Re: [UC] The case for city zoning reforms
krf...@aol.com wrote: I'm not a fan of the community engagement process on which Harris Sokoloff is building his reputation, but craigso...@aol.com wrote: I'm not happy with the way they engaged in selective engagement. It was deficient at best, fraudulent at worst. the 'community engagement' process: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg24571.html .. 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] The case for city zoning reforms
On 12/13/2010 3:48 PM, craigso...@aol.com wrote: The rewriting of our zoning regs may in fact be little more than the Developers' Zoning Streamlining and Nutter Real Estate Tax Enhancement Act. The only thing worse than careless Republican Rule is Greedy Democratic Rule. Craig, This is one of those times that you actually make sense! Of course, it will be streamlining for developers. Notice how Sokoloff avoids any discussion in the text about real public notification and a transparent process? Importantly, he adds in this new Penn design committee (the so called experts) into the middle of the process. (Non-governmental experts don't need to consider the public right to participate and know) Without knowing the details to figure out, how; it's easy to see that Praxis is trying to put community involvement into the hands of one of these civic association leaders in a way they can control. (Remember when we learned that UCD required 3 nominations from which to choose a community representative) And remember, creations like Friends of 40th might be this relevant community group used to represent the community at closed meetings. This stuff about both sides submitting minutes is a complete smokescreen. It's a rather absurd use of the term, minutes. Who gets these minutes? The design committee will throw those in the trash if they are not useful. And those familiar with the Planning Commission know that it creates a fictional meeting by using fake minutes. So think about it, Friends of 40th or SHCA zoning committee submits minutes to a bipartisan, expert, Penn committee whose recommendations will be rubber stamped by the planning commission. That's community involvement for you! The only thing that involves the public is a thorough process for community notification and open meetings at all points. Do you see how this fake stuff avoids any mention of real community notification and open meetings? (And, as outlined above, neighborhood input would be an important part of the review. Notice how Sokoloff switches from describing a process for the relevant community group to this vague neighborhood input.) People that do this propaganda, think they are so clever. I watched Sokoloff and Nutter's Peoples Budget. This is fake democracy. They start with false dichotomies. The data they collect is flawed from the beginning and depends on tricked participants. Research collected by tricking participants into a debate about false choices would be rejected by real experts! Someone in the group, like me, always points out that the experts had created false alternatives, as the only alternatives. Sokoloff's handlers use their power as facilitators to refuse to include the real questions that need to be decided by participants. (the experts had identified all possibilities in advance and were always short on time) In the people's budget, ending the tax abatement for billionaires, taxing corporate cronies, ending the war on drugs inside the city, and stopping the caging of poor people were not included. They built the whole charade around a choice to raise regressive taxes or cut libraries and fire houses. So Nutter went ahead and did some of each. This fake democratic process and use of astroturf groups is really a way to close people out completely. This is exactly how Penn designed the Clark Park Partnership and continued to bill this as community involvement. Their pretended community involvement allows them to make secret meetings acceptable and require group affiliation to the invitation only meetings facilitated by a Penn group like UCD. Craig, I hope my analysis is helpful. Your list buddy
Re: [UC] The case for city zoning reforms
The workshops will not be open to the public and are by invitation only Thanks Ray, The link included the original UC Review story which I forgot when I responded to Craig. Sokoloff did not include this very very important information about the workshop sample in his latest piece. Legitimate researchers must always report these serious limitations to their sampling. (He uses the word gathered to hide the sample) Citizens were not invited to this workshop to recommend how their voices should be included. It's hilarious!!! He really thinks the people of Philadelphia are stupid. Here is the Review: http://ucreview.com/penns-project-for-civic-engagement-hosts-workshops-closed-to-the-public-p1870-1.htm On 12/14/2010 11:26 AM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: krf...@aol.com wrote: I'm not a fan of the community engagement process on which Harris Sokoloff is building his reputation, but craigso...@aol.com wrote: I'm not happy with the way they engaged in selective engagement. It was deficient at best, fraudulent at worst. the 'community engagement' process: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg24571.html .. 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3315 - Release Date: 12/14/10 02:34:00
Re: [UC] The case for city zoning reforms
that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good -- it may have yielded rather positive results in this very thorny area. I'm not happy with the way they engaged in selective engagement. It was deficient at best, fraudulent at worst. For example the greater body of SW Philly had to travel to West or S Philly for meetings. Of course SW is where there is significant vacant developable land and multi-billion dollar revenue generators driving airport related expansion and discussion of a new zoning class airport related. Where is the effected community's input? There is much to be concerned about; I will try to cite references later from the East Falls community planning group. Some real problems regard lowering or eliminating mandatory parking. Example, Community Living Arrangements (CLAs) set in traditional single family dwellings are invading many areas of the city but there may no longer be minimum parking requirements for the multiple staff cars and their vans that may be parked on the streets. Bed and breakfasts with an occupancy of eight or less may no longer be subject to neighbor approval. This may be an easy entree for boarding houses to slip into many neighborhoods, and there are more. The rewriting of our zoning regs may in fact be little more than the Developers' Zoning Streamlining and Nutter Real Estate Tax Enhancement Act. The only thing worse than careless Republican Rule is Greedy Democratic Rule. And, less than perfect may mean we are stuck with not good enough for decades to come. So, what's the rush to not get it right? Craig -Original Message- From: krf...@aol.com To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Cc: edi...@pressreview.net; harr...@gse.upenn.edu Sent: Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:49 am Subject: [UC] The case for city zoning reforms I'm not a fan of the community engagement process on which Harris Sokoloff is building his reputation, but -- keeping in mind the comment at the end of the following article (in the Inquirer) that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good -- it may have yielded rather positive results in this very thorny area. Al Krigman The case for city zoning reforms By Kiki Bolender and Harris Sokoloff How should residents be involved in zoning decisions in their neighborhoods? As naysayers? Or as valued advisers to developers and architects? The proposed new Philadelphia zoning code answers that question by honoring the expertise of neighborhood leaders, and it should be supported by citizens who value that expertise. At the beginning of this year, neighborhood leaders, developers, architects, and lawyers gathered for a series of workshops on the new code called Common Ground for Building Our City: Developers, the Public and the Zoning Code. The project was led by the Philadelphia chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Penn Project for Civic Engagement, and WHYY. The conversations were not easy. Participants struggled to get past stereotypes: Architects and developers were seen as arrogant and paying only lip service to community input; neighborhood groups were accused of engaging in backroom deals and borderline extortion. And some architects, developers, and community groups have engaged in those behaviors under the existing zoning code. But the workshop participants overcame those stereotypes and found common ground. They agreed on ways to ensure that new buildings are good for the city, neighborhoods, and developers. We sent a report to the Zoning Code Commission in February, and the essence of those agreed-upon principles is in the new code, which is expected to be presented to City Council soon. The new code would take several steps to incorporate neighborhood expertise into the zoning process: Notification of coming projects would be more thorough. Significant projects would require Planning Commission approval. Applicants would be required to meet with the community, and both sides will submit minutes for the record. A Civic Design Review Committee would advise the Planning Commission on significant projects. It would include someone with neighborhood zoning experience and a rotating seat for a member of the relevant neighborhood group. Under the new code and map, zones would more closely match actual uses. This would correct cases such as that of Northern Liberties, which is largely zoned industrial even though it has become one of the city's hottest residential areas. The new code would define buildings that significantly affect the public because of size, location, or use. Those buildings would be reviewed even if they don't require a zoning variance. And, as outlined above, neighborhood input would be an important part of the
