I must correct this proposition, which cannot be entirely true as it stands.
Anyone who shows up at a First Thursday meeting will meet representatives from three dozen agencies and associations that provide all sorts of services to all sorts of West Philadelphians. That's not "a few local groups." Penn tries to funnel a broad spectrum of resources to all these groups, whose issues range from public safety, health, education and social services to culture and neighborhood planning ... they are far too diverse to pigeonhole. These groups are eager to partner with Penn; that is, they are always hopeful the largest economic and professional engine in their part of town can contribute something constructive to their communities. But it is ludicrous to describe them as "coopted." If they were, indeed, coopted, why did they, by and large, offer Penn so little support at the last First Thursday meeting over the Fenton issue? It is normal for business partners to display some courtesy to each other when they are engaged in a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, even if there are divergences of opinion at times. For reasons like these, senior KRF Apt. managers refrain from spray-painting comments like "Yuppie JAP Snob!" on their Penn-affiliated tenants' windows, even after acrimonious disputes over rental service. That doesn't mean KRF has been "coopted" by Penn; it is simply trying to be courteous and productive. Permit, then, other community institutions to relate to Penn with equal professionalism. It would be far more helpful, in my opinion, if critics of a particular community group's relationship with Penn would focus on that particular group and its particular inadequacies. If it is doing something wrong with Penn, spell out for all of us exactly what is wrong with what that group is doing. In other words: name names and cite facts. Ther may be a couple of "local groups" that have been unhealthily "coopted" by Penn. I don't work closely with any group that has been so coopted, but I'm willing to believe they exist. Which are they, and what shows they were coopted, i.e., persuaded to do something most people around here don't like, simply because Penn liked it? -- Tony West And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community" as if we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does what it pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe it has a partnership going. Always at your service & ready for a dialog, Al Krigman
