This whole project was doomed from the start, by the same type of thinking that sent several past initiatives in this neighborhood into oblivion. Namely, a poorly conceived plan by people who greatly underestimated the resolve of the overwhelming majority of the people in the community to preserve what they believe is important about the quality of their lives here. In short, this is simply an inappropriate use the property in question. And, given the number of hotel rooms already being planned with equal or better access to the hospitals and the campus, it seems to be totally unnecessary anywhere in the immediate area. Tom Lussenhop has been blinded by his ambition in this case. So he's continuing to send good money after bad in pursuing it. Some of it is his money or that of the investors to whom he sold a bill of goods -- which is a pity but maybe they'll come out as better human beings for having felt the loss in their wallets. But some of it is the money -- and the capital invested in the form of time and energy -- being spent by the people in the neighborhood to oppose a bad idea that will ultimately go nowhere. It's akin to a frivolous lawsuit that the defendant is certain to win but has to spend a lot of money to go through the motions. I know this will be a hard pill for Tom to swallow, and I'm truly sorry about that. I don't wish him, or anybody else -- regardless of how much I might disagree with them -- any harm. It may also be a tough lesson for people like Ed Datz and Esaul Sanchez of the Penn Real-Estate Dept. They seem to have stuck their necks out when Penn bought the property without having a clue what they were going to do with it, and decisions by people higher in the administration than they have opted not to invest the rest of what it takes to restore the property and use it productively. But they'll come out better for it, too, when they realize that just because they represent the great University of Pennsylvania in real estate affairs, they do not possess any superior judgement. And it doesn't do much for Sam Olshin's reputation, either. He's been doing what I assume as his best to make an impossible building "work." But impossible is impossible. And, I submit that a truly competent architect would have already told the client that there was no way to fit this square peg into a round hole, and walked away from the job instead of continuing to run up the bill with no satisfactory end in the offing. The parties who seem to be oblivious to what's happening here are hurting their own future prospects in this neighborhood by continuing to press this project. If Tom wants to do another project here, it will be greeted with great skepticism by the people in the area because he's acted so foolishly in this one. And Penn will continue to expose it's so-called "partnership with the community" for the sham we all know it is, risking the likelihood that eventually the other institutions to whom they have been bragging about "the Penn model" for an urban university will see through the self-serving braggadocio. So, Tom, I am asking you publicly -- more than asking, counseling for the sake of your own future success in the area -- to drop this project before it gets worse for you and everybody else. Admitting you were wrong and apologizing for the money you have caused people to waste and the anguish you put them through would go a long way to building a favorable image for yourself. Alan Krigman KRF Management 211 S 45th St, Phila PA 19104 215-349-6500, fax 215-349-6502 website: _www.krf.icodat.com_ (http://www.krf.icodat.com/) online bulleting board: _www.krf.icodat.com/news_ (http://www.krf.icodat.com/news)
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/ 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
