Frank wrote:
PS. I would like to join Maggie in her feelings about your private
posting to her of your complaints about me. I think it proves that you
have no interest in doing anything but stirring the pot. Her question
was asked on the list. Why was it not answered on the list? Also
dishonesty is clear to me if I compare your posts to this lists to the
ones you make on the UCNeighbors list. You know the ones. They compare
the people at last weeks meeting with a bus full of strangers from
Pittsburgh and ask for legal precedents for marginalizing renters and
students. It's hateful, arrogant behavior.
Ladies and gentlemen, here Frank displays his own deep and severe
dishonesty. He's lying.
Here is what was posted, by Tony West, on that list:
"This is one question that gnaws at me. I don't know the answer, Mike,
but there must be an answer in code or case law somewhere: how close to
a given zoning variance do you have to live -- or own property -- in
order to have a voice in the "public input" part of a zoning hearing?
(As a side question -- does zoning law draw a distinction between owners
and renters?) It seems intuitively fair that if I want to enclose my
porch, and all the neighbors on block block say they're cool with that,
they couldn't then be outweighed by two busloads of open-porch lovers
who show up at my zoning hearing from Pittsburgh to condemn my project."
Sure isn't like what Frank tried to say, isn't it? There's no "hateful,
arrogant" content to any of this. Instead, we find that Tony was raising
a question of community voices versus distance, illustrated his question
with a reasonable analogy. Anyone who reads the English language can see
that there is no insult, no bullying, no "hateful" or "arrogant" content.
The fact is obvious: Frank is lying about what Tony's been saying on the
other list.
----
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>.
