In a message dated 6/26/07 11:34:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> as always, we need to be careful in public discourse to
> avoid resorting to ad hominem. the issue here is not about
> personalities or personal likes/dislikes but about public
> organizations and the public roles involved, about the
> public actions that were and were not taken while assuming
> those roles within those organizations, about public
> accountability. and in this case a man was suspended,
> publicly, and a seriouis rift of mistrust between ucd and
> blackwell's office, between ucd and the community, was
> deepened, publicly, under wendell's leadership. none of this
> happened as a result of ucd's director acting in a private
> or personal capacity.
>
Oh, Ray, I think it IS about personalities; it's almost TOTALLY about
personalities. Al Krigman and folks who share his viewpoint have been working
to
discredit the UCD in our eyes and the Councilwoman's eyes for several years
now,
because they don't want to pay $7 per apartment per month or less for a
Business Improvement District. It's that simple, actually. Whenever the UCD
held a meeting to get feedback and information to help refine and finalize the
BID proposal, the antis shouted Lewis down and shouted BID supporters down,
then
complained afterwards that supporters were allowed to speak at all! - though
they took to the podium one after another chanting NO NID!, made grossly
misleading statements, and offered no suggestions or circumstances in which
they'd
be willing to pay anything at all. They booed supporters. They didn't LET
UCD collect helpful feedback at public meetings. Consequently, UCD was not
able to hold the kind of productive, "win-win" meetings that the Councilwoman
and most of the rest of us would have liked to see. How many times do you
open the doors and provide a setting for the same few people to come in and
shout
at you, before you realize that that isn't going to help finalize the details
of a project? To their credit, other individuals who liked the concept but
not all of the details quietly provided helpful suggestions to the UCD, and
those have been worked into the BID proposal as much as possible.
But the antis have found very effective ways to inflame and divide: for
example, Al Krigman repeatedly blames UCD for business failures, though he
knows
none of the ACTUAL reasons - things no one knew in advance, which doomed a
couple of small entrepreneurs to failure, such as unrealistic cash flow
expectations, family disruptions, fluctuating business hours. These are not
the fault
of the UCD! But the reasons for failures don't matter to Al! He and other
antis have found a foolproof way to accuse: always accuse UCD of something
where it's impossible to respond without publicizing the private, personal
details of individuals' relationships and lives. And then, when they don't
respond, accuse them of not responding, too! UCD is the honorable party here,
in
that they did NOT rise to the bait and "tell all" in situations where they
would hurt individuals and businesses. So, the antis continue, relentless.
And Lewis Wendell still has not risen to the bait and given private
information, if he has any, about John Fenton. That is to his credit. It
must be hard
to remain silent when being unjustly accused.
>
> as ucd's director, wendell has had years to strengthen and
> improve the relationship between ucd and blackwell, between
> ucd and the community. and he has had over a month to
> account, publicly, for the suspension of john fenton.
>
Lewis arrived at the UCD barely two years ago, after the Councilwoman
disagreed with both of his predecessors, and now she disagrees with Lewis as
well.
Is this his failure, or are there other forces at work? For example, the
Councilwoman does not appear to agree with Michael Nutter (this isn't an insult
to anyone; you can check their voting records in City Council).....is it
personal, for which someone might assign one or both of them blame? Or
political,
in which case it's a disagreement as old as the hills? If it's political,
how can any director remain true to the mission for which s/he's been hired,
yet
change the Councilwoman's perspective?
>
> so long as wendell remains the head of ucd and bears
> responsibility for fenton's suspension, the rift with
> blackwell, the community's mistrust, the damage to ucd and
> to penn, ucd's ability to move forward will be compromised,
> and it will be impossible for ucd to work credibly with
> other organizations (blackwell's office, penn, neighborhood
> associations).
>
I think it's pretty clear that when this incident was reported in the Daily
News, whether John Fenton was suspended or not, there would have been folks
with ulterior motives who would have attacked the UCD and any director in that
job at this moment. And there would surely have been attacks if "he said/ she
said" details about an employee and a personnel problem had been given to the
press ("give him/her a chance to defend him/herself!"). NO organization
voluntarily publicizes the details of an employee's internal personnel file!
They
would be immediately, and rightfully, sued. The folks accusing the UCD now
know this - but they attack anyway. They attack anything. The antis -
those who don't want to pay for a BID, those who don't like our neighborhood to
be
clean and safe in case that raises prices, those who fear change, and think
that opposing it can stop it - will NEVER like the UCD. This isn't Lewis
Wendell's shortcoming, or John Fenton's, or Jannie Blackwell's. The small
incident gave the antis and the frugal the opportunity to join with the
disgruntled
to GET REVENGE on UCD for having been effective and successful. And for
having asked some of them to join the large group of institutions, firms,
businesses, landlords and individuals who already support the UCD's work.
UCD has certainly made mistakes in the past. And I believe that they HAVE
learned from them. If they had not, I certainly wouldn't be supporting them;
I have opposed some of their efforts under previous directors (although not
the directors as individuals; they were doing their jobs.) For the last two
years, we've been in a new era; Penn EVP John Fry and the past UCD directors he
worked with are no longer running the show. The new Penn EVP lives in our
neighborhood and is an awfully nice guy. Lewis Wendell lives here and is also
a nice guy. Both are committed to doing their jobs AND being a part of our
neighborhood. Meanwhile, the UCD continues to provide the clean and safe
services WHICH CITY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, AND IS NOT OBLIGED TO, PROVIDE - to
our
benefit! In addition, it helps us to get in touch with City departments when
something is amiss, or when we'd benefit from a service the City actually does
offer. UCD also provides information to promote our neighborhood in ways it
was never promoted before, which allows our businesses (like Abbraccio) to
get business loans to serve us here. UCD provides help with the establishment
of new businesses (like Vientiane) so they can get through the maze of
applications, permits and approvals necessary to establish a legitimate
business and
not get shut down by the City. UCD helps to care for our parks. And it's
all free - to you, to me, to the restaurants we can now enjoy, to the parks,
and for many other things I don't have space to mention here. It's free to
us,
paid for by Penn, USP, Drexel, HUP, CHOP, and some other really big
institutions that will dominate our area whether they interact with us or not -
and
here they are, willing to help. UCD is also paid for by many, many others who
believe in it: the Science Center, International House, Citizens Bank,
Central City Toyota, PNC Bank, the Restaurant School, Wistar, Fresh Grocer,
Common
Ground Realtors, Ronald McDonald House, New Horizons Housing, Guy Laren, Orens
Brothers, Schoepe Properties, Michael Levin, Cavanaugh's, Amigo African Food
Market, Gojjo Restaurant & Bar, All Seasons Cleaners, Capp Family Dentistry,
Fencing Academy of Philadelphia, Intercultural Family Services, Smokey Joe's,
Video Library, White Dog Cafe, Woodland Presbyterian Church......and many
individuals and "small landlords" too.
Today, it appears that a few of the anti-BID folks are trying to shut down
the entire UCD so they won't EVER have to pay for its clean and safe services
(marketing was already removed from the proposal). And the disgruntled have
joined forces with the landlords, looking for revenge since their never-ending
litany of impossible "process" complaints cannot be resolved. This is not a
large group, but it's very vocal. They won't EVER admit that our neighborhood
looks and feels better, thanks to work by the UCD. They have twisted an
internal personnel issue into something distorted completely out of proportion
so
they can get rid of the UCD.
Are we going to let this happen?
Melani Lamond
Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101
**************************************
See what's free
at http://www.aol.com.
