,000 citywide). But no one has produced any evidence of this. And it is mathematically impossible for University City to account for it all -- much less UCD. I don't believe UCD never called LI about anything. The question at hand is whether the City came up with its own strategy for restaurant code enforcement with or without any input or contact from local people or groups; more importantly, it is whether the policy that results is good. Andy's explanation of this policy sounds good to me. Does it sound bad to anybody else? If so, what's wrong with it? Bear in mind that code enforcers of all sorts are often mandated to respond to anonymous over-the-transom complaints. People who work in the restaurant and tavern trade have long assumed that if LI or the State Police come down on them, they were dimed on by a competitor. In the long run, this paranoid explanation is more persuasive than the paranoid explanation that these agencies act on behalf of local power brokers ... more often than not. I can always be persuaded that either explanation was right in any given case; but I always need evidence. Unsubstantiated blood-pumping rhetoric about powerful conspiracies doesn't do it for me. -- Tony West On 5/18/2010 5:23 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: Unfortunately Tony, whether true or not, most people assume that people and organizations which wield political power (Penn, UCD, local politicians, etc) are regularly influencing these organizations. And, of course there won't be any evidence, nor is Andy necessarily lying (I would assume he is not). It would be doubtful that UCD, Penn, or any organization would openly pressure, but rather individuals at high levels would let their preferences be known in private conversations. Can Andy absolutely state that no member of the UCD board ever influenced LI, in any way? I know for a fact that is not true as I've heard that directly from a board member. Is it coincidence that any number of actions by LI, the PPD, Streets Dept or any other entity focuses efforts at a particular time and place? Maybe, but there have been plenty of incidents in the past to assume otherwise (for example the Streets departments redesign of the 38^th /Baltimore/University Avenue intersection was at the time promoted by the City as an effort to improve traffic. It shortly became clear that it was in fact to build the new Vet building). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and hearsay to assume that any LI efforts are being influenced by local power brokers -- and therefore we can assume that it is the case as it is more likely than not. And that's not even with factual evidence such as Glenn points out with the Business Journal article or the use of UCD workers for political causes. Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly LI has plenty of positives, as does the UCD. And I would argue that more often than not, the overall effect is positive. However, how many other neighborhoods in the city get tickets for high grass, trash outside when it isn't supposed to be, etc? It is illegal to selectively apply enforcement. And in this neighborhood it is clearly being done. Darco
RE: [UC] UCD is innocent
RE: (for example the Streets departments redesign of the 38th/Baltimore/University Avenue intersection was at the time promoted by the City as an effort to improve traffic. It shortly became clear that it was in fact to build the new Vet building). That's absolutely true: Penn sent a representative to a Cedar Park Neighbors board meeting in 2005 or '06 (somewhere in there) and the woman told us that Penn was going to trade the island where a gas station had been (closer to the VA hospital, where Baltimore and Woodland branched) to the City in exchange for closing the roadbed of Baltimore Avenue where it intersected 38th St, directly alongside the Vet School. She said they were doing it to reconfigure the intersection to improve traffic flow. Nothing was ever said about wanting the roadway of Baltimore Avenue to build a building; I only learned that well after the fact, and not from anyone connected with Penn. From: lale...@wharton.upenn.edu To: univcity@list.purple.com Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:23:57 -0400 Subject: RE: [UC] UCD is innocent Unfortunately Tony, whether true or not, most people assume that people and organizations which wield political power (Penn, UCD, local politicians, etc) are regularly influencing these organizations. And, of course there won’t be any evidence, nor is Andy necessarily lying (I would assume he is not). It would be doubtful that UCD, Penn, or any organization would openly pressure, but rather individuals at high levels would let their preferences be known in private conversations. Can Andy absolutely state that no member of the UCD board ever influenced LI, in any way? I know for a fact that is not true as I’ve heard that directly from a board member. Is it coincidence that any number of actions by LI, the PPD, Streets Dept or any other entity focuses efforts at a particular time and place? Maybe, but there have been plenty of incidents in the past to assume otherwise (for example the Streets departments redesign of the 38th/Baltimore/University Avenue intersection was at the time promoted by the City as an effort to improve traffic. It shortly became clear that it was in fact to build the new Vet building). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and hearsay to assume that any LI efforts are being influenced by local power brokers – and therefore we can assume that it is the case as it is more likely than not. And that’s not even with factual evidence such as Glenn points out with the Business Journal article or the use of UCD workers for political causes. Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly LI has plenty of positives, as does the UCD. And I would argue that more often than not, the overall effect is positive. However, how many other neighborhoods in the city get tickets for high grass, trash outside when it isn’t supposed to be, etc? It is illegal to selectively apply enforcement. And in this neighborhood it is clearly being done. Darco From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Anthony West Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:06 PM To: UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent Wilma, Andy Frishkoff, who speaks from a position of authority, has already explained why LI is coming. He says it has nothing to do with UCD. I am taking him at his word. You are not. You are calling him a liar. What proof do you offer for your claim that Andy is lying, and that UCD is secretly behind increased LI inspections all across Philadelphia? If you have no evidence, you should quit making such claims. They don't amount to anything. In the meantime, I want you to prove LI did NOT come because of you! Face the challenge of proving a negative. If you can't cope with this challenge .. and it's completely unreasonable that anybody could ... then don't expect UCD or me to do better than you. -- Tony West On 5/17/2010 9:37 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: This is not a debate. I want YOU to prove that LI did NOT come, after all these many years, because of the UCD. No back and forth please. Since I did not make the assertion that it was business as usual, I have NO burden of proof whatsoever! I MEAN it!
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Karen Allen kallena...@msn.com wrote: That's absolutely true: Penn sent a representative to a Cedar Park Neighbors board meeting in 2005 or '06 (somewhere in there) and the woman told us that Penn was going to trade the island where a gas station had been (closer to the VA hospital, where Baltimore and Woodland branched) to the City in exchange for closing the roadbed of Baltimore Avenue where it intersected 38th St, directly alongside the Vet School. She said they were doing it to reconfigure the intersection to improve traffic flow. Nothing was ever said about wanting the roadway of Baltimore Avenue to build a building; I only learned that well after the fact, and not from anyone connected with Penn. Strictly speaking, the roadbed doesn't have a building on it. It's a pedestrian sidewalk between the old and new Vet buildings. But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow is hard to believe. What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a _secret_?
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Utterly believable. -- Tony West On 5/18/2010 7:53 PM, Karen Allen wrote: **That's absolutely true: Penn sent a representative to a Cedar Park Neighbors board meeting in 2005 or '06 (somewhere in there) and the woman told us that Penn was going to trade the island where a gas station had been (closer to the VA hospital, where Baltimore and Woodland branched) to the City in exchange for closing the roadbed of Baltimore Avenue where it intersected 38th St, directly alongside the Vet School. She said they were doing it to reconfigure the intersection to improve traffic flow. Nothing was ever said about wanting the roadway of Baltimore Avenue to build a building; I only learned that well after the fact, and not from anyone connected with Penn.
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Also a sound account. But the most important discussion of neighborhood development, of course, is always whether the development is good for the neighborhood or not. Correct? I gassed up and repaired my vehicle at that garage many a time. But it posed a pollution problem due to an elderly leaking tank, I heard. It takes big bucks to fix a brownfield problem like this. Fortunately, Penn has big bucks. So an elderly gas station was replaced with a shining new vet-school facility. The vet school has always been an asset to UC; now it's even more of an asset. Where's the problem, neighbors and neighborettes? Why are we now whining about a neighborhood improvement that has no apparent downside? I suppose Penn could have led with its Dark Side. It could have said: We plan to build a Big Building that will Forever Change the Essential Character of the ordinary West Philadelphia neighbors who live a peaceful life at 39th Baltimore, entirely unaffected by the large university that just happens to be next door, that they all hate, because all good progressives hate universities, just like the GOP does. But it didn't. Instead, it simply got the building built, bypassing our neighborhood's pseudo-radical nonsense by any means necessary. How else could it accomplish anything? Dialog is, by definition, a two-way street. If UC leftists wish to be accepted as equal, rational partners in community planning for this off-campus neighborhood, they need to quit foaming at the mouth every time a university tries to solve a festering real-estate sore for us, as it did at the 38th Woodland gas station and again at the 40th Pine nursing home. -- Tony West On 5/18/2010 8:21 PM, Brian Siano wrote: But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow is hard to believe. What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a _secret_?
[UCNeighbors] Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Actually the downside is that they created one of the worst intersections in the city. Frank On May 18, 2010, at 08:53 PM, Anthony West wrote: Also a sound account. But the most important discussion of neighborhood development, of course, is always whether the development is good for the neighborhood or not. Correct? I gassed up and repaired my vehicle at that garage many a time. But it posed a pollution problem due to an elderly leaking tank, I heard. It takes big bucks to fix a brownfield problem like this. Fortunately, Penn has big bucks. So an elderly gas station was replaced with a shining new vet-school facility. The vet school has always been an asset to UC; now it's even more of an asset. Where's the problem, neighbors and neighborettes? Why are we now whining about a neighborhood improvement that has no apparent downside? I suppose Penn could have led with its Dark Side. It could have said: We plan to build a Big Building that will Forever Change the Essential Character of the ordinary West Philadelphia neighbors who live a peaceful life at 39th Baltimore, entirely unaffected by the large university that just happens to be next door, that they all hate, because all good progressives hate universities, just like the GOP does. But it didn't. Instead, it simply got the building built, bypassing our neighborhood's pseudo-radical nonsense by any means necessary. How else could it accomplish anything? Dialog is, by definition, a two-way street. If UC leftists wish to be accepted as equal, rational partners in community planning for this off-campus neighborhood, they need to quit foaming at the mouth every time a university tries to solve a festering real-estate sore for us, as it did at the 38th Woodland gas station and again at the 40th Pine nursing home. -- Tony West On 5/18/2010 8:21 PM, Brian Siano wrote: But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow is hard to believe. What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a _secret_? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the UCNeighbors group. To post to this group, send email to u...@ucneighbors.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ucneighbors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ucneighbors?hl=en 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] UCD is innocent
Actually the downside is that they created one of the worst intersections in the city. Frank PS. Sorry. I'm a little scattered tonight. On May 18, 2010, at 08:53 PM, Anthony West wrote: Also a sound account. But the most important discussion of neighborhood development, of course, is always whether the development is good for the neighborhood or not. Correct? I gassed up and repaired my vehicle at that garage many a time. But it posed a pollution problem due to an elderly leaking tank, I heard. It takes big bucks to fix a brownfield problem like this. Fortunately, Penn has big bucks. So an elderly gas station was replaced with a shining new vet-school facility. The vet school has always been an asset to UC; now it's even more of an asset. Where's the problem, neighbors and neighborettes? Why are we now whining about a neighborhood improvement that has no apparent downside? I suppose Penn could have led with its Dark Side. It could have said: We plan to build a Big Building that will Forever Change the Essential Character of the ordinary West Philadelphia neighbors who live a peaceful life at 39th Baltimore, entirely unaffected by the large university that just happens to be next door, that they all hate, because all good progressives hate universities, just like the GOP does. But it didn't. Instead, it simply got the building built, bypassing our neighborhood's pseudo-radical nonsense by any means necessary. How else could it accomplish anything? Dialog is, by definition, a two-way street. If UC leftists wish to be accepted as equal, rational partners in community planning for this off-campus neighborhood, they need to quit foaming at the mouth every time a university tries to solve a festering real-estate sore for us, as it did at the 38th Woodland gas station and again at the 40th Pine nursing home. -- Tony West On 5/18/2010 8:21 PM, Brian Siano wrote: But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow is hard to believe. What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a _secret_? 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] UCD is innocent
I can speak from my own experience, that when construction of that intersection began, I assumed it was for a Penn project, however I could find no reference to a Penn project, the Streets department outright denied it, and there was no mention whatsoever of the project in any major Penn publication that I could find. Only months into it was it reported that Penn planned to build a building there. And hey, I think it was a great decision - even if I hate that intersection even more now and feel it's worse that it was before. And yes Tony, you point out it is a two way street, and a big part of Penn's planning often seems to revolve around avoiding a neighborhood uprising. It's always a balance, and some people accept the trade-offs as worth it, and others do not. Darco From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Anthony West [anthony_w...@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:53 PM To: UnivCity Listserv Subject: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent Also a sound account. But the most important discussion of neighborhood development, of course, is always whether the development is good for the neighborhood or not. Correct? I gassed up and repaired my vehicle at that garage many a time. But it posed a pollution problem due to an elderly leaking tank, I heard. It takes big bucks to fix a brownfield problem like this. Fortunately, Penn has big bucks. So an elderly gas station was replaced with a shining new vet-school facility. The vet school has always been an asset to UC; now it's even more of an asset. Where's the problem, neighbors and neighborettes? Why are we now whining about a neighborhood improvement that has no apparent downside? I suppose Penn could have led with its Dark Side. It could have said: We plan to build a Big Building that will Forever Change the Essential Character of the ordinary West Philadelphia neighbors who live a peaceful life at 39th Baltimore, entirely unaffected by the large university that just happens to be next door, that they all hate, because all good progressives hate universities, just like the GOP does. But it didn't. Instead, it simply got the building built, bypassing our neighborhood's pseudo-radical nonsense by any means necessary. How else could it accomplish anything? Dialog is, by definition, a two-way street. If UC leftists wish to be accepted as equal, rational partners in community planning for this off-campus neighborhood, they need to quit foaming at the mouth every time a university tries to solve a festering real-estate sore for us, as it did at the 38th Woodland gas station and again at the 40th Pine nursing home. -- Tony West On 5/18/2010 8:21 PM, Brian Siano wrote: But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow is hard to believe. What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a _secret_? 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] UCD is innocent
I don't care whether you believe me or not; the presentation I attended did not make any mention of a building. Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 20:21:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent From: briansi...@gmail.com CC: univcity@list.purple.com On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Karen Allen kallena...@msn.com wrote: That's absolutely true: Penn sent a representative to a Cedar Park Neighbors board meeting in 2005 or '06 (somewhere in there) and the woman told us that Penn was going to trade the island where a gas station had been (closer to the VA hospital, where Baltimore and Woodland branched) to the City in exchange for closing the roadbed of Baltimore Avenue where it intersected 38th St, directly alongside the Vet School. She said they were doing it to reconfigure the intersection to improve traffic flow. Nothing was ever said about wanting the roadway of Baltimore Avenue to build a building; I only learned that well after the fact, and not from anyone connected with Penn. Strictly speaking, the roadbed doesn't have a building on it. It's a pedestrian sidewalk between the old and new Vet buildings. But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow is hard to believe. What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a _secret_?
RE: [UC] UCD is innocent
LI is still acting as an independent entity Makes me laugh so hard... LI (like most public entities in this city) is extremely responsive to political pressure - and in this city has a history of being used as a weapon. Whether or not UCD applies that pressure or any other entity is not out of the question. UCD is just an easy villain because it represents the politically powerful groups in West Philly/University City. From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Andy Frishkoff Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:57 AM To: glen...@earthlink.net; univcity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] UCD is innocent Glenn, as soon as I saw the article I knew that you and many others would conclude that UCD must be involved. After all, UCD determines City policy for all aspects of life in University City, right? Well, in this case at least, UCD is not involved. LI established a schedule for these sweeps months in advance based on their own staff determinations. Unlike some previous sweeps, LI agreed to give businesses heads up that they were coming, as well as information about about some of the things they would be looking for so that businesses would have a chance to address problems ahead of time. LI has been conducting sweeps across the city and in each case they have been trying to get the word out with help from business associations, community development corporations and other similar organizations. Unless UCD's reach now extends to North 5th Street and other corridors throughout the city, LI is still acting as an independent entity free from UCD's infernal grasp. Andy Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 11:18:08 +0200 From: glen...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] UCD is innocent http://www.ucreview.com/default.asp?sourceid=smenu=1twindow=mad=sdetail=2107wpage=skeyword=sidate=ccat=ccatm=restate=restatus=reoption=retype=repmin=repmax=rebed=rebath=subname=pform=sc=2320hn=ucreviewhe=.com From UC Review: Note: The UCD is in no way involved with the LI Sweep, it would simply like to help businesses prepare for it so the Avenue can maintain its vitality. Neighbors, They really think everyone is an idiot. L and I was one of the first tools used to make the neighborhood cleaner and safer. Businesses that did not accept the UCD help with facade improvements seemed to get extra L and I violations. This was reported as soon as UCD moved off the Penn campus. Poor misunderstood UCD just wants to help. If the businesses that bad people patronize are closed, bad people, who make less than 250,000 dollars, will probably move out of the upscale paradise. 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. The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. Get busy.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccountocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
RE: [UC] UCD is innocent
Tony writes: A well-organized educational advance tour suggests someone has been talking to LI about the needs of burgeoning, but inexperienced, neighborhood businesses. Who might that be? Actually, that would be my colleagues and me in the Commerce Department working with LI to make code enforcement a more business-friendly process. We have encouraged more advance notice to businesses and outreach to community groups so that they can help the businesses understand what they need to do to comply with issues like signage codes. This is particularly important for business owners who speak English as a second language. I believe that the Welcoming Center has been providing support to many such business owners in West and Southwest Philadelphia, including some on Baltimore Avenue. Andy _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Are you implying, Andy, that City of Philadelphia employees are independent, at some level, from Penn's Masters of the Universe? Are you stating that you guys occasionally think an original thought on our own, without an email from Dr. Amy Gutmann? That you actually attempt to administer the City you live in and work for in a useful manner, without kowtowing to tyrants every minute of the day? I don't know. Your claims sound suspicious to me. Where is the conspiracy here? I'm an ordinary citizen, confronted by complex public problems I haven't studied. I need a quick, angry answer. I need my paranoid fix. -- Tony West Actually, that would be my colleagues and me in the Commerce Department working with LI to make code enforcement a more business-friendly process. We have encouraged more advance notice to businesses and outreach to community groups so that they can help the businesses understand what they need to do to comply with issues like signage codes. This is particularly important for business owners who speak English as a second language. I believe that the Welcoming Center has been providing support to many such business owners in West and Southwest Philadelphia, including some on Baltimore Avenue. Andy
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
³Makes me laugh so hard LI (like most public entities in this city) is extremely responsive to political pressure and in this city has a history of being used as a weapon.² True this; but LI has had a history in this city of being used as a political weapon, as have other City services, but against WHOM? Both of you should cite instances of this City¹s LI¹s history as to how they have been used traditionally as a weapon by the City with all political pressure and against what sort of businesses, neighborhoods, locations, etc. Don¹t you DARE to ask me to prove anything because YOU have made this assertion. I want to see YOUR proof that LI is just doing its job and this initiative would not augment the agenda of the UCD, etc. nor be right up the alley of the ³politically connected² as LI has usually served. I am not laughing. On 5/17/10 5:36 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote:
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Actually, Wilma, it is not I who have made an assertion UCD *did not do* something bad; it it you (it now appears) who are making an assertion UCD *did do* something bad. The burden of proof does fall on you, as the accuser. Show us your evidence, please. If you have no evidence, you should make no accusations. The mere fact UCD /could have asked /LI to do something, is no evidence it /did ask /LI to do something. After all:/ you too, Wilma, could have asked /LI to crack down on restaurants along Baltimore Ave./ Can/ /you prove /you didn't? Should we demand you prove you didn't? -- Tony West On 5/17/2010 8:39 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Don't you DARE to ask me to prove anything because YOU have made this assertion. I want to see YOUR proof that LI is just doing its job and this initiative would not augment the agenda of the UCD, etc. nor be right up the alley of the politically connected as LI has usually served.
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
For the record I NEVER said the UCD did anything bad. I have asked LI to crack down on MANY things over the years only to be ignored; including a house that was collapsing next door to my late mother¹s house for over five years, which caved in at 2 AM when she was 85 and living alone. This is not a debate. I want YOU to prove that LI did NOT come, after all these many years, because of the UCD. No back and forth please. Since I did not make the assertion that it was business as usual, I have NO burden of proof whatsoever! I MEAN it! On 5/17/10 9:08 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Actually, Wilma, it is not I who have made an assertion UCD did not do something bad; it it you (it now appears) who are making an assertion UCD did do something bad. The burden of proof does fall on you, as the accuser. Show us your evidence, please. If you have no evidence, you should make no accusations. The mere fact UCD could have asked LI to do something, is no evidence it did ask LI to do something. After all: you too, Wilma, could have asked LI to crack down on restaurants along Baltimore Ave. Can you prove you didn't? Should we demand you prove you didn't? -- Tony West On 5/17/2010 8:39 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent Don¹t you DARE to ask me to prove anything because YOU have made this assertion. I want to see YOUR proof that LI is just doing its job and this initiative would not augment the agenda of the UCD, etc. nor be right up the alley of the ³politically connected² as LI has usually served.
Re: [UC] UCD is innocent
Wilma, Andy Frishkoff, who speaks from a position of authority, has already explained why LI is coming. He says it has nothing to do with UCD. I am taking him at his word. You are not. You are calling him a liar. What proof do you offer for your claim that Andy is lying, and that UCD is secretly behind increased LI inspections all across Philadelphia? If you have no evidence, you should quit making such claims. They don't amount to anything. In the meantime, I want you to prove LI did NOT come because of you! Face the challenge of proving a negative. If you can't cope with this challenge .. and it's completely unreasonable that anybody could ... then don't expect UCD or me to do better than you. -- Tony West On 5/17/2010 9:37 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: This is not a debate. I want YOU to prove that LI did NOT come, after all these many years, because of the UCD. No back and forth please. Since I did not make the assertion that it was business as usual, I have NO burden of proof whatsoever! I MEAN it!
[UC] UCD is innocent
http://www.ucreview.com/default.asp?sourceid=smenu=1twindow=mad=sdetail=2107wpage=skeyword=sidate=ccat=ccatm=restate=restatus=reoption=retype=repmin=repmax=rebed=rebath=subname=pform=sc=2320hn=ucreviewhe=.com From UC Review: Note: The UCD is in no way involved with the LI Sweep, it would simply like to help businesses prepare for it so the Avenue can maintain its vitality. Neighbors, They really think everyone is an idiot. L and I was one of the first tools used to make the neighborhood cleaner and safer. Businesses that did not accept the UCD help with facade improvements seemed to get extra L and I violations. This was reported as soon as UCD moved off the Penn campus. Poor misunderstood UCD just wants to help. If the businesses that bad people patronize are closed, bad people, who make less than 250,000 dollars, will probably move out of the upscale paradise. 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] UCD is innocent
Glenn, as soon as I saw the article I knew that you and many others would conclude that UCD must be involved. After all, UCD determines City policy for all aspects of life in University City, right? Well, in this case at least, UCD is not involved. LI established a schedule for these sweeps months in advance based on their own staff determinations. Unlike some previous sweeps, LI agreed to give businesses heads up that they were coming, as well as information about about some of the things they would be looking for so that businesses would have a chance to address problems ahead of time. LI has been conducting sweeps across the city and in each case they have been trying to get the word out with help from business associations, community development corporations and other similar organizations. Unless UCD's reach now extends to North 5th Street and other corridors throughout the city, LI is still acting as an independent entity free from UCD's infernal grasp. Andy Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 11:18:08 +0200 From: glen...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] UCD is innocent http://www.ucreview.com/default.asp?sourceid=smenu=1twindow=mad=sdetail=2107wpage=skeyword=sidate=ccat=ccatm=restate=restatus=reoption=retype=repmin=repmax=rebed=rebath=subname=pform=sc=2320hn=ucreviewhe=.com From UC Review: Note: The UCD is in no way involved with the LI Sweep, it would simply like to help businesses prepare for it so the Avenue can maintain its vitality. Neighbors, They really think everyone is an idiot. L and I was one of the first tools used to make the neighborhood cleaner and safer. Businesses that did not accept the UCD help with facade improvements seemed to get extra L and I violations. This was reported as soon as UCD moved off the Penn campus. Poor misunderstood UCD just wants to help. If the businesses that bad people patronize are closed, bad people, who make less than 250,000 dollars, will probably move out of the upscale paradise. 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. _ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccountocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
