Thanks for those insights, Liz. I could see a pattern too. You could just
look at the houses and residents block by block back then and suspect the
pattern.
I'm curious about the role of the SHCA in drawing the catchment area. I was
discussing with some neighbors that SHCA separated from the other civic
associations in UCCC at that time. I know that the drawing of the catchment
area was at the center of that separation.
In my own head to head dealings with Penn Real Estate forces (eg UCD and Office
of Community and Government Affairs), it was apparent that a divide and conquer
approach to "revitalization" and "partnerships" was unfolding at that time.
Board members at one civic association (FOCP) seemed to have an absurd fear
that they might not get a fair share of resources which Penn seemed to dangle.
(I felt that the school catchement was being used as a symbol to the other
civic associations too. At that time, I had no idea that non-SHCA civic
associations had to provide 3 compliant individuals for Penn to select from for
the UCD board)
An example from my experience: UCD indicated that it might pull out of the
"revitalization of Clark Park" if it wasn't obeyed. I was told by an FOCP
member of the "steering committee" that UCD insisted that park users had to be
called "prostitues, drug addicts and gang members" ( I was fighting for the
right of park users to join this hand picked anointed steering committee. Park
users were barred with a string of justifications, lies)
One of the executive directors from UCD, Goldstein, pulled that "pulling out"
stuff on me. (I asked him, when were they leaving. Hahaha).
Now that Penn seems willing to sacrifice the SHCA, I'd like to hear about their
leaders involvement with this early divide and conquer success, keeping other
parts of the neighborhood out of the catchment area. The Penn effort on this
hotel (a no holds barred approach) has me sensing that we are about to enter a
new phase in the famous "revitalization."
Any information or anecdotes about the SHCA/UCCC split is, I think, very
important to share. If you or anyone has info it is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 5:45 PM
Subject: [UC] Fw: PW article, catchment and real estate
When I look at the Catchment boundaries, I see:
a Zig that took the boundary to Woodland Avenue for the length of one city
block, capturing Woodland Terrace: kids not so much, BUT.. History, CA
(Community Association activists) and important PENN power (a then dean) , and
a Zag that included 4200 Regent: a charming block with PENN Affiliates, a
higher up on the Historic Commission and the Republican Ward Leader. This Zag
did not capture the homes with the then majority minority ownership on the west
side of the park, and ignored the charming homes of the 4500 block of Regent
(which was enjoying a separate PENN benefit - restoration of "Blighted" homes,
for resale <to mostly PENN affiliates>) and
a Zig that leaped west of 46th south to Chester Ave for homes south of
Pine: blocks that contained the homes of Lindsay Johnston, Melani Lamond, the
Byes and myself, (major local Realtors, active in CAs) and also the home of
Dennis Culhane (a PENN Power and one of the movers behind the school) and the
home of Jon Suppovitz who had a hand in getting PAS up and running. This Zag
excluded the Condos in Garden Court reducing options for single parents with
more modest incomes. And cut so close to the Lea & Wilson School boundaries
that it was almost too transparent for those shut out of the PAS boundaries.
And there was even
a brief little Zag that included Ludlow Street, until S.Ali moved his
school aged boy to Osage.
I see the boundary as evidence that squeaky wheels do get greased.
By the way, I believe there ...
... IS a National Historic Designation as a "streetcar Suburb" and
... the article undervalued the difference in price between homes in the
catchment and out.
But, I don't have time today to document either of my beliefs.
All the best!
Liz Campion
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Let me return to my main points then, Frank.
First, the notion Ray floated, that the School District of Philadelphia
might pattern a school's boundary around the boundary of a proposed
Historic District, suggests to me someone who has no real-world
experience with the School District -- either as parent, employee,
coordinate government worker or outside agent. The School District has
far bigger fish to fry than other people's real-estate concerns. *Every*
neighborhood school is surrounded by real-estate concerns. But the
School District's billion-dollar focus is its own real-estate concerns.
Here Penn obviously had some input into PAS: it built the darn thing.
But it did not show any interest in "historicity" in so doing; PAS is
dazzlingly modern. In general, the entire "dotted line" between Penn and
historic designation is missing.
Secondly, incessant ruminations about whether or not rising property
values in University City were engineered by local agents such as Penn,
PAS, UCD, etc., repeatedly ignore that similar price rises have been
sweeping sister neighborhoods at a similar radius from Center City for
the past 10 years. I submit there is no evidence -- none at all -- that
local actions caused any of University City's run-up. To demonstrate
they had, you would have to study a neighborhood that was similar in
1998 but lacked our local institutions, and show the price run-up in
that neighborhood has been less than ours. To my knowledge, that work
hasn't been done. Until it is done, all this talk about various forces
"trying to gentrify" University City is a lot of irate talk about an
effect that may, in fact, be zero.
Thirdly, the idea that gentrification -- upward class mobility in an
urban neighborhood -- is globally and massively bad for poor people in a
poor city, cannot be true. There may be local undesired consequences
when a community climbs up the social ladder; few things in life are
100% good. But overall, the chief governmental problem poor
Philadelphians face is that there aren't enough non-poor Philadelphians
to pay the taxes to fund the services, in education and elsewhere, that
poor people need. Therefore, the poor need to attract more middle-class
and prosperous residents to Philadelphia. Presumably they will have to
live somewhere. Unless you just stack 'em up in high rises in Chestnut
Hill, that strongly suggests some neighborhoods must see an influx of
prosperous newcomers. If not in University City, then where? Remember:
it is the urban poor who need gentrification, not the gentry. The gentry
can always go be gentry somewhere else.
I hope you find this clearer. If not, let me know.
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
> And you are avoiding the issue by focusing on whether or not the
> people commenting have children, clean up after their dog, leave their
> cubicle, etc. What's your point?
>>
>>
>> Back to schools and real estate. You comment on the way I make my
>> point ... but not on the point itself. Whether or not a person has
>> real estate or children, their opinions will be better formed if they
>> refer to the world beyond Spruce Hill. Neither the School District
>> nor the urban real-estate market exists inside a neighborhood bubble.
>>
>> Again I say: Middle-class and wealthy folks don't "need" the inner
>> city; they've shown they can live outside it and without it. It is
>> chiefly the poor who need to live within a taxing body that includes
>> the non-poor. Any disagreement with that proposition?
>>
>> -- 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>.
____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1470 - Release Date: 5/28/2008
7:20 AM
