"the most revealing line from that article: > "The best way to have a say in Clark Park," said [Tony] > West, "is to become a member."
The public evidence proves that this is untrue! Mr West banned me from participation with the "dog park committee" despite a written request including a dues check. (Out of necessity, I had previously defended Clark Park dog owners at the witch hunt called the Quality of Life Task force. FOCP had secretly demanded arrests to stop all of the killing!) On this public listserv, I published the documentation showing that Mr. West cashed my check, and then happily informed me that I would not be permitted to attend the closed meetings. (Mr. West can be ebullient when he commands!) I consider the dues requirement, over neighborhood citizens, a form of legalized extortion! In the dog park example, over 80 neighbors paid FOCP, as the only way to have a VOICE. FOCP was then caught cheating when Mr. West added votes to the tally, which was publicly observed. A neighbor publicly revealed that she had been tricked by a deceptive dog park survey. (Of course, the data and sampling methodology were considered unimportant to provide to the angry neighbors) It's all sweetness and togetherness when money is demanded to allow us to have a voice and rights in community issues. (The UCD redesign plan is a community matter and not an exclusively FOCP inner-circle matter, even if Mr. Chance believes otherwise.) Consider: The FOCP web site looks very impressive, but can anyone find the identities of the planning committee? Can anyone find a process to invite effected park stakeholders, other than to give money? We are not allowed to know when they meet, what they decide, nor even their identities. But the picture of all the young upscale white people sitting around the new kiddie swimming pool is lovely. It's information from upscale used car salesmen!! Glenn Glenn -----Original Message----- >From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <laserb...@speedymail.org> >Sent: Jan 23, 2010 11:59 PM >To: univcity@list.purple.com >Subject: Re: [UC] letter in UC Review, Clark Park closure > >Glenn moyer wrote: >> Dear neighbors, >> >> You probably read about the latest FOCP survey victims in >> the UC Review last week. The report also uncovered that >> the FOCP/UCD partnership plans to close A park in March. >> The editor published my response this week. (Sorry for >> not providing a link. For some reason, my message >> bounces back when I include a UC Review link. Just type >> in "Weekly Press" or "University City review") > > > >here's the link to the article about the clark park meeting: > > http://tinyurl.com/yar6jp6 > > > > >the most revealing line from that article: > >> "The best way to have a say in Clark Park," said [Tony] >> West, "is to become a member." > > > > >the most revealing comment so far about that article: > >> Frank L. Chance | chanc...@gmail.com JAN 15 | I would >> also like to thank the UCR for covering *our* meeting. It >> is very important to get the word out to *our* community >> about *our* activities, and especially about the upcoming >> revitalization construction in Park A. > > > > >and here's glenn's letter about that article: > >http://tinyurl.com/y995xgm > > >> Re: Mistrust Generated Over Results of the Large Events >> Survey at Friends of Clark Park UC Review | 20.JAN.10 >> >> Eight years ago, I reported in this paper that the Clark >> Park Music and Arts festival and Woodland Ave. Reunion >> were targeted by one of these dishonest FOCP surveys. >> These surveys have always been an attempt to manufacture >> a crisis, and bully individual Clark Park stakeholder >> groups. Dog owners, festival organizers, drummers, and >> immigrant soccer players have all been targeted by the >> leadership of FOCP over the years. The People?s flea >> market organizers are only the latest victims. >> >> Corroborated by the current article, the FOCP and their >> UCD partners have instituted a pay to play power >> structure over a public Clark Park. At this point, your >> readers probably laughed at the reassurances about the >> survey and justifications by the civic association >> leaders. But the ridiculous survey is not the important >> information Ms. Contosta uncovered. >> >> Since the planned UCD redesign of Clark Park was first >> announced, the leadership of FOCP has maintained a secret >> exclusive back room process over all park plans, and does >> not allow the public or stakeholders to participate. >> Their public meetings are tightly controlled dog and pony >> shows at which they sell their plans formed in back >> rooms. Throughout the years, this redesign process has >> been repeatedly rejected by the larger community as well >> as the members of the FOCP. A so called "planning >> committee" decides where to put fountains, etc. Have the >> public or stakeholder representatives ever been invited >> to participate in those meetings? >> >> The park is about to be closed between Baltimore and >> Chester. The three month timetable reported is no more >> believable than any survey conclusions. This park >> redesign has always been designed as the physical support >> for the Penn myth so often in the news, that UCD/Penn >> recreated a ghetto wasteland into an upscale paradise. >> Control over "public space" is a well studied technique >> used in the community destruction and corporate >> gentrification process. The old Clark Park and the rights >> of the public must be redesigned to support the myth, >> even though the community likes the park and its >> wonderful culture. >> >> How many times will the community stand helplessly and >> ignore the truth about this partnership between UCD and >> the insular civic association leadership gang? The >> surveys and park closure are both intended to wipe out >> the park groups who currently use park A. The flea market >> and capture the flag will be banned by fiat because a pay >> to play FOCP exclusive activity has a monopoly on the use >> of park B most Saturday?s when these activities will be >> locked out of their normal space. When the rights of some >> are so easily destroyed, it?s foolish to think that any >> rights will be preserved under the new order. We either >> need to fight the UCD park conversion plan or lose our >> rights to a public park. >> >> Thanks for the coverage, >> >> Glenn Moyer > > > > >.................. >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>.
