"In another dispute, Primavera brokered the following deal: The
developer paid the dues for each new condo resident to enjoy---get
this---a /year-long membership in the neighborhood association!/ "
Dave, I'm not so sure that this district wasn't included in this
story-haha. Forcing outsiders to join their civic association is a huge
part of the power play here. This type of tribute is meant to have a
psychological effect; proving the power relationship.
(Why do I know that name, Carl Primavera??)
"The planned result is that developers won't need to get the community
groups' approval. " (This sentence is the reason for this story!)
Who loses at the end of this process?
I always knew that groups like FOCP and SHCA would inevitably lose their
own power while they betrayed all of us. It looks like the abuses of
these associations have made us all voiceless now! Now the quid pro quo
dealings will be done in back rooms without the involvement of these
groups nor those who were shut out by them. (e.g. The Clark Park
Partnership is closed to members of the public.)
Would excluding "community groups" from zoning matters have been
possible if these groups had acted according to democratic
principles??? This description of civic associations is embarrassing
and essentially true in our neighborhood! But transparency, inclusive
processes, and a focus on honest information could not have supported
the elimination of community voices, which is the point in this PR
message. (This story would be strongly contradicted if civic
associations were respected and trusted in our neighborhoods!)
Now, the "experts" will make decisions in backrooms because the civic
associations are portrayed as the source of pay to play. The people,
caught up in these groups, were too consumed with their cravings for
power to see this. But the rest of us should have seen that this was
the true corporate goal when these dysfunctional groups were first
anointed! (All the spin about partnerships with community leaders just
set up the idiots as pawns). They dangled the pay to play carrot to
replace appropriate processes, and the "civic leaders" went for the bait.
Unfortunately this is true:
"These sorts of quid-pro-quo deals are something too many neighborhoods
expect. "Sometimes," says former city managing director Phil Goldsmith,
"you've got community groups asking for money or something in return for
approving a project that should already be permitted under the zoning
code. People won't like me for saying this, but it's pay-to-play
politics---on a civic level."
Perhaps even worse, the controversy isn't always about what the
neighborhood will get in return for supporting a project. Sometimes it's
simply about control, about neighborhoods telling business owners what
they can and can't do with the property they bought...
That's a lot of power to be invested in anyone, transforming the leaders
of neighborhood groups into quasi-public officials. And the question
going forward is, how can we rein in the power of leaders we never
elected in the first place? "
Thanks for posting this,
Glenn
On 6/27/2010 3:44 PM, Dave Axler wrote:
The July issue of Philadelphia Magazine has a piece titled "Turf Wars: Neighbors
Gone Wild." It's about the behavior of neighborhood groups towards entrepreneurs and
developers in the city. It takes a decidedly pro-business slant -- not a surprise, given
the source -- and is focused on groups in Center City and adjacent areas (Fishtown, Queen
Village, etc.). There's no mention of any West Philly groups such as SHCA.
Despite the article's bias, it makes some good points and is worth reading. You
can find it online at:
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/turf_wars_neighbors_gone_wild062110/----
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>.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2966 - Release Date: 06/27/10
02:35:00
