I propose a public meeting between Karen and Tom. They can sit on a dais, chatting and drinking coffee, and we get to watch. :-)
Kimm On 11/12/07 9:38 AM, "Wilma de Soto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree, Frank. > > The offer to meet Karen, Karen and ONLY Karen over a cup of coffee to explain > his proposal, seems a bit disingenuous with regard to informing the community > at large. > > One one hand it suggests that everyone else in the community had already been > advised of this proposal, understood and agreed with it. However, Karen is so > dense (even as a member of UCHS), she has to have it explained to her > one-on-one. Urban proposal tutoring perhaps? > > One the other hand, it appears on the surface to be an attempt to influence or > even somehow buy Karen¹s approval, in order to neutralize a UCHS member whom I > suppose in her way, is trying to stand up for the mission of the organization > to which she belongs. Apparently, she believes in the organization¹s mission > and wants to defend it. > > Either way, it does not replace a good old-fashioned open meeting to discuss > the proposal to the community by making it a personal approval matter. > > On 11/11/07 9:57 PM, "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It would be even more novel if the developer were as upfront and honest in >> public as he wants people to think he is in one-on-one conversation. If he >> were, we would all *know* about his plans already and not have to guess. I >> could be wrong. Maybe *all* developers prefer to meet everyone in the >> neighborhood separately over coffee instead of making their plans more >> traditionally "public." I doubt it, though. >> >> I don't know the developer and have only formed an opinion about him from his >> behavior around this project which is far from stellar. If I don't want an >> 11-story hotel 1/2 block from me it has nothing to do with my personal >> feelings about a developer, trust me. >> >> >> Frankus >> Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. >> >> >> >> On Nov 11, 2007, at 09:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> In a message dated 11/11/07 8:23:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> >>>> ....Critics of this proposal must acquaint >>>> themselves with these plans before they launch into the business of >>>> finding fault with them..... >>>> >>> >>> Oh, Tony, what a novel idea! Has this ever happened, in the history of >>> listserv crankiness? >>> >>> For those who say they didn't have the opportunity to learn more, look at >>> what happened when Tom Lussenhop offered to explain his plans to Karen Allen >>> over a cup of coffee! She wrote: <<I told him no, and to never write to >>> me again. For the record, I don't drink coffee, I don't like him, and I >>> definitely don't discuss community business in back rooms. >> >>> >>> What will that response teach developers about the usefulness of offering >>> to give out the details of their plans? >>> >>> And, what happens when people with one opinion try earnestly to engage in a >>> listserv conversation with people of a different opinion? When Karen >>> complained that no one was willing to respond to the questions she'd raised, >>> I offered to enter into a discussion, cautioning that <<...if you truly want >>> to hear another viewpoint, I'll be happy to share mine. This isn't personal >>> - it's only in response to your request for other points of view.>> >>> >>> In my reply to her points, writing about the community association zoning >>> process which Karen and I both understand pretty well since we sit on a >>> zoning committee, I wrote <<...community zoning committees generally respect >>> the wishes of the nearby neighbors when taking positions on new >>> development....At some point, to have the local community association >>> impose its will on a site, in absence of complaint from the neighbors, would >>> seem inappropriate. To have you and me, as busybodies from the next >>> neighborhood over, impose our will on the project seems even more >>> problematic.>> >>> >>> Which Karen "spun," a few days later, to read <<... 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".>> >>> >>> Listserv writers tend to have already formed their opinions when they hear >>> WHO is involved in a plan. As I wrote earlier, I don't think their support >>> or opposition has much to do with the merits of the proposal; it has more to >>> do with the identity of the players. That's too bad. We'd work better >>> for the good of the neighborhood if we could work for the greater good, >>> rather than fight because we aren't the best of friends. >>> >>> - 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 new at http://www.aol.com >> >> > >
