I agree with everything Glenn says here.
I was that "lowly UCHS member" who spoke against Campus Inn at the first PHC
hearing, and I was specifically named in Belynda Stewart's editorial letter to
UC Review, where she made a deliberate point of saying that I was merely a
one-out-of-500 member, and did not speak for the organization. She then went on
to pump up the opinion of another one-out-of-500 member by stating that the
proposal was supported by a prominent neighborhood Realtor who was also a
former UCHS Board member (as was I, but that somehow didn't get mentioned.
Oddly, the fact that I've served on the boards of a number of community groups
over the past 20 years got left out too). So reading between the lines, that
didn't sound very neutral to me.
It also seems very odd that there has been NO official public announcement of
the UCHS Board vote against the proposal, which was announced by an individual
Board member testifying at the PCPC hearing earlier in the summer (but
unfortunately, since the PCPC hearing minutes do not include the text of what
the witnesses said, that's not readily apparant to those who were not in
attendance).
Karen Allen
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:50:36 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]; Univcity@list.purple.com> Subject: Re: [UC] Forwarded from> > So
> perhaps these bodies' muteness to date isn't > so curious. Joining the fray
> late rather than early is often moral and > often smart.> > > Nonsense. > >
> Both SHCA and UCHS leaders betrayed this community and their own
> memberships. The gangs' leaders have been secretly colluding with the Penn
> team from the beginning, over a year ago, while doing everything in their
> power to keep all Penn's plans secret. They were secretly involved with the
> initial attempt to demolish the property over a year ago and continued to
> cloak the false claims of massive community support. > > The leaders of both
> groups were present in October when the development team boldly lied about
> SHCA conducting open public forums and generating massive public support.
> This was reported by me immediately and confirmed by Andrew on the list the
> day the lies were first uttered. Not until February (and despite numerous
> public requests for data by me) did Mr. Grossbach admit that these claims
> were false while assserting that they should be "swept under the rug."> >
> People will remember that SHCA provided a cloak at their elections to give
> the false appearence of an announced public meeting. People will remember
> that SHCA attempted to quietly have another "public meeting" at their
> clubhouse until opponents discovered the trick and forced a move to an
> appropriate venue.> > > While testifying in direct support of the Campus
> Inn, UCHS newsletter editor, Mr. Mike Hardy, has continuosly forgotten to
> mention the Campus Inn or the secret e-mail vote in the UCHS newsletter he
> controls. Instead of reporting the Campus Inn plans to the UCHS members, Ms.
> Stewart, the president, also watched the bold lies of the the development
> team in October. > > Instead of telling the truth to the community, Ms.
> Stewart published a letter in the UC Review complaining that a lowly UCHS
> member offered her personal opposition in testimony. Asserting that she
> spoke for the 500 members, she stressed that an award winning real estate
> saleslady spoke in favor of the hotel. That was not silence as you are
> asserting. > > Announcing all of these issues to their members was the most
> important job these leaders are trusted to do. It has nothing to do with
> their support or opposition. These leaders have betrayed the trust and duty
> to their members and members of this community. They have been abusing their
> power in the effort to shield the Campus Inn for whatever personal reasons
> they may have.> > > And while the PCPC did not know where the file of public
> submissions was located when I attempted to inspect these, I've heard that a
> letter from UCD's Lewis Wendell was among them. But then few citizens of the
> district have much respect left for that contemptible front for Campus
> Apts/Penn real estate agenda.> > So no, SHCA and UCHS leaders have not been
> silent at all; they have simply been deceptive. These leaders show the same
> contempt for the community which the FOCP leaders have shown for years as it
> did backroom deals with UCD. These are not little mistakes by hard working
> volunteers. This is the evidence of how wholely these gangs jump at the
> divide and conquer strategy used by the Penn colonialists rather than their
> duty to their neighbors and the community.> > It is clear and deliberate
> abuse of power against the needs and security of their neighbors. Forget
> about the oranges, let's seperate the bad apples from the abused residents
> of this neighborhood. > > Shame, shame, shame!!!> > > Mr. Moyer> > > > > > >
> > > -----Original Message-----> >From: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> >Sent: Aug 27, 2008 6:43 PM> >To: univcity <Univcity@list.purple.com>>
> >Subject: Re: [UC] Forwarded from "SCRUB" -- Unisys Sign Denied by Zoning
> Board> >> >Let's separate the apples from the oranges first.> >> >Neither
> UCD nor PennPraxis has any sort of warrant to weigh in on a > >zoning issue,
> until some neighborhood group asks them for their > >assistance. It would be
> bizarre and stupid for them to do so.> >> >The hotel proposal is clearly in
> SHCA's bailiwick, likewise in UCHS's > >bailiwick. It looks like there has
> been some ducking, dodging and > >deferring by both those bodies.> >>
> >Typically this happens in politics when communities are split; when >
> >there are pros and cons; when there are supporters and detractors. In >
> >this case, that's what we find. Lussenhop has his petitions, Woodland >
> >Terrace has theirs, no? So perhaps these bodies' muteness to date isn't >
> >so curious. Joining the fray late rather than early is often moral and >
> >often smart.> >> >There are at least three stations of official approval
> before anything > >can happen: the Historical Commission, the Planning
> Commission, the > >Zoning Board of Adjustment. Did I miss any? Passing one
> test does not > >predict passing another.> >> >In addition, development
> proposals are subject to constant revision and > >evolution -- the process
> is intended to foster just that.> >> >I have no idea at this point what the
> eventual outcome will be. That's > >where I grow curious.> >> >-- Tony West>
> >> >> yes, and how sad is it that our existing defenders -- uchs, shca, ucd,
> > >> penn praxis -- have been so curiously unable (un-vocal and un-visible)
> > >> to help the neighbors in this hotel battle.> >>> >> ..................>
> >> UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN> >> >> >----> >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>.> > ----> 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>.
