From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: UCD - Lewis Wendell and His UCD Lashes Out
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:36:16 -0400
from penn's almanc, june 1997
http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v43/n36/ucd.html
Will assessments be levied in University City to finance
services?
... Any long-term funding plan will involve institutions,
businesses and residents working together in an open and public manner to
develop and approve it.
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
WHAT??? "INSTITUTIONS, BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS WORKING TOGETHER IN AN
OPEN AND PUBLIC MANNER"???
That has to be a joke!!! More accurately: "...institutions and big
landlords in the institutions' pockets working together behind closed doors,
with residents being encouraged to support it because they'll get a free
ride on the "greedy", "frugal" landlords' dime."
What was open and public? The idea came top-down from Penn back in 1997,
and was drafted in 2005 by a Steering Committee who represented no one other
than themselves. I've never been to, nor have I heard of anyone else who
has been to a meeting of the Steering Committee because, as Lewis Wendell
stated at one of the three public meetings held once the plan was ready to
be rubberstamped, er, approved by the public, Steering Committee meetings
are not open to the public. Those three meetings that were public ngs
treated the plan as a foregone conclusion, with the only input solicited
consisting of asking people how they wanted their money spent. The only
reason any changes were made since then was because of the howling
opposition the plan met.
This statement from Penn illustrates my points all along:
I have stated before that I fear that the NID will become an unelected,
unaccountable quasi-government answerable only to the University of
Pennsylvania, and some private deep pockets. I was asked offlist how I could
believe such a thing, since Penn doesn't involve itself in the day-to-day
operations of UCD. I know that Penn doesn't tell whoever the current
incarnation of John-Fenton is now which streets to sweep. My concern is that
Penn has and will dictate policy and direction to the UCD administration.
Proof? Everything happening now regarding the NID was intended from the
outset of the program in 1997, and is chronicled in Penn publications.
Residents were foreseen in 1997 as being part of the target assessees. What
changed? Why are residents not included in this now? Possibly because their
foreseeable objections would scuttle the program? Or put control of the NID
in the hands of people who don't owe anything to Penn? (yeah, I know,
people buying $500K houses can't afford to pay a "fair share" of the service
that's luring them here in the first place.)
Karen Allen
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
