As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it did not occur.
Darco, Thanks for speaking your views. It is not easy when everyone knows that any questioner/dissenter will be called paranoid leftists, liars, etc. This type of intimidation works against many neighbors, so the voices of reason are precious. I agree with your statement, but wish to add further clarification and emphasis. The patterns of abuse from entities like UCD, Department of Streets, FOCP, L& I,(back room deals, misinformation, hidden agendas, refusal of accountability, etc.) show that the process itself is what must be rejected! Trustworthy entities asking for power over public policy understand the sacrosanct processes and principles acceptable in even remotely democratic or reputable systems. I worked in health care research for years. If I had ever refused to show data, processes, or answer questions like these entities, I would have been laughed at and completely rejected. The demand to trust these disreputable entities, until each hidden agenda is conclusively proven while their pawns hurl insults and misinformation, is also laughable. It is very important that more people understand that these dishonorable and unaccountable entities must ALWAYS be rejected until they show a real commitment to acceptable processes and accountability forever more! These entities always say, "trust us; we are good and we are fighting for freedom and democracy and cleaner safer streets." Then they call people names and demand proof of their dishonest back room deals, at the same time as we watch buildings rise on Baltimore Ave or discover that Clark park has been privatized. (People should go back and look at how often Mr West calls people paranoid, while he is defending back room deals.) I published an article 7 or 8 years ago telling our neighbors that Penn was trying to privatize Clark Park and that UCD had community domination, rather than a cleaner safer agenda. I wish more of our neighbors had considered processes and credibility back then instead of voyeuristically watching me defend myself against UCD pawns like Mr. West. When you weigh the benefit of UCD street cleaning, also consider disempowerment of the community residents and loss of democracy for future generations when you do the calculations. Thanks again, Glenn PS: You and Karen are correct about the Vet school building. The marketing to the community was all billed as improving traffic flow. I saw announcements of a new Vet school building, only in communications designed for the Penn community, and the location was never clear. No where did they say they were taking over a public street! -----Original Message----- >From: "Lalevic, Darco" <lale...@wharton.upenn.edu> >Sent: May 18, 2010 11:23 PM >To: Anthony West <anthony_w...@earthlink.net>, UnivCity listserv ><univcity@list.purple.com> >Subject: RE: [UC] UCD is innocent > >Of course not, I was merely pointing out that there is ample evidence and >historical events that lend credence to the theory of "back room" deals, and >that powerful organizations and people usually work in their own self interest. >In the case of University City/West Philly, those people and organizations >often do things that individuals may find to be detrimental. Certainly UCD has >done many positive things, even if some of us disagree with some of their >decisions. >So assuming that L&I sweeps were prompted by an organization such as UCD (or >someone associated) is not far fetched, and is just as likely to have occurred >as not. >As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since >some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it >did not occur. > >Darco > >________________________________ >From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On >Behalf Of Anthony West [anthony_w...@earthlink.net] >Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:15 PM >To: UnivCity listserv >Subject: Re: [UC] UCD is innocent > >Darco, do you envision a world in which no "individuals at high levels" can >ever "let their preferences be known in private conversations"? Powerful >people talk to other powerful people all the time, in every society humanity >has devised. It is not presumptively evil or unfair for them to do so; even if >it were, it is as impossible to remove this element from society as it is to >remove oxygen from the atmosphere. > >Picture yourself in the role of a City agency. Do you have a mission to listen >to input from the various communities you serve, about their specific needs? >Would you look like a jackass if you didn't? Would the same purists who hammer >you for listening to a reputable agency from a particular community, NOT >hammer you just as hard for refusing to listen, if it came to you with a >concern? You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. > >"Equal enforcement" sounds fine in theory. But every public agency also tries >to fine-tune its responses with selective-enforcement strategies, when it >identifies hot spots or unique local issues. "Take a number and wait" is a >good model for delivery of many public services, but it cannot be the sole >rule. > >Statistical evidence (cf. that 4/28 Daily News article) is that all sorts of >tickets are being handed out in all sorts of neighborhoods at an accelerated >rate. There may be neighborhood biases in such a surge (+40,000 citywide). But >no one has produced any evidence of this. And it is mathematically impossible >for University City to account for it all -- much less UCD. > >I don't believe UCD never called L&I about anything. The question at hand is >whether the City came up with its own strategy for restaurant code enforcement >with or without any input or contact from local people or groups; more >importantly, it is whether the policy that results is good. Andy's explanation >of this policy sounds good to me. Does it sound bad to anybody else? If so, >what's wrong with it? > >Bear in mind that code enforcers of all sorts are often mandated to respond to >anonymous over-the-transom complaints. People who work in the restaurant and >tavern trade have long assumed that if L&I or the State Police come down on >them, they were dimed on by a competitor. In the long run, this paranoid >explanation is more persuasive than the paranoid explanation that these >agencies act on behalf of "local power brokers ... more often than not." I can >always be persuaded that either explanation was right in any given case; but I >always need evidence. Unsubstantiated blood-pumping rhetoric about powerful >conspiracies doesn't do it for me. > >-- Tony West > > > >On 5/18/2010 5:23 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: > >Unfortunately Tony, whether true or not, most people assume that people and >organizations which wield political power (Penn, UCD, local politicians, etc) >are regularly influencing these organizations. And, of course there won’t be >any evidence, nor is Andy necessarily lying (I would assume he is not). It >would be doubtful that UCD, Penn, or any organization would openly pressure, >but rather individuals at high levels would let their preferences be known in >private conversations. Can Andy absolutely state that no member of the UCD >board ever influenced L&I, in any way? I know for a fact that is not true as >I’ve heard that directly from a board member. > >Is it coincidence that any number of actions by L&I, the PPD, Streets Dept or >any other entity focuses efforts at a particular time and place? Maybe, but >there have been plenty of incidents in the past to assume otherwise (for >example the Streets departments redesign of the 38th/Baltimore/University >Avenue intersection was at the time promoted by the City as an effort to >improve traffic. It shortly became clear that it was in fact to build the new >Vet building). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and hearsay to assume >that any L&I efforts are being influenced by local power brokers – and >therefore we can assume that it is the case as it is more likely than not. And >that’s not even with factual evidence such as Glenn points out with the >Business Journal article or the use of UCD workers for political causes. > >Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly L&I has plenty of >positives, as does the UCD. And I would argue that more often than not, the >overall effect is positive. However, how many other neighborhoods in the city >get tickets for high grass, trash outside when it isn’t supposed to be, etc? >It is illegal to selectively apply enforcement. And in this neighborhood it is >clearly being done. > >Darco > >---- >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>.
