Folks,
Remember the old American Express
motto:
"Membership has its
privileges."
You need to draw a distinct line between the separate and
possibly exclusive rights of membership in the FoCP and just being a UC citizen.
As far as I or any lay person off the street can tell, those dues are like an
annual donation, because on the surface there really isn't any inherent
political or economic authority or power vested in FoCP. The city gov't. and the
Dept of Recreation can stop every effort that's been proposed. Of course, we
also know they're probably not going to stop any positive development FoCP comes
up with, because it means FoCP provides money and manpower that the city doesn't
want to invest in Clark Park to help build community.
All people in the community need a say and thats why FoCP
has been able to put on the events and activities that
they've sponsored in the past. With the dog walk proposal, we're entering
into the area of non-profit finacing of public works. That means the FoCP
creates a budget; as they've already begun doing, allocates who will perform the
physical labor of the dog walk, applies for funds from City Hall (hee hee hee
hee...) and develops new and different ways of performing fundraising for the
park. If the worry that I see in your messages is over who pays, who leads and
who benefits, then I think that FoCP has not yet grown some much needed
teeth.
I'm not a bona fide member of FoCP, but I'll defend
it's purpose for main reason: Without FoCP the city takes over and that not only
means nothing will get done, but the park would more than likely retograde. It's
easy to attack FoCP because you disagree with them on how to take care of the
park or how much "say" it's board feels it has. They spend all of there
time helping to both listen to the community and organize activities for the
betterment of the park. Unfortunately, what comes back to them are complaints,
ingratitude and ill-informed negativity. for once I would like to find a member
of this community that gives them one ounce of respect or consideration for
having the unpleasant job of the being the middleman between the Philadelphia
Dept. of Recreation and the citizenry of University City and the neighbors of
Clark Park. They're given neither the necessary resources to make quick change,
nor are they given one small bit of authority from the city to move on plans for
the park, yet somehow they make small changes occur. Frankly, I'm suprised
they've accomplished anything at all with the whining, busy-body, complainers on
this list and in the hood bringing them down every two seconds for the pettiest
of reasons. They have announced meeting and a website for the public to view for
general info and input. They use this very listserve to hold discussions and
share information. They are accessible and continue to find more ways of
discovering what they people in the community want. It would be nice if the
community gave as many solutions as they do complaints.
I encourage the board members to answer the complaints with
as many solutions as you can find. I know it's a challenge to perfom fundraising
activities and that volunteers are a little too scarce. I feel that you do have
a right to make final decisions on Clark Park's development. If not you, then
who? Surely not the naysayers. With friends like that Clark Park surely
doesn't need enemies. In this case it's just impossible to please or appeal
to all people all of the time, so stick to your guns and stop taking the abuse.
There will always be something to disagree with, just encourage people to
compromise a little and let them know that you have a broad vision for the park
that will be as universally acceptable as is humanly
possible.
My two
cents,
Mario :-)
-----Original Message-----I agree with Brian, everyone should be members of the FOCP.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:53 PM
Cc: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: [UC-Announce] Clark Park Dog Run Update
In a message dated 1/25/05 6:45:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
L a s e r B e a m ® wrote:
> hi, I think the process between community members and their elected
> representatives is a real important process, too.
>
> and it seems to me that if you were really REALLY interested in
> process, and in community members, you would becirculating two
> petitions, one for a dog run, and one against.
What bothered me about the petition was that it put the onus on the FOCP
to build a dog park-- no real debate, no consideration of the cost, or
anything. It was "FOCP, build the dog park." That's not a process.
Let's address Ray's comments about "process." I'm wondering why he sees
membership in the FOCP to be such an impediment to community discussion.
One could use his own logic above, and say that if one was "really
interested" in the park, then one would be joining the FOCP. After all,
the FOCP does a lot in the park.
But I just can't take Ray's complaints about paying to participate very
seriously. According to the FOCP website, a year's membership costs _ten
dollars_. There's some discussion about raising that, which makes sense,
but _ten dollars_? That's not exactly a Harvard tuition. And it gets you
the newsletter. it gets you a chance to get onto a committee, it gets
you a chance to run for the board.
