Brian Siano wrote:
That's a point to consider when we start debating the dog run. Bring it
up at a meeting.
thanks for the offer to come to the table, tho it doesn't
really address the broader question I've been asking, about
how the table's set in the first place (ie, some people may
want
Brian Siano wrote:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Brian, everyone should be members of the FOCP.
should everyone be members of focp for life?
when should everyone be members? for how long? how often?
for example, should everyone be members when they have a pet
project they'd like to promote? with the
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
You guys, this logic makes no sense to me. Sorry Ray, but I want to
break this down:
Let's say I am a person who really believes that there should be a
gigantic public bathhouse in Clark Park for all to use. Let's say that
I'm really passionate about it, and I believe
I myself am in favor of a dog run in Clark park. For those of you who think
it will not work take a look at NYC's Washington Sq. That park is probably
around the same size as Clark park and it has a section of the park that is
devoted to a dog run. The dog run is free to everyone and it
When you refer to NYC, do you mean Manhattan? (There is also, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx that make up NYC.)
Also, that is not true, because many homes, Brownstones, etc. DO have backyards, even in the "Village"!
ybe people need to learn to compromise a bit :)
-Paul
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: univcity@list.purple.com
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:54
PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: [UC-Announce] Clark
Park Dog Run Update
When
L a s e r B e a m ® wrote:
Brian Siano wrote:
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
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of L a s e r B e a m
(r)
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:16 PM
To: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] Re: [UC-Announce] Clark Park Dog Run Update
Stephen Fisher wrote:
http://www.phillydog.org
http://www.phillydog.org/proposal.pdf
http
, January 25, 2005 10:25 AM
To: L a s e r B e a m R; univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: RE: [UC] Re: [UC-Announce] Clark Park Dog Run Update
I believe the point is to create a _public_ dog run. We already have a
non-public dog run a bit farther west. I don't understand Ray's logic
below because child
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
I believe the point is to create a _public_ dog run. We already have a
non-public dog run a bit farther west. I don't understand Ray's logic
below because child owners do not pay to use the tot lot, and no one
pays to use the park in general.
ok, my logic in asking what
L a s e r B e a m ® wrote:
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
I believe the point is to create a _public_ dog run. We already have a
non-public dog run a bit farther west. I don't understand Ray's logic
below because child owners do not pay to use the tot lot, and no one
pays to use the park in general.
In a message dated 1/25/2005 2:02:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
is that Clark Park belongs to the Department of Recreation. They make the
final decision. And last I checked, one doesn't have to "join" the
Department of Recreation to lobby them
-Announce] Clark Park Dog Run Update
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
I believe the point is to create a _public_ dog run. We already have
a non-public dog run a bit farther west. I don't understand Ray's
logic below because child owners do not pay to use the tot lot, and no
one pays to use
Brian Siano wrote:
Ray is confused. He seems to think that the decision of the membership
of the FOCP would be the be-all and end-all of the matter.
well no, I'm not confused. I'm not saying focp is the be-all
and end-all of the matter. I'm asking about something
broader than that, about the
To follow up on Brian's post, this is also partly why I created the dog
run petition. I think the FoCP process is important. Community members
who are not associated with FoCP are also important.
http://www.phillydog.org/petition.pdf
Happy snowy day,
Stephen
L a s e r B e a m ® wrote:
Dubin,
Stephen Fisher wrote:
To follow up on Brian's post, this is also partly why I created the dog
run petition. I think the FoCP process is important. Community members
who are not associated with FoCP are also important.
http://www.phillydog.org/petition.pdf
Happy snowy day,
Stephen
hi, I
Ha ha. That was pretty funny. Please give me an example of ANYONE who works both sides of an issue.
In a message dated 1/25/05 5:51:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... it seems to me that if you were really REALLY interested
in process, and in community members, you would be
circulating two
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
In a message dated 1/25/2005 6:01:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ha ha. That was pretty funny. Please give me an example of
ANYONE who works both sides of an issue.In a message dated 1/25/05
5:51:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... it seems to me that if you
I agree with Brian, everyone should be members of the FOCP.
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
Stephen Fisher wrote:
http://www.phillydog.org
http://www.phillydog.org/proposal.pdf
http://www.phillydog.org/figure.pdf
In creating a plan for the dog
run, we really tried to address as many concerns as possible. As this
process continues, we would like to continue trying to accommodate
You want to change that figure out with the no-date, no-discussion one?
I didn't realize you were going to post it right away.
ELISABETH DUBIN
Hillier ARCHITECTURE
One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
215 636-9989 | hillier.com
-Original Message-
23 matches
Mail list logo
