Tony, I won't begin to speak for Karen, but MY take on what she wrote is that quite a few (not all), of the alleged Campus Inn supporters have been positing themselves as leaders of community associations and institutions, to which many of us belong or have belonged.
All the while they have been using their credibility as community activists and representatives for self-serving purposes with, as you put it, the economic engine of Penn, while spinning another agenda to the community they purported to represent to keep others working and engaged. The most egregious is my opinion is the organizations who claim to want to preserve the historical integrity of the neighborhood, while their friends neighbors and members vehemently oppose this project. It also must be hurtful that so many of the neighbors immediately around this project have put many hours, years and dollars working in these community groups who ultimately failed to advocate their interest. Granted, there will proponents and opponents on any issue that concerns the community. Disqualifying people from supporting it doesn't quite ring true for me. Rather, a sense of betrayal is felt by those who believed these community leaders actually stood for what they said they did. Karen can correct me if I have misspoke any of her arguments here and you may do the same. -Wilma On 2/9/09 4:13 PM, "Anthony West" <anthony_w...@earthlink.net> wrote: > This is a real concern. Indeed, it has to haunt any attempt to foster > community institutions in University City. Many people don't feel the > town-gown process has been well handled in a lot of cases. > > But the issue is deucedly complex. > > Given the size of Penn the economic engine, lots of people in UC are > bound to do business with Penn. So ruling all people out of public > discussion who have Penn connections would give a bizarre and lopsided > look to any neighborhood debate, wouldn't it? > > To be neutral, one would have to dismiss all Penn-affiliated neighbors > *on both sides* of a debate about Penn. You can't have a situation where > disgruntled Penn affiliates are applauded as oracles when they attack > Penn, while contented affiliates are disqualified from speaking up for it. > > In truth, I know many real-estate agents and property owners who freely > oppose the Campus Inn. So there has to be a way for other real-estate > agents and property owners to freely support it, if that desire should > enter their hearts. > > -- Tony West > > > > KAREN ALLEN wrote: >> That's where our neighbors who feed at the Penn trough come into play >> on behalf of Penn. It would seem that few people think (or, at >> least, will say out loud) that it seems odd that the most strident and >> outspoken supporters of Penn Real Estate's hotel proposal just happen >> to be mostly real estate agents and large property owners who rent to >> Penn students. Nor does it seem to be odd that those self-same real >> estate agents, property owners, and the hotel developer were the same >> people who all somehow ended up being named to the steering committee >> which tried to get Penn's UCD BID proposal passed into law. Now it's >> been revealed that a local community association has had board members >> quit in disgust over its zoning committee seemingly ignoring their >> members' loud and clear objections to the hotel. >> >> All of this is to say that "the community" can be hijacked by those >> with self interests who are willing to throw the actual community >> under the Penn bus. "Pay no attention to my blatant conflicts of >> interest, and to near-unanimous opposition from everyone else. I am >> the Community, and I am here to rubberstamp anything Penn wants!" > > > ---- > 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>.
