Thank you, Karen, for your analysis of the frequent communications regarding
the Campus Inn proposal that had appeared on this list - a response to those
who would question the role and value of this listserv. It was my impression
that the list had been instrumental in the hotel protest, but thanks to your
efforts, it's clear that it's a fact that the list was indeed an important part
of keeping neighbors informed and involved in that vital issue.
I think it is significant that the recent article in the Inquirer about
efforts to put a private prison and day-reporting center on Greys Avenue
appeared weeks after it was reported on this list. One of the neighbors near
the proposed site even commented on how they had only had a day's warning of a
meeting on the proposal and that this was only communicated to the neighbors
through some scattered posters and flyers. Even though computers may be
unevenly distributed throughout the city's population, they are still a vital
means of communication. Anyone who thinks a listserv can have no influence
should consider the fate of the Campus Inn. This is not a claim, of course,
that the listserv was as important as all the time, money and effort put into
defeating the hotel project, but in a fight like that, every little bit helps.
I don't think one can underestimate the magnitude of that victory, where a
group of neighbors defeated a proposal backed, not only by a major university,
but also by a realtor whose company had just been the recipient of a $300
million dollar investment by the government of Singapore. The powers that be
would like nothing better than to conduct all their business behind closed
doors, keeping the rest of us in the dark until they lower the boom. It is one
of the critical roles of community organizations, that is, community groups,
newspapers and listservs, to counteract this tendency by keeping us informed,
not ignorant.
My own experience has suggested to me that there are some people who are afraid
of the listserv. In the past, during the brief attempt to stop the demolition
of 4224-26 Baltimore Avenue, I was advised off-list by one person to refrain
from posting on this topic, as Councilwoman Blackwell was working behind the
scenes and that discussions on the list would be counterproductive (yeah,
right). Someone else mailed me off-list on the same topic in a message that
was both patronizing and insulting. I have also had a message hijacked from
this list to the other, God only knows why. The overall impression I get from
this is that some people do not like the open and free exchange of information
and ideas that this list represents. Does that mean they think the list, when
the chips are down, can actually have an impact?
Mary
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Allen <kallena...@msn.com>
To: UnivCity Listserv <univcity@list.purple.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2010 11:49 am
Subject: [UC] Dueling Listservs
Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood
listservs, I'd like to make one observation:
The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is
basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that
would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and
serves a defined audience.
None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were
even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would
cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further
discussion took place there.
I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006
because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC
list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the
Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the
October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June,
2009).
I did a search of my undeleted email with the term "ucneighbors", and found 12
pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007.
Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and
contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools,
cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that
appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning "Campus Inn". The only
somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the
Kingsessing branch library.
Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all
emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term
"campus inn" produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until
June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of
the 400 emails had "UCNeighbors" in the "from" heading.
By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have
aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side,
who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the
things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is
no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in
large measure to the existance of this list.
I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they
serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv
have different audiences and fill different niches. Neither one is better than
the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other.
>From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991:
"As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v.
California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the
remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
=
