My favorite parts:
>> I did attend the meeting and have direct knowledge of>> what transpired.
I suppose the City could have saved money on recording the minutes. They could
have relied on Belynda Steward's unbiased photographic memory.
>>First, while Karen Allen is one of five hundred plus>> members of UCHS, she
>>is not a board member, nor is she a>> spokesperson for our group.
I identified myself at the hearing as a UC resident and as a member of UCHS
(although I did not clarify that I was not speaking on behalf of UCHS. I did
clarify that when I testified at today's hearing). I cited membership in UCHS
because I knew I'd be attacked for not living in Spruce Hill, like Melani
Lamond's attack in her recent email calling me a "busybody from the next
neighborhood over".
I like the "one of five hundred plus" line. A voice representing one
five-hundredth of the membership. No doubt intended to diminish what I had to
say. So, despite a legal career, being a past UCHS board member, a longtime
Cedar Park Neighbors Treasurer, and other community activities, I am just some
meddlesome-busybody-from- the-next-neighborhood-over slob who's
one-in-five-hundred.
Nevertheless, another member of the "five hundred plus membership" is described
thus:
>>Second, while the writer has>> noted various opinions, he neglected to relate
>>the>> opinion given by another UCHS member, who has been both a>> Board
>>member and a past president of our organization, as> > well as a very
>>successful UC realtor. Her opinion was> > definitely in favor of the project,
>>which includes the> > full restoration of the historically registered Sloan>
>>> mansion.
So I'm one in five hundred while Melani has all of these accolades. What
exactly has being "a very successful UC realtor" have to do with anything? How
does that make Melan's opinion any more valid than mine? Anyway, Chris
O'Donnell was there and is also a very successful UC Realtor, and he is
adamantly opposed to this.
> > At this time, the Board of University City Historical> > Society has NOT
> > decided either for or against the> > project.
Oh, no???
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:51:09 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> [email protected]> Subject: [UC] uchs shoots itself> > from this
> week's uc review, a letter which damages uchs, > written by the current
> president of uchs:> > http://tinyurl.com/ytlh6f> > > > RE: 40th and Pine
> project> > > > As current President of the University City Historical> >
> Society, I think that it is necessary to clarify some of> > the information
> imparted in the article City’s> > Architectural Review… 40th and Pine Hilton.
> While the> > article appears simply to state the facts, there is some> >
> misinformation as well as key omissions, which distort> > the facts as well
> as the tone of the meeting held October> > 23. I did attend the meeting and
> have direct knowledge of> > what transpired.> > > > First, while Karen Allen
> is one of five hundred plus> > members of UCHS, she is not a board member,
> nor is she a> > spokesperson for our group. Second, while the writer has> >
> noted various opinions, he neglected to relate the> > opinion given by
> another UCHS member, who has been both a> > Board member and a past president
> of our organization, as> > well as a very successful UC realtor. Her opinion
> was> > definitely in favor of the project, which includes the> > full
> restoration of the historically registered Sloan> > mansion.> > > > At this
> time, the Board of University City Historical> > Society has NOT decided
> either for or against the> > project. What we have agreed on is that we would
> like to> > see the restoration of the mansion, which is now a near> > "ruin."
> In fact, we are still reviewing the project and> > do not have enough
> information to make a fully informed> > decision on its feasibility. If, and
> when, the Board of> > University City Historical Society does make a> >
> determination on this project, we will relay that> > information publicly
> through our appointed and authorized> > spokesperson.> > > > Thank you.> > >
> > Belynda P. Steward President, University City Historical> > Society> > > >
> > the 10/10/2007 uc review article was the first time the > public knew about
> lussenhop's attempt to have the mansion > delisted from the register of
> historic places earlier this > summer:> > > "I wanted to get it de-listed to
> have greater> > choices," explained Lussenhop of his motion to rescind> >
> designation. "But once I realized the sentiment of> > the [philadelphia]
> historical committee and neighborhood, I said> > fine..."> > > now the
> president of uchs is making it evident that, far > from trying to save the
> mansion from ruin, uchs did nothing > to prevent lussenhop's earlier attempt
> to delist the > mansion, and uchs did nothing to inform the community or its
> > 'five hundred plus' members about lussenhop's attempt.> > why does uchs
> even exist? whose interests does uchs serve? > when? I think the president of
> uchs makes that clear, now.> > great letter, belynda!> > >
> ..................> UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN> [aka laserbeam®]> [aka ray]> SERIAL
> LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.> "It is very clear on this listserve who> these people
> are. Ray has admitted being> connected to this forger." -- Tony West> "Ray's
> falsehoods are more sophisticated,> more believable" -- Tony West> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----> 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>.
