Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Ric, I want to publicly thank you for confronting the use of a straw man. One of the reasons that this technique is so ubiquitous is to intimidate and silence everyone else. Tony knows that he will never silence or intimidate me. He is trying to send a message to the rest of the list and community when he attempts these techniques. His message is all about power. Anyone who dares to question the abuse of power is to watch how he attempts to crush his target. Confronting these techniques empowers others in this community to stand up and speak out! In the end, bully's are exposed. Thanks, Glenn PS: The other FOCP board members have left Tony unleashed to use these tactics against this community for years. WHAT DOES THEIR SILENCE SAY ABOUT THE FOCP BOARD On 4/29/2011 12:43 AM, Richard Conrad wrote: You are reading in. You don't play fair. You just can't admit it. Glenn does not say as Darco implied that people were excluded from the park (and actually people have been - you and everyone else can probably realize that people are routinely told to leave the park, for sleeping overnight and other reasons). Maybe Glenn refers to private Clark Park banquets with high priced entry fees. Maybe he refers to private gatherings hosted by Penn where the public is excluded. 'Penn Control' is something about which while Glenn has held back from giving it ultimate vilification, he warns people to be concerned. 'Secrecy' is the most difficult to prove (duh, it's a secret), but in any case you ridicule by hyperbole, misrepresent his remarks, and say things that are not true. You now seem to be practically accusing me of being a Trump conspiracy talk supporter. You clearly haven't read much of what I have written (or you are resorting to damaging written public falsification again). I am actually a true Balder who believes Donald Trump can't be Pres. because he can't prove his hair was born in the U.S.A. Here is something of mine I posted to FB: Saying Trump appeals to masochistic dupes with no sense of mathematics, to sadistic voyeurs who wish they had balls, or to racist instincts in those of lesser intelligence, is all the same... they're just the facts Jack! Bill Mahr did better: Bill Maher says, Hey Trump, what's the biggest scam ever NOW? I'd say its a guy with 3 bankruptcies telling America how to get its financial house in order. Crackpot. That is what you say Tony, instead of answering others criticisms! Surely you are big enough to deal with others concerns and not to only resort to name calling. Be fair. Rick On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Anthony West wrote: Richard, I quote from Glenn's text, which Darco and I have read quite clearly: The master plan for 'revitalization' of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! Glenn has, for years, been publishing on this list false allegations that various users were *planned to be excluded from the park *by this nefarious conspiracy. Since none of them ever were, in fact, excluded from the physical park, and there were, in fact, no plans that any users should be excluded from the park -- he is now attempting to befuddle you -- as well as unsuspecting newcomers -- by pretending some users were excluded from *planning for the park. *And he's trying to muddle the two together with murky conspiracy-theory language, where what we're talking about shifts every time a claim of fact is contested. Of course, nothing of the sort ever happened. (There wasn't any secrecy or any Penn control either.) I looked into these allegations very carefully in 2002-03. Typical Trump talk, in my opinion. But if this is what floats your boat, I sure can't stop you. Conspiracy-theory crackpots never run out of gas, do they? --Tony West On 4/28/2011 11:28 PM, Richard Conrad wrote: O.K. let's get real! Darco represents Glenn as saying something he did not. Darco asks: do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the park. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3603 - Release Date: 04/28/11 14:34:00
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Dear Glenn, I appreciate your gratitude and quite concur with your astute identification of straw man bullying. I hope you are mistaken about Tony's message being all about power and still hope that he will come to his senses and apologize for his unfair behaviors in attacking you, and then me, but I won't predict the future. The same goes for Darco and Bill. If we intend to continue community growth and stave off fascistic corporate medievalism we had all better seriously watch our hands in dealing with those amongst our own ranks and neighborhoods. Rick On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Glenn wrote: Ric, I want to publicly thank you for confronting the use of a straw man. One of the reasons that this technique is so ubiquitous is to intimidate and silence everyone else. Tony knows that he will never silence or intimidate me. He is trying to send a message to the rest of the list and community when he attempts these techniques. His message is all about power. Anyone who dares to question the abuse of power is to watch how he attempts to crush his target. Confronting these techniques empowers others in this community to stand up and speak out! In the end, bully's are exposed. Thanks, Glenn PS: The other FOCP board members have left Tony unleashed to use these tactics against this community for years. WHAT DOES THEIR SILENCE SAY ABOUT THE FOCP BOARD On 4/29/2011 12:43 AM, Richard Conrad wrote: You are reading in. You don't play fair. You just can't admit it. Glenn does not say as Darco implied that people were excluded from the park (and actually people have been - you and everyone else can probably realize that people are routinely told to leave the park, for sleeping overnight and other reasons). Maybe Glenn refers to private Clark Park banquets with high priced entry fees. Maybe he refers to private gatherings hosted by Penn where the public is excluded. 'Penn Control' is something about which while Glenn has held back from giving it ultimate vilification, he warns people to be concerned. 'Secrecy' is the most difficult to prove (duh, it's a secret), but in any case you ridicule by hyperbole, misrepresent his remarks, and say things that are not true. You now seem to be practically accusing me of being a Trump conspiracy talk supporter. You clearly haven't read much of what I have written (or you are resorting to damaging written public falsification again). I am actually a true Balder who believes Donald Trump can't be Pres. because he can't prove his hair was born in the U.S.A. Here is something of mine I posted to FB: Saying Trump appeals to masochistic dupes with no sense of mathematics, to sadistic voyeurs who wish they had balls, or to racist instincts in those of lesser intelligence, is all the same... they're just the facts Jack! Bill Mahr did better: Bill Maher says, Hey Trump, what's the biggest scam ever NOW? I'd say its a guy with 3 bankruptcies telling America how to get its financial house in order. Crackpot. That is what you say Tony, instead of answering others criticisms! Surely you are big enough to deal with others concerns and not to only resort to name calling. Be fair. Rick On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Anthony West wrote: Richard, I quote from Glenn's text, which Darco and I have read quite clearly: The master plan for 'revitalization' of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! Glenn has, for years, been publishing on this list false allegations that various users were planned to be excluded from the park by this nefarious conspiracy. Since none of them ever were, in fact, excluded from the physical park, and there were, in fact, no plans that any users should be excluded from the park -- he is now attempting to befuddle you -- as well as unsuspecting newcomers -- by pretending some users were excluded from planning for the park. And he's trying to muddle the two together with murky conspiracy-theory language, where what we're talking about shifts every time a claim of fact is contested. Of course, nothing of the sort ever happened. (There wasn't any secrecy or any Penn control either.) I looked into these allegations very carefully in 2002-03. Typical Trump talk, in my opinion. But if this is what floats your boat, I sure can't stop you. Conspiracy-theory crackpots never run out of gas, do they? --Tony West On 4/28/2011 11:28 PM, Richard Conrad wrote: O.K. let's get real! Darco represents Glenn as saying something he did not. Darco asks: do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the park. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3603 -
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Rick, I tend to be optimistic. For over a decade, I worked with serious drug addicts and ex-prisoners. Only those of us with abundant optimism manage to do that work successfully-haha. Darco seems reasonable and I hope he considers our criticism constructively. I think it's out of character, and that is part of the reason I snapped back at him. I just dismiss tweets like Bill's and don't know anything about him other than being a block captain. But I've noticed disturbing patterns with some other block captains in our area. The current FOCP prez and former Spruce Hill Civic Association prez became my block commander as soon as he moved to West Philly! That experience has been terrible! But I would certainly accept a sincere apology from Bill, without prejudice. Unfortunately, I've been dealing with Tony since 2003 and his behavior has always been consistent. I'm not sure how long you've been subscribed to this list, but he has a long history here, and as the leader of the FOCP Board. I haven't been the only target over the years. Straw man is one of Tony West's favorite tactics. And he will not stop, even when he should realize that he is making a fool of himself. What I call his Evil Ray series is infamous! I think he thought he was successful when he had a gang of people, who joined him in a type of group straw man tactic on the list. Tony would create the straw man, and then the group would post a series of nasty posts at the target, as if they were all too stupid to understand the meaning of the original post. After their gangs' tactics were thoroughly exposed on this list, they left and formed a separate list sponsored by the Annenberg school at Penn. I believe you know this ucneighbors. They used the threat of censorship to intimidate the other subscribers, who came from this listserv. They were even caught bragging about their power to silence about 5 of us, who told the truth about neighborhood issues. (A real estate agent named, Melani, thought it would be heaven if I were silenced with the power of Penn's computers-haha.) After some of us made fun of them, they closed off the archives to the public-haha. It was a violation of a couple of Penn's written policies. (I informed the office of the President of the University that I intended to expose this as widely as I could manage, and I believe they were eventually kicked off the Penn system.) It still bothers me that Penn allowed bold censorship against its neighboring community for such a long time! (I spent years giving 100% for the reputation of Penn when I worked for the addiction treatment research center.) But Tony has continued to use these discredited techniques here, without the ucneighbors back-up. I've often deconstructed his posts to remind people about fallacious arguments and how they are used to bully. He actually provides the list with great texts for study. Take care, Glenn On 4/29/2011 9:42 AM, Richard Conrad wrote: Dear Glenn, I appreciate your gratitude and quite concur with your astute identification of straw man bullying. I hope you are mistaken about Tony's message being all about power and still hope that he will come to his senses and apologize for his unfair behaviors in attacking you, and then me, but I won't predict the future. The same goes for Darco and Bill. If we intend to continue community growth and stave off fascistic corporate medievalism we had all better seriously watch our hands in dealing with those amongst our own ranks and neighborhoods. Rick On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Glenn wrote: Ric, I want to publicly thank you for confronting the use of a straw man. One of the reasons that this technique is so ubiquitous is to intimidate and silence everyone else. Tony knows that he will never silence or intimidate me. He is trying to send a message to the rest of the list and community when he attempts these techniques. His message is all about power. Anyone who dares to question the abuse of power is to watch how he attempts to crush his target. Confronting these techniques empowers others in this community to stand up and speak out! In the end, bully's are exposed. Thanks, Glenn PS: The other FOCP board members have left Tony unleashed to use these tactics against this community for years. WHAT DOES THEIR SILENCE SAY ABOUT THE FOCP BOARD On 4/29/2011 12:43 AM, Richard Conrad wrote: You are reading in. You don't play fair. You just can't admit it. Glenn does not say as Darco implied that people were excluded from the park (and actually people have been - you and everyone else can probably realize that people are routinely told to leave the park, for sleeping overnight and other reasons). Maybe Glenn refers to private Clark Park banquets with high priced entry fees. Maybe he refers to private gatherings hosted by Penn where the public is excluded. 'Penn Control' is
RE: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone of most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use of the park, of which I have seen little evidence (disregarding law enforcement - see below). While I tend to agree with many of Glenn's general opinions regarding rising corporatism and oppression of the middle and lower classes in society, I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the local conspiracy. Most of his evidence presented is the rejection of his participation in FOCP - the exclusion of his voice. And honestly, it seems mostly vindictive to me. Very rarely does he present a cooperative attitude. Ok, so the A park has been closed for some time for renovations. To me, I see a waste of money. Yes, I bet it will be nice and prettier - but it's still a city park and some efforts are wasteful in my opinion (reseeding grass in the bowl). But at the same time, if that money wasn't spent (wasted?) on Clark Park, it would have been elsewhere. Ok, so the dog park didn't happen (I'm a big supporter of the idea). But I also see the negative sides to it. University City's gentrification (I don't know what else to call it) over the last 15 years has had plenty of positive as well as negative effects. Having a private party in the park is just as much a right for Penn as it is for any group to hold an event. Does Penn have an idea of what they want to see in Clark Park, the neighborhood, and the City? Of course they do - they have a vested interest in all of that. Are they not supposed to voice their opinions? Is UCD not mostly driven by Penn (and Drexel, and other University City power brokers)? Of course it is. I have been critical of FOCP - and have disagreed with plenty of decisions. I have disagreed with some policies of the UCD. That's why I've become more involved. And while the issue of police enforcement (harassment of people sleeping in the park, public drinking, etc) is a complicated one which I don't think is handled properly, I also understand that in fact, that is the law, whether or not I agree with it. My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since I've rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising. While Tony and I have had disagreements regarding policies, he has actually encouraged me to become more involved. So, I'm faced with on one hand Glenn telling me how evil and bad FOCP is, and on the other being asked to participate, despite disagreeing with policies and plans of both UCD and FOCP. Now Glenn will surely say I am being assimilated and will shortly become a puppet of the evil FOCP. Darco PS- I wholeheartedly agree with Glenn regarding the big picture of our society and actually appreciate his emails most of the time. But occasionally they just annoy me enough that I need to respond. From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Richard Conrad Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:43 AM To: Anthony West Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11 You are reading in. You don't play fair. You just can't admit it. Glenn does not say as Darco implied that people were excluded from the park (and actually people have been - you and everyone else can probably realize that people are routinely told to leave the park, for sleeping overnight and other reasons). Maybe Glenn refers to private Clark Park banquets with high priced entry fees. Maybe he refers to private gatherings hosted by Penn where the public is excluded. 'Penn Control' is something about which while Glenn has held back from giving it ultimate vilification, he warns people to be concerned. 'Secrecy' is the most difficult to prove (duh, it's a secret), but in any case you ridicule by hyperbole, misrepresent his remarks, and say things that are not true. You now seem to be practically accusing me of being a Trump conspiracy talk supporter. You clearly haven't read much of what I have written (or you are resorting to damaging written public falsification again). I am actually a true Balder who believes Donald Trump can't be Pres. because he can't prove his hair was born in the U.S.A. Here is something of mine I posted to FB: Saying Trump appeals to masochistic dupes with no sense of mathematics, to sadistic voyeurs who wish they had balls, or to racist instincts in those of lesser intelligence, is all the same... they're just the facts Jack! Bill Mahr did better: Bill Maher says, Hey Trump, what's the biggest scam ever NOW? I'd say its a guy with 3 bankruptcies telling America how to get its financial house in order. Crackpot. That is what you say Tony, instead of answering others criticisms! Surely you are big enough to deal with others concerns and not to only resort to name calling. Be fair. Rick On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:00 AM
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Lemme see if I have this straight. Real-state investor uses a soapbox to yell about crazy, baseless conspiracy theories. Most of the evidence offered rests on assertions, suppositions, insinuations, and claims of fact that evaporate beyond the guy's say-so. There's also a comical insistence that he is the real community activist, the genuine patriot, the true American. But his history has been one of hostility to the concerns of others in his community. In fact, he's always characterized people who disagree with him as fools, knaves, fascists, foreign interlopers and thugs who want to interfere with his personal use of public space. But the real estate investor continues. Because every so often, _someone_ out there is tricked into believing that he shares their interests and political outlook, and demagogues see followers as their personal vindication. And since refuting the claims would take more energy than they're worth, the guy goes unanswered... so he claims that the silence is his vindication, too. Finally, when this nonsense has gone on long enough, the real-estate guy's targets respond. Maybe they, too, are a little testy, which is understandable after putting up with this for so long. But he claims this, too, as a vindication, as proof that he was right all along. I made them _reply_. I made them _listen to me_. That makes me _important_. 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] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
But you see, I agree with Glenn on a basic level. Of course Penn wants to influence things around it. It's also always the people or companies with political power or money who have the greatest influence, that's how our society works (fortunately or unfortunately). But he takes it to another level. I'm sorry, but Clark Park is just not that important to Penn. And as far as conspiracies, I'm curious what reasoning the FOCP would have to sell out to Penn or any other entity. I mean, did I miss out where they were handing out cash to people to vote a certain way? After all, that is the Philly way when it comes to politics. -Original Message- From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Brian Siano Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:16 PM Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11 Lemme see if I have this straight. Real-state investor uses a soapbox to yell about crazy, baseless conspiracy theories. Most of the evidence offered rests on assertions, suppositions, insinuations, and claims of fact that evaporate beyond the guy's say-so. There's also a comical insistence that he is the real community activist, the genuine patriot, the true American. But his history has been one of hostility to the concerns of others in his community. In fact, he's always characterized people who disagree with him as fools, knaves, fascists, foreign interlopers and thugs who want to interfere with his personal use of public space. But the real estate investor continues. Because every so often, _someone_ out there is tricked into believing that he shares their interests and political outlook, and demagogues see followers as their personal vindication. And since refuting the claims would take more energy than they're worth, the guy goes unanswered... so he claims that the silence is his vindication, too. Finally, when this nonsense has gone on long enough, the real-estate guy's targets respond. Maybe they, too, are a little testy, which is understandable after putting up with this for so long. But he claims this, too, as a vindication, as proof that he was right all along. I made them _reply_. I made them _listen to me_. That makes me _important_. 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.
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone of most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use of the park, of which I have seen little evidence Darco, You just did it again. Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, you would not be so annoyed and annoying. This is completely untrue! I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park. Why do you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed at the false positions? If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I am committed to the principals of democratic societies. Transparency and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights. Those principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also for local issues. The idea that these principles can be abandoned in hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's really important is absurd. That is the stupidity that caused the collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed brothers and sisters around the planet ! This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to wake up! I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn decided to save the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors criminals! I was in the position to blow the whistle and have always considered it my duty. I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the local conspiracy. What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body of evidence that I made public using this listserv!Each time I publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded! Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean spirited comments attacking my character. They could look at the University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for years. I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public. Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, invitation only meetings. It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a little work. What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us attended? Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that they didn't know that these abuses were occurring. BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD How do you respond to important evidence? Darco writes: My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since I've rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising. So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem! Ad hominem is a fallacy of logic too. For the past few years, FOCP leaders have claimed that their members can always join any committee, and I alone was unwelcome because I'm selfish. I provided you evidence that proved that was not true, whether or not you have the ability to understand it. It also proved that FOCP leaders continued to lie about inclusion continuously over many years. Why should I look for more evidence for you, when you can't understand it, and simply dismiss it as proof of my bad character? Regarding FOCP leaders, I'm not having a debate with reasonable mature neighbors. I've concentrated on exposing bullying, lies, processes unacceptable to any neighborhood in a democratic society, etc. Under these conditions, compromising is an absurd choice for your words. How exactly does one compromise when power is abused to bully? How did I organize Clark Park festivals, volleyball, and work on a world class health care research team, if I don't have the ability to work well with mature reasonable adults? Darco writes: Does Penn have an idea of what they want to see in Clark Park, the neighborhood, and the City? Of course they do -- they have a vested interest in all of that. Are they not supposed to voice their opinions? Here we go
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
On 4/29/11 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: University City’s gentrification (I don’t know what else to call it) over the last 15 years has had plenty of positive as well as negative effects. the main negative effect is that we now have a staunchly divided neighborhood. and it's a big effect, one which will continue to carry penn -- and its catspaws ucd and campus apartments and so-called community association leaders -- farther and farther. an advance that feeds the very divisiveness that fuels their progression. in case you missed it first time around, you now get a second chance to watch, in real time, the same strategic university narratives as they begin their next mighty roll: http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-05/news/24976839_1_drexel-university-neighborhood-university-city-district http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-18/news/29443549_1_drexel-campus-drexel-university-powelton-village [if you can detect the contradiction behind the fact that such articles even need to be written today, 15 years after penn has claimed such success in transforming university city, then count yourself as someone who's already pretty observant.] .. 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] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
In my years of experience on this listserv, I have found that the best way to read Glenn's posts involve substituting Penn or UCD or Clark Park Committee or whoever his bogeyman-du-jour is with the Martians, Sasquatch or, occasionally, the pixies that live in my teeth. Then I picture him typing away in his egg-stained bathrobe, an old remote control duct-taped to his forehead and his teeth blacked out with magic marker in an effort to keep the black helicopters from reading his neutral patterns. Not only its this immensely entertaining, but I have found that it diminishes the cogency, relevance and believability of his rants not one iota. - Mike V. Glenn glen...@earthlink.net wrote: On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone of most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use of the park, of which I have seen little evidence Darco, You just did it again. Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, you would not be so annoyed and annoying. This is completely untrue! I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park. Why do you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed at the false positions? If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I am committed to the principals of democratic societies. Transparency and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights. Those principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also for local issues. The idea that these principles can be abandoned in hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's really important is absurd. That is the stupidity that caused the collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed brothers and sisters around the planet ! This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to wake up! I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn decided to save the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors criminals! I was in the position to blow the whistle and have always considered it my duty. I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the local conspiracy. What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body of evidence that I made public using this listserv!Each time I publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded! Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean spirited comments attacking my character. They could look at the University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for years. I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public. Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, invitation only meetings. It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a little work. What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us attended? Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that they didn't know that these abuses were occurring. BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD How do you respond to important evidence? Darco writes: My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since I've rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising. So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem! Ad hominem is a fallacy of logic too. For the past few years, FOCP leaders have claimed that their members can always join any committee, and I alone was unwelcome because I'm selfish. I provided you evidence that proved that was not true, whether or not you have the ability to understand it. It also proved that FOCP leaders continued to lie about inclusion continuously over many years. Why should I look for more evidence for you, when you can't understand it, and simply dismiss it as proof of my bad character? Regarding FOCP leaders, I'm not having a debate with reasonable mature
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Thank you Darco very much... I was really not expecting an apology (despite my quixotic claim to the contrary), and even a terse, partial, and perhaps conditional one felt rather warm and fuzzy to me... You reason well and speak honestly and sincerely about your concerns but then you slam Glenn to the mat by 'representing' him through a broken glass bloodily. Your in-kind conciliation minus your harsh hyperbole is a clear and formidable formulaic success! Right or wrong your opinion can be judged on it's own merits without you also destroying Glenn's through your inappropriate 'restatements' of what he seems to you to have said. I do see a huge return to civility and somewhat of a return to mutual understanding and respect. As I said before, (though now let my sentiment be restated in Benj. Franklin's famous aphorism): we can all hang together or surely we will all hang separately. If you truly feel someone is running around screaming the sky is falling ask them to tone down their screaming. BUT! If you restate it as the sky is falling and what they actually said was it's raining more now than it used to do then it is you and not they who deserves strict censure. Rick Conrad On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Glenn wrote: On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone of most of Glenn’s emails is that the public is excluded from use of the park, of which I have seen little evidence Darco, You just did it again. Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, you would not be so annoyed and annoying. This is completely untrue! I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park. Why do you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed at the false positions? If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I am committed to the principals of democratic societies. Transparency and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights. Those principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also for local issues. The idea that these principles can be abandoned in hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's really important is absurd. That is the stupidity that caused the collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed brothers and sisters around the planet ! This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to wake up! I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn decided to save the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors criminals! I was in the position to blow the whistle and have always considered it my duty. I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the local conspiracy. What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body of evidence that I made public using this listserv! Each time I publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded! Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean spirited comments attacking my character. They could look at the University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for years. I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public. Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, invitation only meetings. It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a little work. What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us attended? Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that they didn't know that these abuses were occurring. BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD How do you respond to important evidence? Darco writes: My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since I’ve rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising. So your response to evidence is
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
One thing seems to ring true, very sad, but sometimes also true I should say... In the realm of political debate: One often only does one's best work when one's adversaries make it particularly difficult to do it! Now, enough! Let us start to get along DAMN IT! On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Glenn wrote: On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general tone of most of Glenn’s emails is that the public is excluded from use of the park, of which I have seen little evidence Darco, You just did it again. Maybe if you would work on your reading skills, you would not be so annoyed and annoying. This is completely untrue! I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park. Why do you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed at the false positions? If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I am committed to the principals of democratic societies. Transparency and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights. Those principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also for local issues. The idea that these principles can be abandoned in hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's really important is absurd. That is the stupidity that caused the collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed brothers and sisters around the planet ! This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to wake up! I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn decided to save the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors criminals! I was in the position to blow the whistle and have always considered it my duty. I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding the local conspiracy. What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body of evidence that I made public using this listserv! Each time I publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded! Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean spirited comments attacking my character. They could look at the University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for years. I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public. Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, invitation only meetings. It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a little work. What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us attended? Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that they didn't know that these abuses were occurring. BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD How do you respond to important evidence? Darco writes: My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand that, since I’ve rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising. So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem! Ad hominem is a fallacy of logic too. For the past few years, FOCP leaders have claimed that their members can always join any committee, and I alone was unwelcome because I'm selfish. I provided you evidence that proved that was not true, whether or not you have the ability to understand it. It also proved that FOCP leaders continued to lie about inclusion continuously over many years. Why should I look for more evidence for you, when you can't understand it, and simply dismiss it as proof of my bad character? Regarding FOCP leaders, I'm not having a debate with reasonable mature neighbors. I've concentrated on exposing bullying, lies, processes unacceptable to any neighborhood in a democratic society, etc. Under these conditions, compromising is an absurd choice for your words. How exactly does one compromise when power is abused to bully? How did I organize Clark Park
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Darco and Tony, There is a way to be sure we are getting onto the same page... YOU HAVE SAID THAT NO ONE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PARK. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS (eg.): TO PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, BEING EXERCISED THEREIN? On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Glenn Moyer wrote: The department of Recreation works for the taxpayers and is required to protect the rights of all citizens as directed by the US Constitution. Not more than a couple days ago the Supreme Court by a (5-4) or ($-4) vote, ignored the MAJOR body of definitions and precedents regarding CONTRACT LAW and FRAUD by saying a company (ATT) could exclude patrons of due process - in recourse to Class Action Suits - merely by the insertion IN FINE PRINT of a clause stating that such was the case +/or a condition of having services provided through the contract(s). IT TOTALLY BOGGLES MY MIND and I just hope and pray that MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING and SHARE MY ANGST! It basically said that Corporations could make up the rules and ignore the concepts of FAIR actions in regards to contractual understandings. The constitution has been interpreted as protecting all our rights against (for what should be an ABSURD example), deceitful intent to deprive citizens of basic interests in regards to life, liberty, and property. If that is not a class action what the hell is?? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-arkush/us-supreme-court-to-major_b_854714.html U.S. Supreme Court to Major Corporations: You Write the Rules pubc.it On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with ATT in ATT Mobility v. Concepcion -- a decision with devastating consequences for consumer protection and civil rights. I actually believe Penn is fairly trustworthy to make decisions when I am not involved... I REALLY want that to be true! BUT I AM DAMNED SURE THE FIVE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT WHO MADE THIS AND MANY, MANY, LIKE DECISIONS, ARE NOT NOT! CAPABLE OF ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS NOR SERVING THE CONSTITUTION!!! NOT! CAPABLE OF SERVING IN GOOD BEHAVIOR! AS SOON AS CLARK PARK IS AVAILABLE AGAIN I SUGGEST WE USE IT FOR PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY... TO CONDUCT TEACH-INS... TO FOSTER GATHERINGS OF MASS CONSCIOUSNESS... AND TO DISCUSS AND ACT UPON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES.
[UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Dear Newcomers, I'm glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the privatization of Clark Park.Many long term West Philly residents didn't have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening before the fence went up, and neither could you.As we enter the 2^nd season of the closure and fencing of the north part, it is a very relevant time for all to learn or review the history of the past ten years. The master plan for revitalization of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control!You need to know that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from beginning to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and exclusion of park subcultures! (Except for replacing trees, it's completely different from the earlier version.) The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 10 years ago!This committee was filled by local corporations and politicians called stakeholders.These individuals did not tend to attend the actual meetings, which were closed and secret with no public records. Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret committee.Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP), Spruce Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic association joined. For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP leaders because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark Park Music and Arts Community (CPMAC).At the time, the FOCP had no recognized power and was the laughing stock by department of recreation employees.They were widely recognized as ridiculous bullies, neighborhood cranks. (See The Battle of the Bowl, City Paper, 2001) http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1 Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years ago; I immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder groups as well as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely involved and saw the privatization coming).I knew the goals of the FOCP leadership to control the park, and so I had inside understanding of the serious importance of breaking through the iron wall of the secret committee.(The Master Plan Steering Committee was organized through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real estate department). Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully barred from the secret meetings! Chronology:First we had this UCD master plan committee.Their plan was largely rejected by locals.On the first try, they attempted to use PUBLIC presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely tightened after this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed immediate implementation of the park redesign as early as 2003. (It was a great example of the simple power and need for public meetings. The public meetings represented the public, and their opinions about the park were right on target.) Next, the master plan steering committee was transformed into the FOCP planning committee for several years.Members were kept anonymous.This was justified as a matter of confidentiality.Meetings were kept secret with no public information.This FOCP committee was called the community for several years in all of the press releases designed to silence any public dissent about the privatization or redesign. Friends of Clark Park leaders acted as shields for secrecy and exclusion over these years.It was their job to keep the meetings away from the public and bar participation from park user groups! (I often publicly confronted their leaders during that time forcing them to use various techniques to silence my demand for public meetings and inclusion.) A hopeful moment:In 2004, I publicly brought a motion to the FOCP general membership that would have allowed identification and inclusion of all park stakeholders at meetings which would be made public. The membership approved the directive, but the leaders fought against it and followed up by betraying their members!! (Another installment will be necessary) These civic associations do not follow by-laws or rules of order, so in order to speak with their general members, you must always show up and be prepared to be silenced. I was permanently barred from the FOCP from that time forward because the leadership could never win a public debate on these principles of democracy.I seemed to be the sole whistle-blower, also speaking about transparency, so no holds were barred against me. Beginning around 2007, when it was leaked that the redesign of the park and privatization would move forward, I forced the FOCP leaders to repeatedly deny me a 1 minute statement at their meetings. The purpose was to publicly expose and record a
RE: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
So, I'm curious. While I tended to disagree with some of the revitalization plan, do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? And don't give me general intimidation that you have felt - I would like a concrete example of someone being excluded. And no, the fence being up while the changes are made does not count as exclusion since (regardless of it's merits) the revitalization does require people to stay out of the construction. Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one example of someone being excluded from the park. Thanks. Darco From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:11 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11 Dear Newcomers, I'm glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the privatization of Clark Park. Many long term West Philly residents didn't have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening before the fence went up, and neither could you. As we enter the 2nd season of the closure and fencing of the north part, it is a very relevant time for all to learn or review the history of the past ten years. The master plan for revitalization of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! You need to know that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from beginning to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and exclusion of park subcultures! (Except for replacing trees, it's completely different from the earlier version.) The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 10 years ago! This committee was filled by local corporations and politicians called stakeholders. These individuals did not tend to attend the actual meetings, which were closed and secret with no public records. Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret committee. Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP), Spruce Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic association joined. For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP leaders because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark Park Music and Arts Community (CPMAC). At the time, the FOCP had no recognized power and was the laughing stock by department of recreation employees. They were widely recognized as ridiculous bullies, neighborhood cranks. (See The Battle of the Bowl, City Paper, 2001) http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1 Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years ago; I immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder groups as well as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely involved and saw the privatization coming). I knew the goals of the FOCP leadership to control the park, and so I had inside understanding of the serious importance of breaking through the iron wall of the secret committee. (The Master Plan Steering Committee was organized through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real estate department). Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully barred from the secret meetings! Chronology: First we had this UCD master plan committee. Their plan was largely rejected by locals. On the first try, they attempted to use PUBLIC presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely tightened after this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed immediate implementation of the park redesign as early as 2003. (It was a great example of the simple power and need for public meetings. The public meetings represented the public, and their opinions about the park were right on target.) Next, the master plan steering committee was transformed into the FOCP planning committee for several years. Members were kept anonymous. This was justified as a matter of confidentiality. Meetings were kept secret with no public information. This FOCP committee was called the community for several years in all of the press releases designed to silence any public dissent about the privatization or redesign. Friends of Clark Park leaders acted as shields for secrecy and exclusion over these years. It was their job to keep the meetings away from the public and bar participation from park user groups! (I often publicly confronted their leaders during that time forcing them to use various techniques to silence my demand for public meetings and inclusion.) A hopeful moment: In 2004, I publicly brought a motion to the FOCP general membership that would have allowed identification and inclusion of all park stakeholders at meetings which would be made public. The membership
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one example of someone being excluded from the park. No, I will not answer your silly question. There is overwhelming evidence that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committees over the past 10 years. Your question suggests a possible reading comprehension problem. As in the past, I'd be happy to answer any serious questions. I respect you and deserve a serious response from you. All the best. Sincerely, Glenn On 4/28/2011 3:59 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: So, I'm curious. While I tended to disagree with some of the revitalization plan, do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? And don't give me general intimidation that you have felt -- I would like a concrete example of someone being excluded. And no, the fence being up while the changes are made does not count as exclusion since (regardless of it's merits) the revitalization does require people to stay out of the construction. Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one example of someone being excluded from the park. Thanks. Darco *From:*owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] *On Behalf Of *Glenn *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:11 PM *To:* UnivCity@list.purple.com *Subject:* [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11 Dear Newcomers, I'm glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the privatization of Clark Park. Many long term West Philly residents didn't have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening before the fence went up, and neither could you. As we enter the 2^nd season of the closure and fencing of the north part, it is a very relevant time for all to learn or review the history of the past ten years. The master plan for revitalization of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! You need to know that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from beginning to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and exclusion of park subcultures! (Except for replacing trees, it's completely different from the earlier version.) The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 10 years ago! This committee was filled by local corporations and politicians called stakeholders. These individuals did not tend to attend the actual meetings, which were closed and secret with no public records. Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret committee. Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP), Spruce Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic association joined. For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP leaders because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark Park Music and Arts Community (CPMAC). At the time, the FOCP had no recognized power and was the laughing stock by department of recreation employees. They were widely recognized as ridiculous bullies, neighborhood cranks. (See The Battle of the Bowl, City Paper, 2001) http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1 Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years ago; I immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder groups as well as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely involved and saw the privatization coming). I knew the goals of the FOCP leadership to control the park, and so I had inside understanding of the serious importance of breaking through the iron wall of the secret committee. (The Master Plan Steering Committee was organized through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real estate department). Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully barred from the secret meetings! Chronology: First we had this UCD master plan committee. Their plan was largely rejected by locals. On the first try, they attempted to use PUBLIC presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely tightened after this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed immediate implementation of the park redesign as early as 2003. (It was a great example of the simple power and need for public meetings. The public meetings represented the public, and their opinions about the park were right on target.) Next, the master plan steering committee was transformed into the FOCP planning committee for several years. Members were kept anonymous. This was justified as a matter of confidentiality. Meetings were kept secret with no public information. This FOCP committee was called the community for several years in all of the press releases designed to silence any public dissent about the privatization
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Darco, I must agree with Glenn that you have most clearly misinterpreted what Glenn wrote and you should read it again more closely. Although, in fact I might point out, as control by private parties increases, particularly when park spaces are leased or sold to private parties, it can become a matter of others being excluded. There are many places in Fairmount Park right now which are private property, and where you are quite forbidden to trespass. Rick Conrad On Apr 28, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Glenn wrote: Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one example of someone being excluded from the park. No, I will not answer your silly question. There is overwhelming evidence that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committees over the past 10 years. Your question suggests a possible reading comprehension problem. As in the past, I'd be happy to answer any serious questions. I respect you and deserve a serious response from you. All the best. Sincerely, Glenn On 4/28/2011 3:59 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: So, I’m curious. While I tended to disagree with some of the revitalization plan, do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? And don’t give me general intimidation that you have felt – I would like a concrete example of someone being excluded. And no, the fence being up while the changes are made does not count as exclusion since (regardless of it’s merits) the revitalization does require people to stay out of the construction. Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one example of someone being excluded from the park. Thanks. Darco From: owner-univc...@list.purple.com [mailto:owner-univc...@list.purple.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:11 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11 Dear Newcomers, I’m glad many of you have an interest in the history behind the privatization of Clark Park. Many long term West Philly residents didn’t have a reasonable chance to understand what was happening before the fence went up, and neither could you. As we enter the 2nd season of the closure and fencing of the north part, it is a very relevant time for all to learn or review the history of the past ten years. The master plan for “revitalization” of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! You need to know that nothing about the redesign of Clark Park was continuous from beginning to end (2001-2011), except the demand for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and exclusion of park subcultures! (Except for replacing trees, it's completely different from the earlier version.) The original Master Plan Steering Committee was hand picked and CLOSED before the news of a scheme to redesign Clark Park was publicly revealed 10 years ago! This committee was filled by local corporations and politicians called stakeholders. These individuals did not tend to attend the actual meetings, which were closed and secret with no public records. Organized by UCD/Penn, a few of the leaders from the most dysfunctional civic associations or clubs were also brought on to the secret committee. Specifically, leaders of The Friends of Clark Park (FOCP), Spruce Hill Civic Association and Regent Square civic association joined. For a couple of years previously, I had been harassed by these FOCP leaders because of my role as founder and chief organizer of the Clark Park Music and Arts Community (CPMAC). At the time, the FOCP had no recognized power and was the laughing stock by department of recreation employees. They were widely recognized as ridiculous bullies, neighborhood cranks. (See The Battle of the Bowl, City Paper, 2001) http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/102501/news.park.shtml?print=1 Of course, when the secret UCD/Penn committee was revealed ten years ago; I immediately attempted to gain access for ALL park stakeholder groups as well as our own CPMAC. (This was how I became so closely involved and saw the privatization coming). I knew the goals of the FOCP leadership to control the park, and so I had inside understanding of the serious importance of breaking through the iron wall of the secret committee. (The Master Plan Steering Committee was organized through U of Penn powerbrokers primarily in the real estate department). Throughout the entire process all park user groups were successfully barred from the secret meetings! Chronology: First we had this UCD master plan committee. Their plan was largely rejected by locals. On the first try, they attempted to use PUBLIC presentations (a regularly used technique that was severely tightened after this huge failure), but the public backlash delayed immediate
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Richard, I would have to say Darco's reading is quite skilled. Glenn's overwhelming evidence is either imaginary, or self-fabricated. The 10-year-old article he is fond of citing offers one (1) piece of hard evidence that people were being excluded from Clark Park planning: an unsupported, quoted assertion by -- none other than himself! That's all there's ever been; he has no other evidence to offer. I note that, since you too know of no instances where anyone has actually been excluded from Clark Park or its planning, you have just shifted the discussion to Fairmount Park. Here, I have to question your statement that control by private parties is increasing in Fairmount Park. All of the private facilities there I can think of -- Boathouse Row, etc. -- have been in place for a long time. So in fact I might point out that what you are worried might happen here, hasn't even been happening there. So this thread is debating an alleged problem which hasn't happened here; which hasn't happened there; and which hasn't happened anywhere. It is on a level with the problem with Barack Obama's birth certificate. ---Tony West Darco, I must agree with Glenn that you have most clearly misinterpreted what Glenn wrote and you should read it again more closely. Although, in fact I might point out, as control by private parties increases, particularly when park spaces are leased or sold to private parties, it can become a matter of others being excluded. There are many places in Fairmount Park right now which are private property, and where you are quite forbidden to trespass. Rick Conrad
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
On Apr 28, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Glenn wrote: Also, can you respond in a few short sentences? I just want to know of one example of someone being excluded from the park. No, I will not answer your silly question. There is overwhelming evidence that park stakeholders were barred from the planning committees over the past 10 years. Your question suggests a possible reading comprehension problem. As in the past, I'd be happy to answer any serious questions. I respect you and deserve a serious response from you. All the best. Sincerely, Glenn This answer says everything there is to say about Glenn. William H. Magill Block Captain 4400 Chestnut Street mag...@mcgillsociety.org whmag...@gmail.com 4428 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2914 (267-402-0529) 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] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
O.K. let's get real! Darco represents Glenn as saying soething he did not. Darco asks: do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the park. Whether he said something else with which you disagree, Tony... he most certainly did not say what Darco said he did! You ignored that fact in your email! Do you deny that 'mistake' to be the case?! As far as people being excluded from planning sessions I do believe Glenn, who cited much more than you credited him with. De Facto exclusion sounds fairly patently exhibited. Your statements regarding Glenn are perhaps even closer to libel than Darco's who seems to have misread rather than misrepresented Glenn. Whatever your feelings about him are, you both owe him an apology! Bill: There are houses all over the Wissahickon Valley built on (and completely surrounded by) formerly public (park) property. What you are not aware of may yet be extant; believe it. The issue of City sales of Fairmount Park property is very current news whether you know it or not. What you said about Glenn was abstruse; and it sounded quite unnecessarily nasty. Rick On Apr 28, 2011, at 9:41 PM, Anthony West wrote: Richard, I would have to say Darco's reading is quite skilled. Glenn's overwhelming evidence is either imaginary, or self-fabricated. The 10-year-old article he is fond of citing offers one (1) piece of hard evidence that people were being excluded from Clark Park planning: an unsupported, quoted assertion by -- none other than himself! That's all there's ever been; he has no other evidence to offer. I note that, since you too know of no instances where anyone has actually been excluded from Clark Park or its planning, you have just shifted the discussion to Fairmount Park. Here, I have to question your statement that control by private parties is increasing in Fairmount Park. All of the private facilities there I can think of -- Boathouse Row, etc. -- have been in place for a long time. So in fact I might point out that what you are worried might happen here, hasn't even been happening there. So this thread is debating an alleged problem which hasn't happened here; which hasn't happened there; and which hasn't happened anywhere. It is on a level with the problem with Barack Obama's birth certificate. ---Tony West Darco, I must agree with Glenn that you have most clearly misinterpreted what Glenn wrote and you should read it again more closely. Although, in fact I might point out, as control by private parties increases, particularly when park spaces are leased or sold to private parties, it can become a matter of others being excluded. There are many places in Fairmount Park right now which are private property, and where you are quite forbidden to trespass. Rick Conrad
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
Richard, I quote from Glenn's text, which Darco and I have read quite clearly: The master plan for 'revitalization' of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! Glenn has, for years, been publishing on this list false allegations that various users were *planned to be excluded from the park *by this nefarious conspiracy. Since none of them ever were, in fact, excluded from the physical park, and there were, in fact, no plans that any users should be excluded from the park -- he is now attempting to befuddle you -- as well as unsuspecting newcomers -- by pretending some users were excluded from *planning for the park. *And he's trying to muddle the two together with murky conspiracy-theory language, where what we're talking about shifts every time a claim of fact is contested. Of course, nothing of the sort ever happened. (There wasn't any secrecy or any Penn control either.) I looked into these allegations very carefully in 2002-03. Typical Trump talk, in my opinion. But if this is what floats your boat, I sure can't stop you. Conspiracy-theory crackpots never run out of gas, do they? --Tony West On 4/28/2011 11:28 PM, Richard Conrad wrote: O.K. let's get real! Darco represents Glenn as saying soething he did not. Darco asks: do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the park.
Re: [UC] Clark Park Secrecy, 01-11
You are reading in. You don't play fair. You just can't admit it. Glenn does not say as Darco implied that people were excluded from the park (and actually people have been - you and everyone else can probably realize that people are routinely told to leave the park, for sleeping overnight and other reasons). Maybe Glenn refers to private Clark Park banquets with high priced entry fees. Maybe he refers to private gatherings hosted by Penn where the public is excluded. 'Penn Control' is something about which while Glenn has held back from giving it ultimate vilification, he warns people to be concerned. 'Secrecy' is the most difficult to prove (duh, it's a secret), but in any case you ridicule by hyperbole, misrepresent his remarks, and say things that are not true. You now seem to be practically accusing me of being a Trump conspiracy talk supporter. You clearly haven't read much of what I have written (or you are resorting to damaging written public falsification again). I am actually a true Balder who believes Donald Trump can't be Pres. because he can't prove his hair was born in the U.S.A. Here is something of mine I posted to FB: Saying Trump appeals to masochistic dupes with no sense of mathematics, to sadistic voyeurs who wish they had balls, or to racist instincts in those of lesser intelligence, is all the same... they're just the facts Jack! Bill Mahr did better: Bill Maher says, Hey Trump, what's the biggest scam ever NOW? I'd say its a guy with 3 bankruptcies telling America how to get its financial house in order. Crackpot. That is what you say Tony, instead of answering others criticisms! Surely you are big enough to deal with others concerns and not to only resort to name calling. Be fair. Rick On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Anthony West wrote: Richard, I quote from Glenn's text, which Darco and I have read quite clearly: The master plan for 'revitalization' of Clark Park was always a master plan for secrecy, exclusion of the public, and Penn control! Glenn has, for years, been publishing on this list false allegations that various users were planned to be excluded from the park by this nefarious conspiracy. Since none of them ever were, in fact, excluded from the physical park, and there were, in fact, no plans that any users should be excluded from the park -- he is now attempting to befuddle you -- as well as unsuspecting newcomers -- by pretending some users were excluded from planning for the park. And he's trying to muddle the two together with murky conspiracy-theory language, where what we're talking about shifts every time a claim of fact is contested. Of course, nothing of the sort ever happened. (There wasn't any secrecy or any Penn control either.) I looked into these allegations very carefully in 2002-03. Typical Trump talk, in my opinion. But if this is what floats your boat, I sure can't stop you. Conspiracy-theory crackpots never run out of gas, do they? --Tony West On 4/28/2011 11:28 PM, Richard Conrad wrote: O.K. let's get real! Darco represents Glenn as saying something he did not. Darco asks: do you have evidence of people being excluded from the park? Glenn did not ever say in his communique that people were excluded from the park.
