First, I really do not see much reason to get involved in this discussion as it has unfortunately become so ridiculous that I do not think that anyone's opinion has very much value at this point. I also can not say that I have been reading everything in the thread.
Next, I did comment on a factual point since I felt that I had a better recollection on the issue and it was, frankly, an issue I felt strongly about at the time. Finally, I should probably make a note that both Glenn and Tony commented on my recollection. I will admit that as I get older my memory gets worse. They say it's the second thing to go? In any event, Tony says that the vote was maybe 3-2, rather than 2-1. I remember it being a fairly slim margin, but you know what, Tony may be right. In any event, it is certainly not worth arguing about. What was worth arguing about was the plan on the table at the time, and I argued about it as I felt was appropriate. Glenn comments on several lies by the FOCP leadership. Well, my recollection is a little different, but again not totally different. I would not characterize anything that went on as lies. It was a contentious issue, but I always felt that almost everyone was dealing with me with good intentions, although I questioned some of the tactics employed (they probably questioned mine). Specifically, what I remember being stated by the FOCP leadership, and the head of the UCD, was that the Master Plan was conceptual and much detail would be necessary to implement it. That detail was certainly still on the table when it came up. There was no money at that time specifically earmarked to implement the plan, although they certainly indicated that they were seeking money from the city's capital budget and from private sources to do so. It was also stated that even major portions of the plan would be open to re-evaluation as time went on, but that a master plan was necessary to move forward on both the fundraising effort and other implementation issues. For example, there is still a building for bathrooms in the plan, but they said that the bathroom component was low on the priority list and that, understanding the controversy about the issue, it might eventually be removed altogether. 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 space, but they did eliminate the old tot lot, so the loss of green space was minimized. The planning going on right now regarding the Farmer's Market and the re-design of the upper park is generally an attempt to add detail to the plan. There have been discussions on the basketball court. I would like it to stay within the current boundaries, rather than be expanded to a full-sized court, which removes green space and may open it up to league play. It looks like I will lose that fight, but I will get over it. No one has breathed a word about funding a new building for bathrooms. The money has come slowly. In any event, I thought I would chime in one more time only because there were factual issues raised, and did not think it was fair for me to make a comment and not respond to other factual statements where my silence could imply that I agreed with the characterizations. Understand, however, that I may very well do that in the future. Just because I do not comment, even when someone directs a comment or question directly to me, does not mean anything other than I either did not read it or did not think there was any value in commenting. All my love, Matt ____________________________________________ J. Matthew Wolfe The Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, PC 1616 Walnut Street, Suite 2205 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 893-9990 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 refreshing to see an honest account and I think historical accuracy is a very big deal. There is another point that is very important. After all the disingenuous attempts to block your motion, I believe the acceptance of the UCD plan by the membership of FOCP carried by a slim margin because the proponents lied to the membership. 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 individual portions of the plan would be implemented in the future that the "community" would have plenty of opportunities to raise issues or questions. It was almost immediately clear that we were lied to about the plan being dead with no intention to implement it. Parts of the plan were implemented almost immediately after the vote like moving and changing the play area. The lies to me were continued during this time about the reasons that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committee even as the new play area went up. Do you know what lie I finally received about barring the Clark Park Music and Arts Community? The FOCP president you backed told me that in addition to my bad character that CPMAC did not have the same 501 c 3 status as FOCP and SHCA and that is why Penn would not allow us to be part of the "community." He was mad at me because the FOCP looked like propagandists and outright liars after the City Paper covered the FOCP survey against park users. I don't know if you were aware that FOCP was claiming that nearly a third of local residents called the police against the Clark Park festival and Woodland Ave Reunion. It was something like 80% of the community wanted FOCP to take action against us. Like with the dog park, UCD partners seem to always get at least 80% approval of all good folks with their surveys. The FOCP leaders came across as bullies and liars. They blamed me for not accepting my punishment and obeying their rule even though I begged Paul, Cindi, and Sue not to make idiots of themselves. I think they believed because I had long hair and associated with those they considered park criminals that I wasn't going to be able to show that their survey was not simple idiocy; but an intentional attempt to manufacture a false problem. Back to the present times. Last November, Mr. West posted a lie on the listserv claiming that 17 public meetings had been conducted and that the UCD park plan was now policy. Of course, it was the first time we heard about the UCD plan since the motion to reject it was barely rejected by the FOCP membership. Blocking your legitimate attempts to communicate with the membership is a process that has gotten much worse under the iron rule of Mr. West and Siano. I did not know Mr. West and I took your advice and voted for him. Wow, were you wrong! Matt, I know you sincerely believe that civic associations like FOCP and SHCA are more of a positive than negative for the community. You are wrong about that. As an example, I built an excellent relationship with various parts of the Department of Recreation when I started the CPMAC. The FOCP were the most notorious civic association of cranks among these city employees. More than once, I had to make a serious explanation that we had nothing to do with them. As a further example of harm, I had posted how the same FOCP leaders back then prevented me from proposing the farmer's market to the community via FOCP membership meeting. The negatives far outnumber the positives from these associations, which are increasingly recognized as a lobbying platform for neighborhood bullies. These organizations have no intention of reform and the treacherous UCD partnerships are just the latest problem in a long history of the evolution of these associations. West Philadelphia would be much better off if we demanded that these organizations be shunned by all funding or governmental agencies because of their actions against the public and community . I have been much too passive against these groups and have not taken the kinds of actions against them as they have so often done against my own community service. I think those of us willing to act up need to join together not only against the UCD rule but also to once and for all put a stop to the damage by the leaders of these contemptuous organizations like FOCP/SHCA. Sincerely, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Matthew Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Anthony West'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'University City List'" <UnivCity@list.purple.com> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 2:27 AM Subject: RE: [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. > > The motion had actually been made at the annual meeting the previous year, > and it was clear that the vote was going to be close. The Board first > tried > to simply ignore the vote, saying that the membership could not make > decisions for the organization. Then they argued that the vote should be > "tabled," arguing that it had not been on the agenda, people did not know > it > was going to come to a vote and had left. This was after they refused to > put it on the agenda and refused to give us a copy of the membership list > to > allow those of us opposed to the plan and supporting the motion to rescind > the Board's endorsement of the plan to communicate with the membership. > After another close vote, the motion was tabled. Over the course of the > year, another membership meeting was scheduled and then cancelled. > > Just trying to being some historical accuracy to the discussion. Not > really > a big deal at this point. > > > > > > J. Matthew Wolfe > > Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, P.C. > > 1616 Walnut Street, Suite 2205 > > Philadelphia, PA 19103 > > (215) 893-9990 > > Fax (215) 893-9997 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 4256 Regent Square > > Philadelphia, PA 19104 > > (215) 387-7300 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf 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 it was happening; I went to > one meeting; that was it. > > I know vastly more than Ray did about events as they developed during > that year. I can testify with certainty there were FoCP members who > regarded the renewal plan as "UCD's plan". These feelings weren't > technically accurate, because FoCP leadership had unambiguously endorsed > the development of the renewal plan from the git-go and every > association's policy is determined by its leadership, much as Penn's > policy is determined by its leadership rather than by Ray. But feelings > matter nonetheless. > > So many FoCP members felt that way, or were otherwise troubled with the > plan, that Member Matt Wolfe recruited an insurgent slate of directors > to run against the organization slate in the October 2002 election. I > was one of that slate and many of us won, at a Membership Meeting with a > strikingly large turnout. Not all us insurgents were opposed to the > renewal plan per se, but we all agreed community concerns must be > carefully considered in an ongoing process of inclusiveness and > openness, and we committed to steer the association in that direction. > > Wolfe also introduced a motion to rescind FoCP's endorsement of the > renewal plan. That motion failed by a 2-to-1 margin. That made it clear > the membership was for the renewal plan. Since then, every honest person > acknowledges the renewal plan is FoCP's plan. > > I started out befuddled, just like Ray. But I listened and learned. > Today I know enough to see when he is wrong on this subject. > > -- Tony West >> haha -- all this, to convince yourself now that focp members didn't >> protest ucd's park renewal plan! >> >> and everyone is befuddled -- except you, tony west! >> >> [aka ray] > > > ---- > 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>. > > ---- > 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>. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/897 - Release Date: 7/11/2007 > 9:57 PM > > ---- 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>.
