Anthony West wrote:
Co-option did not occur in this case, since UCD introduced no agenda for
the park that FoCP did not wholeheartedly support in the first place.
hahaha thanks for clarifying that the co-option in this case
was conscious, rather than unwitting.
but we already knew that.
What are you talking about, Ray? In my article I quoted John Fenton's
employer's statement, which hardly smears Fenton but does state the
employer's version of the issue. I also summarized Councilwoman
Blackwell's account, which differed from UCD's. Finally, I asked Fenton
in person to
Anthony West wrote:
What are you talking about, Ray? In my article I quoted John Fenton's
employer's statement, which hardly smears Fenton but does state the
employer's version of the issue. I also summarized Councilwoman
Blackwell's account, which differed from UCD's. Finally, I asked Fenton
Co-option is a loaded term, and falsely applied in this case. It
implies an agenda alien to the recipient, that the grantor then
piggybacks atop its aid.
Co-option did not occur in this case, since UCD introduced no agenda for
the park that FoCP did not wholeheartedly support in the first
Anthony West wrote:
What an odd, and dishonest, way of putting it. More thoroughly and more
accurately:
Here we are, five years later. Thanks to the Clark Park Partnership's
Renewal Plan, since 2001 we have been able to get a new tot lot and a
new older kid's playground installed side by
What an odd, and dishonest, way of putting it. More thoroughly and more
accurately:
Here we are, five years later. Thanks to the Clark Park Partnership's
Renewal Plan, since 2001 we have been able to get a new tot lot and a
new older kid's playground installed side by side. Next to to them,
Glenn wrote:
Thanks for confirming that the FOCP members were told in 2001 that there
would be opportunities for further participation before the UCD plan
would be implemented. That is in fact very important.
I'm actually much more accepting of what final outcomes would be
approved for Clark
Of Anthony West
Sent: July 12, 2007 10:46 PM
To: University City List
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works
In January 2002, I was more clueless than Ray about the Clark Park
renewal plan. The young reporter who got the facts mixed up certainly
knew more than I did at that time! I knew
: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works
While I will not say that the vote by the membership to rescind the FOCP
Board's endorsement of the plan was so close that we needed a recount, it
was a lot closer than a 2-1 loss. It was a close vote. But it was a fair
vote and it did not carry
Glenn wrote:
You may remember that the proponents of the UCD plan claimed that it
was too late to do a plan honestly including the participation of FOCP
members or park stakeholders. They lied by insisting the plan was dead
with no action scheduled. They also insisted that before any
' UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works
Glenn wrote:
You may remember that the proponents of the UCD plan claimed that it was
too late to do a plan honestly including the participation of FOCP
members or park
3 to 2, perhaps. Ah, those were the days, Matt!
-- Tony West
J. Matthew Wolfe wrote:
While I will not say that the vote by the membership to rescind the FOCP
Board's endorsement of the plan was so close that we needed a recount, it
was a lot closer than a 2-1 loss. It was a close vote. But
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:38 AM
To: J. Matthew Wolfe; 'Anthony West'; 'University City List'
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works
Thanks Matt,
It's refreshing to see an honest account and I
]
4256 Regent Square
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 387-7300
-Original Message-
From: Glenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:38 AM
To: J. Matthew Wolfe; 'Anthony West'; 'University City List'
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works
Thanks Matt,
It's
J. Matthew Wolfe wrote:
Generally, I think that this has moved as was stated. For example, the
master plan refused to state that the merger of the playground and the tot
lot would not decrease the amount of open green space. When the two spaces
were merged, they probably did take up more
'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'University City List'
UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works
First, I really do not see much reason to get involved in this discussion
as
it has unfortunately become so ridiculous that I do
Anthony West wrote:
No, Ray, it's the opposite of your point. When putting together a large
team of partners, none of which by itself is adequate to the task at
hand, one always seeks as much money from as many partners as possible.
No rational agent will exclude any responsible donor for any
In January 2002, I was more clueless than Ray about the Clark Park
renewal plan. The young reporter who got the facts mixed up certainly
knew more than I did at that time! I knew it was happening; I went to
one meeting; that was it.
I know vastly more than Ray did about events as they
No, Ray, it's the opposite of your point. When putting together a large
team of partners, none of which by itself is adequate to the task at
hand, one always seeks as much money from as many partners as possible.
No rational agent will exclude any responsible donor for any reason.
UCD's agenda
19 matches
Mail list logo
