OK, so if you're just saying everyone who lives here is entitled to an equal voice on the matter, that's fine. I just think if you're troubled that students are heard, because they tend to be more transient, I think it's hard to then say you should ignore the differences between owners and tenants as a whole when it comes to longevity, participation and investment, or indeed that tenants should be indignant but, presumably, students should not.
Paul -----Original Message----- From: Kimm Tynan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Paul Uyehara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Classes of Voters, was SCHA Zoning meeting DVD Paul, This all sounded like an interesting late night attempt to rationalize criticism of Tony for inquiring about who has standing in zoning issues with the ZBA. . . .Tony has in my view earned lots of criticism for his posts, but I think illegitimately because of this line of questioning. Sheez, and here I thought I was trying to play peacemaker. Guess I wasn’t very successful. I agree – if one is trying to understand how the zoning system works, then Tony’s question is a legitimate one. I was simply trying to make the point that it could easily come across as more suspect in the context of this neighborhood’s politics. But in your view, perhaps they should be banned from voting where they attend school, which means they have to vote at home. Err – I don’t think I said anything about banning anyone from doing anything, most certainly not from voting. I went to Penn State in State College. I voted there. So, obviously, I wouldn’t advocate banning Penn students from voting here. All I said is that it bothers me that there is a significant population of individuals who aren’t very invested in this community because they don’t expect to be here long, yet due to sheer numbers can have a significant impact on how neighborhood public opinion on any given matter is perceived, then walk away and not have to live with the result of whatever decision is made. Of course, anyone can walk away, the odds are simply very high that the students *will* in fact walk away. And I said I can understand why other people might also share that concern. But, it’s a long way from saying I don’t like a particular state of affairs or can understand a particular point of view, to advocating any particular resolution of the issue. Some situations are unfortunate or undesirable but are just things that we have to live with or accept because, as you point out, there really is no good alternative. Kimm On 2/20/08 9:01 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kimm, This all sounded like an interesting late night attempt to rationalize criticism of Tony for inquiring about who has standing in zoning issues with the ZBA. So we learn that renters feel marginalized and looked down upon. Until I got to the end and thought about it. Tony has in my view earned lots of criticism for his posts, but I think illegitimately because of this line of questioning. What is interesting to me is that you posit that owners and renters should be treated equally but that students are properly not entitled to the same consideration. My daughter went to Penn and rented off campus, at the same address, for longer than you did. She was born and raised here. She was, until she was evicted by her stupid landlord (who is on this list) as "invested" as any renter, and more than many owners, although not in the fiscal sense. So there are students and then there are students, just as there are owners and tenants, and of course a student can be either an owner or a tenant. What gave me greatest pause, however, is that students so far as I know can vote here even though this is not their domicile. If I'm correct about that, and I'm sure people will jump if I'm wrong, then they can vote in local elections. But in your view, perhaps they should be banned from voting where they attend school, which means they have to vote at home. This would discourage them from voting, and may force them to vote on issues with which they no longer have an interest since they don't live at home any more, but rather stay there temporarily when not in school. I think you'd agree that this doesn't make much sense, and that trying to discern "investment" as a criterion for voting is not where you want to go, since that was your criticism to begin with. Next we might have to inquire about whether we should distinguish between grad students and undergrads, between foreign students and citizen students. If you're going to have elections, you have to let people vote. The problem with democracy is that many people are misinformed or vote for the wrong reasons. They may not have a stake in the issue they are voting on. Many have conflicts of interest. Stupid decisions are often the result. And not that this is my point, but others have denigrated Penn students as not entitled to serious consideration, because they are not invested, or ill informed. Yet these people are advocating transparency, democracy and openness. Also, it is interesting that many have taken the position that the SHCA Zoning Committee is required to decide its position not based on what it's members think is best as they see it, but based solely upon the apparent lopsided opposition that appeared at the meeting. I think they need to take that sentiment into account, as well as the wishes of those who were not present, but in the end do what they think is right. Here again, we see bad decisions made regularly because one side can mobilize more people to support a position than the other, not because it is the right policy. We see this day to day in things like creationism, immigration, abortion and so on. Of course, in the end what you think about decision maker integrity is primarily based upon whether they agree with you or not, and whether you agree with the seeming majority view or not. (I'm sure if Penn Students Against the Monster Hotel were formed, many readers would think they deserve to be heard.) Paul -----Original Message----- From: Kimm Tynan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; UnivCity listserv <UnivCity@list.purple.com> Sent: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 2:21 am Subject: Re: [UC] SCHA Zoning meeting DVD Tony, I think you might agree that we all view the world through our own lens of experience. In a neighborhood (not the only one) where, I would submit, folks are often valued based on their status of “renter” vs. “homeowner,” it is not too unreasonable that, in that environment, a nonhomeowning tenant, or one who identifies with nonhomeowning tenants, might perceive your inquiry as a value judgment. My husband and I bought our house after we had lived here for four years, in the same apartment (i.e., we weren’t what you could call transient.) After two or three years of shopping, we ended up buying a house three blocks from where we had rented for four years. I remember an individual who might be characterized as an upper-middle-class educated white homeowner “welcoming” me to “the neighborhood.” Frankly, I was offended. I had lived here for four years as a “mere renter,” had been a member of a neighborhood church, had participated in civic activities, and none of those four years had been as a transient student. But – the bias that was so evident in this exchange, was that one is not acknowledged as a valuable member of this community unless one is a homeowner. So, I can completely understand why Frank or anyone else might get their back up about renter vs. homeowner characterizations. I don’t like the idea that transient student populations have a significant say in our neighborhood decisions. They’re here for a bit, then gone. But, not all renters are students, nor are all renters transient. I say this as a homeowner on a block dominated by rental units. I yearn for permanent, or at least long-term, neighbors. But my closest long-term homeowner neighbor is a sociopath or psychopath or something (I don’t know, I never took much psychology.) I’m a legal services foreclosure defense attorney, but I keep hoping someone will foreclose on him, because I think only that or death or jail are going to make him go away (I was hoping he’d be tempted by all the realtor ads to sell our houses we get, but apparently those didn’t work either.) I’m not saying this to beat on my neighbor – just to make the point that homeowners aren’t necessarily the be all and end all. Hell, if he was a renter, I might have a sane landlord to complain to. But I digress. The tensions in this neighborhood between tenants and homeowners is longstanding. I know from my own experience. But, I never understood how deep it is until recently. I doubt I could find it if I tried, but I think Ray or Glenn or Wilma could. I didn’t understand why Glenn kept referring to civic associations as “homeowner’s clubs.” I mean, I did, because that’s the way they tend to behave. But – like I said – particularly given my urban community organizing background, I had never until recently encountered an organization that explicitly defined itself as being for “homeowners.” But, somewhere in this thread, I saw a reference by SHCA to itself as an organization for homeowners. Frankly, I was shocked. It’s one thing to behave that way de facto. It’s another to admit it de jure. Before you or anyone ever criticizes anyone for failing to be a “proper” “legitimate” member of this community, I want to say one thing. I am not a member of any civic organization in this neighborhood, because I have never trusted any civic organization in this neighborhood to represent me properly or adequately. The only organizations I trusted were Calvary and PIA, and both of those went away over time. I was appalled to read whatever I read about SHCA that defined it as an organization for homeowners. But – I think that I would actually give SHCA credit for honesty – for speaking what others don’t admit to. <sigh> What does all of this have to do with anything? I’m not sure, except that it’s not unreasonable that renters/tenants might feel marginalized/offended/etc. by your post. It’s not an entirely unreasonable objection. Why does it matter? I can see a student vs. non student distinction. Students mostly view themselves as here temporarily, they aren’t invested and don’t venture very far west. But, even here, not all renters are students. Some just live here. Kimm On 2/19/08 10:19 PM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then you don't interpret them correctly, Frank. I asked a simple question of fact: to what extent do renters and owners have equal standing in zoning law? I don't know. It surely seems relevant to the issue to ask this question. Why is it "hateful" to want to know a useful answer? -- Tony West > Nope. That's exactly how I interpret his words. Otherwise I fail to > see how the analogy, wrong-headed as it is, applies to the current > discussion. It's a stretch even then. > > Frank > > >> Frank wrote: >>> 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?) ---- 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>. More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003> ! ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
