Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)

[Wilma de Soto]

Kimm,

You are correct about the Calvary and the Woodlands being spin-offs of the
UCHS.

I am right about the Friends of the Firehouse Market being a spin-off of
Cedar Park Neighbors and how these groups formed to make sure their agendas
were pushed thorough against the express wishes of the community, the
by-laws of their own organizations, and those who actually sought to protect
the interests of the community.

CPN had a separate Board of Directors for The Firehouse Market.  When this
entity sought to protect the community's interest in the Market instead of
one individual's personal desire to wholly own the entity and remove the
community from the business, The Friends was born.

The Market existed primarily because of funds garnered from the Commonwealth
to provide farm fresh PA produce to a neighborhood of low-to-middle income
residents.  The building was sold to the community for the cost of $1 for
the same purpose.

Apparently, that was a specious scenario because almost immediately the
Market had no farmers whatsoever and took on a distinct tone quite different
from what the community believed they would get when they signed the
petitions that led to gaining funding.

In fact, when leadership of the Firehouse Market Board was changed abruptly
because it was determined the leader was working contrary to community
interests he was supposed to uphold, The Friends bullied their way into a
meeting of the Shareholders', (The CPN Board and the Firehouse Market
Board), held off-site on someone's private property.

They proceeded to write scurrilous articles and letters in the UC Review
excoriating the Firehouse Market Board and CPN leadership.

This by far goes beyond social slights, as you put it.

We all know how the story ended.  The community lost the Market, the
individual who wanted to have sole ownership gained said ownership and the
Market ultimately failed.

Dock Street Brewery is there now, which attracts a different clientele than
those who live nearby or a bit further west.

This scenario has been played out before and no doubt will again.  Those who
will be affected are the only thing that changes, not the M.O. of those who
wish to guide the agenda.


On 2/12/09 1:02 AM, Kimm Tynan kimm.ty...@verizon.net wrote:

 Tony,
 
 I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after
 reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a
 Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in
 University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or
 otherwise.
 
 That's not true.  The Friends of Calvary is/was a spinoff or subgroup of
 the UCHS.  I believe, but could be wrong, that the Friends of the Woodlands
 is/was as well.
 
 I don't believe Calvary . . . ever had a Friends of group attached to them.
 
 See above.
 
 Kimm
 
 
 
 On 2/11/09 10:32 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote:
 
 I'm sure you're right, Wilma. People can be unkind and unfair and cruel
 to each other in any volunteer association. Social slights like these
 are always saddening. One always hopes one's group can engage in it as
 little as possible, but human nature comes with limits.
 
 I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after
 reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a
 Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in
 University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or
 otherwise.
 
 Most Friends of... groups are created to provide single-interest
 community backing to public facilities that could benefit from
 additional input and assistance. Thus we have, in UC alone, Friends of
 Malcolm X Park and Friends of the Walnut Street West Library. They are,
 of course, widespread elsewhere and most public institutions welcome and
 foster them.
 
 I don't believe Calvary, the Firehouse Market or University City
 District ever had a Friends of group attached to them. They are really
 different community institutions, for several different reasons, and
 often aren't similar to each other either. Community associations are in
 a separate class of their own, with special features.
 
 Friends of 40th St. is kind of platypus, with features taken from many
 other classes. It too is not without precedents elsewhere, though.
 
 -- Tony West
 
 
 Still, there are community members who have joined the established UC
 community organizations over the years, who have pledged many hours/years
 and personal funds, and even slightly neglected their own families and
 relationships to support neighborhood issues their very credible community
 leaders charged them to do.
 
 The point is now many of those who have served faithfully are now without
 the powerful UC Community organizations backed Friends to advocate for
 them.  
 
 The hurting thing is the opposing community members to this hotel project
 are desperately trying to uphold the original vision of the established UC
 leaders and community 

Re: [UC] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 2/11/2009 8:24:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
kallena...@msn.com writes:

This is the very type of thing I warned against my editorial  letter in the 
Review back in October, 2007: bad precedent. Once one 10  story building can be 
built, there is no credible justification to stop  another, and another, and 
yet another.  And I agree with you that it  seems that the developer was 
waiting for the Campus Inn to be resolved so that  whatever it is that he has 
planned could ride in on those coattails, and any  resistance could be swatted 
away 
by pointing to that  precedent.  
No, wait! Hold the phone! I have it on the highest authority  -- an unbiased 
local Realtor with nothing to gain by sucking up to Penn or  anyone else 
associated with the Campus Inn -- that these two things have  absitively no 
relationship to one another.

Penn has been in the business of buying up  land surrounding its campus ever 
since it moved to West Philadelphia from 9th  and Chestnut in 1873, so I tend 
to think that they've gotten to be pretty good  at it by now.
More than this, the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States actually  
holds professionals in a given field legally responsible for the consequences 
of 
 their business decisions. Not that many of us think that Anne Papageorge, Ed 
 Datz, Esaul Sanchez, John McGarry, Tony Sorrentino, or any of that crew have 
 demonstrated professionalism in any connotative sense... but this is what  
they're being paid for.



Remember,  you first read it here on the popu-list


Alan  Krigman
**The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards.  AOL Music takes you there. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi0002)

Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups

[Anthony West]

Thanks, Wilma and Kimm, for this fascinating history.

So FoFM was a spinoff from a community association, CPN. But it was not 
a spinoff by CPN *leaders*; instead, it was a spinoff by *dissidents* 
against a third entity, the Firehouse Market itself, which was itself a 
spinoff by CPN leaders


FoWC and FoC were spinoffs of UCHS. However, UCHS is not a community 
association in the general sense of the word, like CPN or Spruce Hill 
Community Association or Powelton Civic Association. Its focus is a 
single subject matter -- history -- within a given area. Does anyone 
recall any public controversies with regards to these properties?


What all these groups -- along with others like Friends of Walnut St. W. 
Library and Friends of Malcolm X Park -- have in common is they formed 
around difficult properties. These properties were not able to attract 
the kind of investment, either private or public, to maintain them in 
ways some in the community wanted. So the 'Friends' groups formed to 
lobby for their preservation, restoration or attractive reuse in ways 
that were running counter to the market -- the contemporary path of 
least resistance for those parcels.


-- Tony West



Kimm,

You are correct about the Calvary and the Woodlands being spin-offs of 
the UCHS.


I am right about the Friends of the Firehouse Market being a spin-off 
of Cedar Park Neighbors and how these groups formed to make sure their 
agendas were pushed thorough against the express wishes of the 
community, the by-laws of their own organizations, and those who 
actually sought to protect the interests of the community.


CPN had a separate Board of Directors for The Firehouse Market.  When 
this entity sought to protect the community's interest in the Market 
instead of one individual's personal desire to wholly own the entity 
and remove the community from the business, The Friends was born.


The Market existed primarily because of funds garnered from the 
Commonwealth to provide farm fresh PA produce to a neighborhood of 
low-to-middle income residents.  The building was sold to the 
community for the cost of $1 for the same purpose.


Apparently, that was a specious scenario because almost immediately 
the Market had no farmers whatsoever and took on a distinct tone quite 
different from what the community believed they would get when they 
signed the petitions that led to gaining funding.


In fact, when leadership of the Firehouse Market Board was changed 
abruptly because it was determined the leader was working contrary to 
community interests he was supposed to uphold, The Friends bullied 
their way into a meeting of the Shareholders', (The CPN Board and the 
Firehouse Market Board), *held off-site on someone's private property.*


They proceeded to write scurrilous articles and letters in the UC 
Review excoriating the Firehouse Market Board and CPN leadership.


This by far goes beyond social slights, as you put it.

We all know how the story ended.  The community lost the Market, the 
individual who wanted to have sole ownership gained said ownership and 
the Market ultimately failed.


Dock Street Brewery is there now, which attracts a different clientele 
than those who live nearby or a bit further west.


This scenario has been played out before and no doubt will again. 
 Those who will be affected are the only thing that changes, not the 
M.O. of those who wish to guide the agenda.



On 2/12/09 1:02 AM, Kimm Tynan kimm.ty...@verizon.net wrote:

 Tony,

 I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after
 reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a
 Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in
 University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, 
nefarious or

 otherwise.

 That's not true.  The Friends of Calvary is/was a spinoff or 
subgroup of
 the UCHS.  I believe, but could be wrong, that the Friends of the 
Woodlands

 is/was as well.

 I don't believe Calvary . . . ever had a Friends of group attached 
to them.


 See above.

 Kimm



 On 2/11/09 10:32 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote:

 I'm sure you're right, Wilma. People can be unkind and unfair and cruel
 to each other in any volunteer association. Social slights like these
 are always saddening. One always hopes one's group can engage in it as
 little as possible, but human nature comes with limits.

 I want to make the record clear for UC-list's sake, that, after
 reflection, nobody on UC-list can recall a single instance in which a
 Friends of... group was spun off from a community association in
 University City, powerful or otherwise, to achieve any aim, nefarious or
 otherwise.

 Most Friends of... groups are created to provide single-interest
 community backing to public facilities that could benefit from
 additional input and assistance. Thus we have, in UC alone, Friends of
 Malcolm X Park and Friends of the Walnut Street West Library. They are,
 of course, 

[UC] Nero will not be stopped, Inq.

[Glenn moyer]

Nutter forms new committee to increase corporate welfare.  I would imagine Penn 
and the Deputy Mayor’s will find that the crisis demands massive increases to 
corporate welfare.  You may have heard whisperings of the mayors ongoing 
meetings about this.  Notice that government officials answerable to the people 
will not be permitted, only consultants. Stay helpless and terrified until the 
riches trickle down!   Read below:


http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/Nutter_forms_committee_to_overhaul_tax_system.html


Winning by attrition.  This slick fella, defendant M. Nutter, knew that he 
couldn’t win his appeal of the court order against him.  While the mayor has 
nearly the authority of emperor anyway, the injunction against library closures 
also supports the law that the mayor cannot completely circumvent the 
legislative branch of government and public hearings.

Penn’s press machine has put a great deal of spin around the announcement that 
the mayor would not close libraries this fiscal year.  Well, he couldn’t 
because of the court order!  Then, he dropped the appeal against the 
injunction, again to great fanfare, as if the poor darling was responding to 
the voice of the people.

Now using our tax dollars, his lawyers bring this motion to dismiss the case.  
Losing the appeal would have supported the existing city law that the mayor is 
not an emperor.  But claiming that the original case is no longer relevant, he 
gets to start from scratch next year.  Not only are the plaintiffs to be 
distracted with delay, the defendant gets a fresh start with his city funded 
lawyers, and plaintiffs need to find the time and expense to fight the thing 
from scratch.  

The mayor is defeating the clear will of the people by winning legal 
maneuvering through attrition.  Consider the spin he has been creating about 
hearing the will of the people about the libraries and bringing in Praxis??  
It’s all crap, as the data shows! Read below:   

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20090212_Nutter_to_assert_prerogative_on_libraries.html



Glenn


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.

RE: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)

[KAREN ALLEN]

Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board 
in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as 
Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia 
Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI),  but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I 
distinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, 
got the City, through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the 
abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a 
new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. 
 
The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood 
becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. 
It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name Firehouse Farmers 
Market. The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market 
aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a 
public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest.  
But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a 
number of people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the 
CPN and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into giving 
the private partner free reign.  
 
Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve the 
vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give 
the private owner free reign.  The community faction for the most part lived 
west of 49th Street [racial code] and was black, while the private owner 
faction lived east of 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much 
white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were 
constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the 
Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping 
whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was also that the private 
partner's supporters used the black community to get the building and create 
the market, but once created, did something completely different and wanted to 
push that community out. 
 
The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for President 
for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black female supported by the 
community faction and the other was a white male supported by the private owner 
faction. There was an active election campaign, unusual by community 
association election standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community 
newspapers etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of 
the Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests?
 
The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record never seen 
before or since. The private owner candidate won, but then came allegations 
of election fraud because someone among the other Board candidates on the 
ballot helped count the votes with the current Board President, who was a 
private owner supporter. 
 
While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the election, 
I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if she was going to come vote 
in the CPN election, and she made an offhand reference that she already knew 
because she had gotten the flier at her door from someone in the 
neighborhood. I thought it was odd, because I didn't know anything about a 
flier and because my neighbor got a visit and a flier and I didn't. I asked if 
she still had it, but by then she had thrown it out. Once the vote controversy 
emerged, I started asking around, and finally someone I was allied with spoke 
to a white neighbor of hers, who did not want to be involved, but did direct 
her to look in the bags of trash set out on the curb. 
 
The flier supported the private owner candidate, and contained coded racial 
language. All of the people who would admit to receiving one were white. No one 
who was black knew anything about it. This led to a big contentious meeting 
where everyone was in an uproar. The people behind the fliers were identified, 
and our complaint was that the flier was racist because of the language and 
because it was circulated in secret to only white community members. 
 
One of the defenders of the flier pointed out that a black person who published 
his own community newspaper was openly advocating for the community candidate, 
and that the defender had the same First Amendment right to distribute the 
flier. I responded to her that while she had a right to distribute a flier, why 
would she have it distrtibuted selectively? Why would my neighbor get one and 
not me? Why did it seem like only white people got it? I pointed out that the 
publisher made his views known to all who wished to read them, and that he 
didn't excercise his First Amendment rights in secret to a select audience. 
 
Tensions were so high that it was decided to throw out the election results and 

RE: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)

[Glenn moyer]

Karen, thank you, Wilma, and Kimm for sharing this important history! 
It is remarkable how many of these same despicable tactics that I also experienced at the hands of FOCP/SHCA!It's a well rehearsed bag of tricksused against new victims continually. While fair-minded peopletry totreat the neighborhood bullieslike mature adults, theyknow no bounds in what Melani calls, "the good fight."
I had a survey selectively distributed by FOCP to destroy my Clark Park Music and Arts Community and the Woodland Ave Reunion. Everything about the survey was bogus. (I was told that here; it is common to distribute these things only to the homeowners.)
Additionaly,FOCP attempted to pit ourtwo groups against each other in 1999,using their role as calendar keepers for the Dept of Recreation. Keeping the secret that both groups had accidentally chosen the same date, they made a last minute crusade to demand that one event had to be cancelled because more of their secret rules. When they lied about the Woodland Ave Reunion breaking the FOCP's specialized rules for porto-potties, I had to inform the Reunion of the FOCP plotting, and we began working together. 
Attack against the Woodlan Reunion: They inflated the size of the Reunion 5 fold, or 5000 attendees, then demanded that the Reunion not receive any more permits because it broke the rules. (The FOCP substituted their own absurd restrictive rule for the city's actual rule for special events.)

A few years ago, Mr. West was caught adding secret votes at the dog park vote. Two years earlier when I challenged him for President, and it was clear that my supporters had the majority; I was told that Mr. West won by three votes!
I could go on and on about the similaritiesin the tactics used to bully people in this community! These lifers like Haligan,West, and the SHCA zoning committteeknow no bounds when their power to bully is theatened. Most decent people come to these civic associations and end up leaving with terrible feelings about the ruling elite.
I have heard these types of stories over and over. I honestly believe our community needss to come together to finally rid our neighborhood of these power gangs! We can now go back decades and see the exact same tactics that we each, in turn, suffer under. Then, let me add, that they always attack our characters, as being a bunch of loud mouth sore losers, when we tell the truth about these outrages. 
Like I found solidarity with the Woodland Ave Reunion against the FOCP/SHCA, we need to do this each time. We must all stand together and stop each of these gangs instead of allowing them to always attack us a few at a time!
Thanks again for sharing this history. I want to recognize that it takes courage to tell these stories, because we have all seen the lengths that these creepoids will go to attack those who tell the truth
Best,
Glenn
-Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN Sent: Feb 12, 2009 12:15 PM To: UnivCity Listserv Subject: RE: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor) 

Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), but I knowa lot of the CPN part of it. Idistinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, throughCouncilman Lucien Blackwell's office,to deed the abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name "Firehouse Farmers Market". The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a numberof people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of theCPN and Firehouse boards and they tried tomanipulate those boards into givingthe privatepartner free reign.Two factions emerged which broke down asthose who wanted to preserve the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give the private owner free reign. The "community" factionfor the most part lived"west of 49th Street" [racial code]andwas black, whilethe "private owner" faction lived "east of 49th Street" [more racial code]and was pretty much white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping 

Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups

[Anthony West]

A very interesting and informative summary, Karen. It certainly raises a 
new question for every one it answers.


One is the practicality of the WPFHPI idea in the first place. I wasn't 
close to the Cedar Park business world in 1988, but what one saw of 
Baltimore Ave. then was, left to its own devices, the market would have 
turned the old firehouse into something like a garage or a storefront 
church, that probably would have catered more to the west of 49th 
Street community. So that move to set up a farmers' market instead -- 
was that popular both east and west?


Does anybody else recall?

-- Tony West



KAREN ALLEN wrote:
Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the 
CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as 
intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known 
officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI), 
 but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that 
the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, 
through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned 
firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a 
new firehouse at 52nd and Willows.
 
The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the 
neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the 
surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence 
the name Firehouse Farmers Market. The market got a grant from the 
state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a 
requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership, 
with CPN being the steward of the public interest.  But what ended up 
happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of 
people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the CPN 
and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into 
giving the private partner free reign.  
 
Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve 
the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who 
wanted to give the private owner free reign.  The community 
faction for the most part lived west of 49th Street [racial 
code] and was black, while the private owner faction lived east of 
49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the 
stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant 
accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the 
Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply 
rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was 
also that the private partner's supporters used the black community to 
get the building and create the market, but once created, did 
something completely different and wanted to push that community out. 
 
The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for 
President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black 
female supported by the community faction and the other was a white 
male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active 
election campaign, unusual by community association election 
standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers 
etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of the 
Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests?
 
The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record 
never seen before or since. The private owner candidate won, but 
then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the 
other Board candidates on the ballot helped count the votes with the 
current Board President, who was a private owner supporter.
 
While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the 
election, I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if she was 
going to come vote in the CPN election, and she made an offhand 
reference that she already knew because she had gotten the flier at 
her door from someone in the neighborhood. I thought it was odd, 
because I didn't know anything about a flier and because my neighbor 
got a visit and a flier and I didn't. I asked if she still had it, but 
by then she had thrown it out. Once the vote controversy emerged, I 
started asking around, and finally someone I was allied with spoke to 
a white neighbor of hers, who did not want to be involved, but did 
direct her to look in the bags of trash set out on the curb.
 
The flier supported the private owner candidate, and contained coded 
racial language. All of the people who would admit to receiving one 
were white. No one who was black knew anything about it. This led to a 
big contentious meeting where everyone was in an uproar. The people 
behind the fliers were identified, and our complaint was that the 
flier was racist because of the language and because it was circulated 
in secret to only white community members. 
 
One of the defenders of the flier pointed out that a black person who 

Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups (Was: Re: Penn-gemony receives its next Mayor)

[Wilma de Soto]

Tony,

There is NO need to thank either me, Karen or Kimm for this ³fascinating
history.²

Karen is correct.  I was one of the few Black people who was given the slate
of candidates to vote for outside of the election center at Hickman Temple
in 1989.

I was a member of the CPN Board AND its Secretary during the conflict.

I bore witness to the conflicts mentioned by Karen when she left the CPN
Board.

Our accounts, (and others), bear witness to the legacy of hard feelings I
mentioned before that present UC Community Officers may have inherited.

MY questions to one as erudite as you are:

€ Have you EVER learned ANYTHING from this ³fascinating history², or just
continue to blow it off as rhetoric of misfits?
€ Have you EVER really read it and honestly considered it or have you just
invalidated the experiences of those who were affected?
€ Are you truly able to make the mental cognitive synapse connections
between what we and others have written about this ³fascinating history² and
note the similarities to the present Campus Inn situation?
€ Although you may not agree with these positions, would you still deny the
stated scenarios took place in face of repeated written accounts of those
who took the side of the community and were punished?
€ Could you acknowledge there might be hurt feelings by those who may have
supported the various UC community groups¹ agendas before, but NOW find
themselves without ³Friends² now that it affects them?
€ Do you deny there are accounts of public record, i.e. UC Review and
minutes of SHCA and CPN that buffet these arguments?

Whenever I post on this listserv about controversial community issues, I try
to present my opinions using the facts as I know them.
When someone makes an assertion I do not know, or proves me wrong with the
facts, I have publicly said I stand corrected or apologized if I was brusque
or in error.

I request publicly you answer my questions or just the first one would be
enough.


On 2/12/09 12:15 PM, KAREN ALLEN kallena...@msn.com wrote:

 Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the CPN board
 in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as intricate knowledge as
 Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known officially as the West Philadelphia
 Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI),  but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I
 distinctly remember that the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN,
 got the City, through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the
 abandoned firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a
 new firehouse at 52nd and Willows.
  
 The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the neighborhood
 becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the surrounding community.
 It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence the name Firehouse Farmers
 Market. The market got a grant from the state because of the farmers market
 aspect of the project. There was a requirement that the market structure be a
 public/private partnership, with CPN being the steward of the public interest.
 But what ended up happining was that the private partner was friends with a
 number of people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the
 CPN and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into giving
 the private partner free reign.
  
 Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve the
 vision of the market as being for the community, and those who wanted to give
 the private owner free reign.  The community faction for the most part lived
 west of 49th Street [racial code] and was black, while the private owner
 faction lived east of 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much
 white, so the stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were
 constant accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the
 Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply rubberstamping
 whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was also that the private
 partner's supporters used the black community to get the building and create
 the market, but once created, did something completely different and wanted to
 push that community out.
  
 The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for President
 for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black female supported by the
 community faction and the other was a white male supported by the private
 owner faction. There was an active election campaign, unusual by community
 association election standards: There were editorial letters, fliers,
 community newspapers etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the
 destiny of the Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private
 interests?
  
 The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record never seen
 before or since. The private owner candidate won, but then came allegations
 of election fraud because someone among the other Board candidates on the
 

Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups

[Anthony West]

Wilma,

I always answer every question that is addressed me. It's a courtesy 
fundamental to honest discussion. Like your own discussion habits, which 
are admirable and which I too try to follow, hopefully as well as you 
someday.


1) I have learned many things and indeed just posted a request for more 
information. Since I never post a request for more rhetoric, or for more 
misfits, assume I respect your history.


2) I really read it and honestly considered it. Your experiences sound 
valid. Other people's experiences may sound equally valid, yet be 
different. That's why I'd like to hear more voices, without prejudging 
anybody's perspectives.


3) Between the CPN/Firehouse contretemps of 1988 and the SHCA/Campus Inn 
contretemps of 2008, there are some obvious parallels, but maybe a few 
more obvious differences. Both are true.


4) I have no idea what positions I agree or disagree with. I don't deny 
any scenarios at this time, now you've kindly given us a lucid account 
of yours. Your material can be fact-checked by the entire community, 
thanks. But remember: name-calling makes fact-checking harder, not 
easier, for the community.


5) Yes, hurt feelings! I see this constantly in the group I work with 
and it always pains me, so I know they have stung many other decent, 
goodhearted neighbors. It has nothing to do with your ideology or your 
faction; it mostly has to do with small-group dynamics.


6) Not at all. Readers just need referrals to them, thanks.

-- Tony West



MY questions to one as erudite as you are:

• Have you EVER learned ANYTHING from this “fascinating history”, or 
just continue to blow it off as rhetoric of misfits?
• Have you EVER really read it and honestly considered it or have you 
just invalidated the experiences of those who were affected?
• Are you truly able to make the mental cognitive synapse connections 
between what we and others have written about this “fascinating 
history” and note the similarities to the present Campus Inn situation?
• Although you may not agree with these positions, would you still 
deny the stated scenarios took place in face of repeated written 
accounts of those who took the side of the community and were punished?
• Could you acknowledge there might be hurt feelings by those who may 
have supported the various UC community groups’ agendas before, but 
NOW find themselves without “Friends” now that it affects them?
• Do you deny there are accounts of public record, i.e. UC Review and 
minutes of SHCA and CPN that buffet these arguments?


Whenever I post on this listserv about controversial community issues, 
I try to present my opinions using the facts as I know them.
When someone makes an assertion I do not know, or proves me wrong with 
the facts, I have publicly said I stand corrected or apologized if I 
was brusque or in error.


I request publicly you answer my questions or just the first one would 
be enough.




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.

Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups

[Wilma de Soto]

Thank you Tony.

As for name-calling, I advise you of the existence of written records of
501c3 UC Community organizations and implore you to read them yourself.

I should rather you state what is is you have learned, (not just read or
heard), from arguments on this listserv with regard to UC community groups,
and if you are actually able to correlate with regard to the current Campus
Inn situation. 

A simple recall and one-to-one correspondence is enough.

On 2/12/09 7:52 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote:

 Wilma,
 
 I always answer every question that is addressed me. It's a courtesy
 fundamental to honest discussion. Like your own discussion habits, which
 are admirable and which I too try to follow, hopefully as well as you
 someday.
 
 1) I have learned many things and indeed just posted a request for more
 information. Since I never post a request for more rhetoric, or for more
 misfits, assume I respect your history.
 
 2) I really read it and honestly considered it. Your experiences sound
 valid. Other people's experiences may sound equally valid, yet be
 different. That's why I'd like to hear more voices, without prejudging
 anybody's perspectives.
 
 3) Between the CPN/Firehouse contretemps of 1988 and the SHCA/Campus Inn
 contretemps of 2008, there are some obvious parallels, but maybe a few
 more obvious differences. Both are true.
 
 4) I have no idea what positions I agree or disagree with. I don't deny
 any scenarios at this time, now you've kindly given us a lucid account
 of yours. Your material can be fact-checked by the entire community,
 thanks. But remember: name-calling makes fact-checking harder, not
 easier, for the community.
 
 5) Yes, hurt feelings! I see this constantly in the group I work with
 and it always pains me, so I know they have stung many other decent,
 goodhearted neighbors. It has nothing to do with your ideology or your
 faction; it mostly has to do with small-group dynamics.
 
 6) Not at all. Readers just need referrals to them, thanks.
 
 -- Tony West
 
 
 MY questions to one as erudite as you are:
 
 € Have you EVER learned ANYTHING from this ³fascinating history², or
 just continue to blow it off as rhetoric of misfits?
 € Have you EVER really read it and honestly considered it or have you
 just invalidated the experiences of those who were affected?
 € Are you truly able to make the mental cognitive synapse connections
 between what we and others have written about this ³fascinating
 history² and note the similarities to the present Campus Inn situation?
 € Although you may not agree with these positions, would you still
 deny the stated scenarios took place in face of repeated written
 accounts of those who took the side of the community and were punished?
 € Could you acknowledge there might be hurt feelings by those who may
 have supported the various UC community groups¹ agendas before, but
 NOW find themselves without ³Friends² now that it affects them?
 € Do you deny there are accounts of public record, i.e. UC Review and
 minutes of SHCA and CPN that buffet these arguments?
 
 Whenever I post on this listserv about controversial community issues,
 I try to present my opinions using the facts as I know them.
 When someone makes an assertion I do not know, or proves me wrong with
 the facts, I have publicly said I stand corrected or apologized if I
 was brusque or in error.
 
 I request publicly you answer my questions or just the first one would
 be enough.
 
 
 
 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.

Re: [UC] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue

[Dave Axler]

The following may be of relevance to this discussion:

The property's tax info and other BRT data, per Hallwatch.org, shows  
the following...


Market value as of 3/1/01: $318,700

Assessed value: $0.00 as of 5/1/89
   Taxable building: $0.00
   Taxable land: $0.00

Property Tax: $0.00
Exempt land: $37,907.00
Exempt building: $64,077.00

Last sale: 1/11/08, recorded 1/16/08, for $3.5 million.

Current owner:
Clarkmore LP

Owner Address:
Thylan Associates, Inc.
805 3rd Ave, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022

And a footnote: Hallwatch is closing as of 26 February. If you have  
any properties you want to check out via their services, for no  
charge, now's the time to do it...


On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:23 PM, KAREN ALLEN wrote:

RE: When I read that the demolition permit had a June, 2008 date  
crossed out and handwritten in was a January, 2009 date[...].  It  
seems pretty clear to me that the current owners of 4224 Baltimore  
had requested a permit to demolish last year with the expectation  
that the hotel project was close to a done deal, that the precedent  
for large non-residential projects had been established and that  
their project would thus be likely to win approval.  Of course, the  
tough fight against the hotel upset their timetable and they had to  
get a new permit, one starting in January this year.  I think one  
would have to be awfully naive not to suspect that the fix is  
probably in on the hotel project and that these guys have gotten the  
word. They are now set to proceed on whatever they have planned for  
two nineteenth-century structures and one of the last plots of open  
land in our community.


Mary,
Thanks for this report.

This is the very type of thing I warned against my editorial letter  
in the Review back in October, 2007: bad precedent. Once one 10  
story building can be built, there is no credible justification to  
stop another, and another, and yet another.  And I agree with you  
that it seems that the developer was waiting for the Campus Inn to  
be resolved so that whatever it is that he has planned could ride in  
on those coattails, and any resistance could be swatted away by  
pointing to that precedent.


As far as the suspicion regarding a fix being in, consider this  
from Inga Saffron of the Inquirer:

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/2009_Feb_06/k.PPR.1233945542.html

On Nov. 14, the commission -- now filled with Nutter's appointees --  
made an attempt to reverse course, voting 7-3 to reject the Campus  
Inn tower. Almost immediately, commission chairman Sam Sherman was  
summoned to the office of Deputy Mayor Andrew Altman. The following  
month, a slightly revised version of the project was resoundingly  
approved, 8-2.
Altman says he never asked Sherman to change the decision. I just  
wanted to understand why the commission voted the way it did, he  
explains. Sherman concurs, and says Altman was concerned because the  
Planning Commission had already given Campus Inn its blessing.
Still, according to the Preservation Alliance's John Gallery, such  
an about-face is highly unusual. In my six years of observing the  
commission, I've never seen a reversal like this, he says. In our  
view, there were no material changes to the design to justify a  
second hearing.


Regarding the defense that there are other 10 story buildings in UC:  
yes there are.  The tall buildings on Penn's campus are in an area  
zoned for institutional uses. Garden Court, the Fairfax, and  
Hamilton Court at 39th and Chestnut were all built prior to the  
existing zoning regulations. Each building was archetecturally  
designed to be tall, and was intended to sit on a large lot with an  
area proportional to its height. None of these buildings were built  
as modern, out-of-character slabs, crammed as an afterthought into  
the side yards of much-older existing buildings. Garden Court has a  
garage; the Fairfax and Hamilton Court were built before the  
proliferation of cars.


As far as the claim that there is nothing else Penn could do with  
this building, it stretches credulity to compare Penn with an  
individual property owner or investor who may have limited resources  
and who must make a profit to stay afloat. Even accepting the claim  
that Penn is in the education business, it can still raise money  
from its vast pool of donors. They recently raised money in the  
billions of dollars for its endowment fund, so I find it hard to  
believe that they could not have designated the building for an  
academic use and raised whatever money was needed from that pool of  
donors. In fact, Penn plans to build a three story  structure around  
the corner on the vacant lot next to Allegra Pizza at 40th and  
Spruce. Why can't the Campus Inn be built on the vacant lot and 40th  
and Pine be refurbished for the other facility?


As far as not knowing the site was historically designated: Penn has  
been in the business of buying up land surrounding its campus ever  
since it 

[UC] Needed Furnished Room in House

[Joe Clarke]

A freind with whom I worked is looking for a furnished room to rent in 
Ucity.  I told her that I would ask around.  She is a mature working 
woman, and I am sure
would be a good tenant.  Thanks in Advance.  You can contact me off line 
if you have anything.


Joe Clarke

--
Life is too important to be taken seriously.  Oscar Wilde


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.

[UC] Report on the 1st Praxis budget meeting

[Glenn moyer]

The demon gales were blowing, as if the pit of hell had opened up to breathe.  
An odoriferous sensation, like barnyard hooey, seemed to arise from all sides 
where Praxis staff were stationed.  The usual Praxis stuff was present, exactly 
as predicted and not worth anything.  Participant's goal was to score 100 bonus 
points. (Tony West, who was not in attendance, will correct me.)  

Here are the only interesting highlights which might surprise West 
Philadelphians:

Sung by Praxis, The Deputy mayors, Sokoloff, and Satullo- 


Look... and see my pretty po..ny…
He’s... my lovely little po…ny…
You can look and love him too
When you’re feeling very blue;

Look... and see my pretty po…ny…

Look... and see my little pup…py dog
He’s... my lovely little pup…py dog
You can ruff-ruff with him too
While he pees upon your shoe;

Look... and see my little pup...py dog


That's civic engagement folks, Penn style!

Citizen reporter,
Glenn







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.

Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups

[Kimm Tynan]

Tony,

It's not a very interesting and informative summary.  It's a painful,
gut-wrenching story.  Please don't give Karen's story such short shrift.  I
am considering honoring what Karen just did by telling the story of the
Friends of Calvary, which is remarkably similar.  But it is hard and
painful.  What Karen just did is amazing.  But you haven't heard a word that
she said, and she obviously spent an enormous amount of time and emotional
energy saying it.  You just moved on to the practicality of the WPFHPI.

Which is why this neighborhood can't get past this stuff - because the folks
who need to listen refuse to.  And frankly, if that is your reaction, then,
aside from solidarity with Karen and Wilma, I see little reason to invest
the time and energy to educate you further.

Kimm


On 2/12/09 6:55 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote:

 A very interesting and informative summary, Karen. It certainly raises a
 new question for every one it answers.
 
 One is the practicality of the WPFHPI idea in the first place. I wasn't
 close to the Cedar Park business world in 1988, but what one saw of
 Baltimore Ave. then was, left to its own devices, the market would have
 turned the old firehouse into something like a garage or a storefront
 church, that probably would have catered more to the west of 49th
 Street community. So that move to set up a farmers' market instead --
 was that popular both east and west?
 
 Does anybody else recall?
 
 -- Tony West
 
 
 
 KAREN ALLEN wrote:
 Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the
 CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as
 intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known
 officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or WPFHPI),
  but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that
 the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City,
 through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned
 firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a
 new firehouse at 52nd and Willows.
  
 The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the
 neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the
 surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence
 the name Firehouse Farmers Market. The market got a grant from the
 state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There was a
 requirement that the market structure be a public/private partnership,
 with CPN being the steward of the public interest.  But what ended up
 happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of
 people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of the CPN
 and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into
 giving the private partner free reign.
  
 Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve
 the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who
 wanted to give the private owner free reign.  The community
 faction for the most part lived west of 49th Street [racial
 code] and was black, while the private owner faction lived east of
 49th Street [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the
 stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant
 accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the
 Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply
 rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was
 also that the private partner's supporters used the black community to
 get the building and create the market, but once created, did
 something completely different and wanted to push that community out.
  
 The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for
 President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black
 female supported by the community faction and the other was a white
 male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active
 election campaign, unusual by community association election
 standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers
 etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny of the
 Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private interests?
  
 The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record
 never seen before or since. The private owner candidate won, but
 then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the
 other Board candidates on the ballot helped count the votes with the
 current Board President, who was a private owner supporter.
  
 While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the
 election, I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if she was
 going to come vote in the CPN election, and she made an offhand
 reference that she already knew because she had gotten the flier at
 her door from someone in the neighborhood. I thought it was odd,
 because I didn't know anything about a flier and because my 

Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Kimm Tynan wrote:


Melani,

If a small, vocal group of our UC neighbors continues to reject the
restrictions which a local HD would impose, then, because of the increasing
popularity of our neighborhood, we are probably beginning an era of tear-downs
and requests for changes in height.



This is a false dichotomy and red herring.  There¹s absolutely no reason
that a historic district is the only way to maintain height restrictions.
It¹s not an either or choice.



I agree, kimm.

and this was spelled out here pretty early on, back in 
october 2007, about the proposed hotel at 40th and pine. how 
this a ZONING question, not a historic preservation question:


http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg20121.html

it's odd that anyone would still be stuck on seeing this as 
an issue about historic preservation, and then use that 
false premise to justify support for a 10-story slab on that 
property.


hotel opponents have been trying to protect a NEIGHBORHOOD, 
through responsible zoning, and have argued that neighbors 
would welcome 'responsible development' of the site:


http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg21283.html


..
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.

Re: [UC] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue

[Mcgettig]

Thanks, Dave.  The Philadelphia: Build page of LI's web site  indicates that 
the previous owner of the property was the non-profit Women  Against Abuse, 
which provides services, including housing, for women and  children who are 
victims of domestic violence.  Apparently, the tax-exempt  status of the 
property 
was never adjusted when it was purchased by the  for-profit real estate 
developer, Lenard Thylen, James Campenella's  associate.  So far, this owner 
seems 
to have avoided for over a year the  payment of taxes on a property worth 
$3,500,000.  Given the city's serious  budget crisis, I find this somewhat 
annoying.  Indeed, I would have  thought, given Campenella's history, that he 
and his 
partners would be more  careful about paying their taxes.
 
By the way, Campenella's partners on previous real estate ventures have  
interesting histories themselves.  One, Sean McDougall, specializes in  
building 
community-based correctional facilities (jails) while another, Eric  Seidman, 
is notorious for threatening historic structures through his  development 
efforts on behalf of Walgreen's drugstores ( two Art Deco buildings  on 
Chestnut 
Street and the 18th-century tavern, The Black Horse Inn, on  Bethlehem Pike).  
While I think it's unlikely that anyone would ever  propose putting a jail or 
drug rehab center across the street from Clark Park, I  do think it's 
reasonable to have some concerns about what may be planned for  Baltimore 
Avenue.  
 
Mary
**Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you 
now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=floristncid=emlcntusyelp0002)