RE: [UC] Disclosure of relationships at hearings
"Yes, the newcomer real estateagentwho was "outed" on the 50 condo deal first claimed he had no personal interest, butonce he was outed hewhined about how others gotdeals from Penn too! What was funny was that this man only moved to 46th and Osage in April of 2008. He parachutes into this neighborhood from who-knows-where, gets a fat condo deal from Penn, and surprise! He supports the Penn project!Who'd a thunk it! But there's no conflict of interest! It's like they say: Don't believe your lying eyes- believe me!" I nearly burst with laughter when he said that projects likeCampus Innare the reason he moved to the neighborhood. To paraphrase; I'm not saying it was just this one, but projects like the Campus Inn are why my wife and i moved here-hahaha. That's so pathetic. Wow, did you see the look in his eyes and hear his tone when he was outed as a fibber? That dude scares me! Happy holidays, Glenn -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN <kallena...@msn.com>Sent: Dec 23, 2008 5:33 PM To: UnivCity Listserv <UNIVCITY@LIST.PURPLE.COM>Subject: RE: [UC] Disclosure of relationships at hearings Yes, the newcomer real estateagentwho was "outed" on the 50 condo deal first claimed he had no personal interest, butonce he was outed hewhined about how others gotdeals from Penn too! What was funny was that this man only moved to 46th and Osage in April of 2008. He parachutes into this neighborhood from who-knows-where, gets a fat condo deal from Penn, and surprise! He supports the Penn project!Who'd a thunk it! But there's no conflict of interest! It's like they say: Don't believe your lying eyes- believe me!Another telling event was when SHCA President Ed Halligan testified thatSpruce Hill's election meeting in November of 2007 featured a"public" presentationon the Campus Innthat was attendedby"hundreds" of people.I testified immediately after him at the request of another opponent in order to offer testimony about that "public" meeting: that neither theelection meeting notice nor the meeting agenda specified thatLussenhop or the Campus Inn project would be discussed, andthat there was noattempt whatsoever to reach out to non-members, thus suppressing the number of people who would have otherwise attended. Suddenly the Commission chairman didn't regard testimony about"public" meetings as being relevant. But Listserv readers will recall that there was much discussion about Lussenhop appearing unannounced at other meetings such as First Thursday, Friends of40th Street, andthe University City Historical Society.The strategy there was to for Lussenhop to be able to claim that he was engaging the community, when in reality he and his supporters were suppressing potential opposition byshutting out those who do not participate in such meetings. The only truly "public" meetingwas the Zoning Committee meeting that was first slated to be held in the too-small Spruce Hill office.Spruce Hillwasforced tomove the meeting to 42nd and Baltimore by accusations that they were deliberately using a location with limited space. Once it was moved,the meeting waspublicizedby Campus Inn opponents who created the "Hotel in Our Hood?" fliers and taped themtoutility poles.The large crowd that turned outregistered overwhelming oppositon to Campus Inn. But during his testimony, Halliganalso claimed thatthe community was evenly split about the project. The community wasoverwhelmingly opposed, but the Spruce Hill Zoning committee was split... I guess that counts as as "even". Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:56:22 -0500 From: glen...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Disclosure of relationships at hearings Some real estate people who testified at the recent PHC hearing in support of Campus Inn went out of their way to claim that they have no financial relationship with the development team. Then of course, they followed with the big lie, Penn's financial hardship song! One real estate person did so until another neighbor called out that he had recently been involved with the U. real estate on a deal of 50 condos. Only then did the one failing to disclose, admit it; saying something like, other agents got deals too. Of course, our neighbor telling the truth was the target of the wrath from the rubber stamping PHC, because the truth teller was “out of order.”Another real estate person on UCD committees with Tom, (UCD is operated by Campus Apts and Penn Real Estate controlling the board); failed to disclose her or his relationships with the development team. That person even completed a private survey on this list to gather evidence of community support for UCD/Penn BID. That is actually strong connections with the entire development team. To me, this is like when Mr. Zitcer, the arts activist, forgot to tell the PW readers that he worked for Penn Real Estate when he was confused about why West
RE: [UC] Disclosure of relationships at hearings
Yes, the newcomer real estate agent who was outed on the 50 condo deal first claimed he had no personal interest, but once he was outed he whined about how others got deals from Penn too! What was funny was that this man only moved to 46th and Osage in April of 2008. He parachutes into this neighborhood from who-knows-where, gets a fat condo deal from Penn, and surprise! He supports the Penn project! Who'd a thunk it! But there's no conflict of interest! It's like they say: Don't believe your lying eyes- believe me! Another telling event was when SHCA President Ed Halligan testified that Spruce Hill's election meeting in November of 2007 featured a public presentation on the Campus Inn that was attended by hundreds of people. I testified immediately after him at the request of another opponent in order to offer testimony about that public meeting: that neither the election meeting notice nor the meeting agenda specified that Lussenhop or the Campus Inn project would be discussed, and that there was no attempt whatsoever to reach out to non-members, thus suppressing the number of people who would have otherwise attended. Suddenly the Commission chairman didn't regard testimony about public meetings as being relevant. But Listserv readers will recall that there was much discussion about Lussenhop appearing unannounced at other meetings such as First Thursday, Friends of 40th Street, and the University City Historical Society. The strategy there was to for Lussenhop to be able to claim that he was engaging the community, when in reality he and his supporters were suppressing potential opposition by shutting out those who do not participate in such meetings. The only truly public meeting was the Zoning Committee meeting that was first slated to be held in the too-small Spruce Hill office. Spruce Hill was forced to move the meeting to 42nd and Baltimore by accusations that they were deliberately using a location with limited space. Once it was moved, the meeting was publicized by Campus Inn opponents who created the Hotel in Our Hood? fliers and taped them to utility poles. The large crowd that turned out registered overwhelming oppositon to Campus Inn. But during his testimony, Halligan also claimed that the community was evenly split about the project. The community was overwhelmingly opposed, but the Spruce Hill Zoning committee was split... I guess that counts as as even. Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:56:22 -0500 From: glen...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Disclosure of relationships at hearings Some real estate people who testified at the recent PHC hearing in support of Campus Inn went out of their way to claim that they have no financial relationship with the development team. Then of course, they followed with the big lie, Penn's financial hardship song! One real estate person did so until another neighbor called out that he had recently been involved with the U. real estate on a deal of 50 condos. Only then did the one failing to disclose, admit it; saying something like, other agents got deals too. Of course, our neighbor telling the truth was the target of the wrath from the rubber stamping PHC, because the truth teller was “out of order.”Another real estate person on UCD committees with Tom, (UCD is operated by Campus Apts and Penn Real Estate controlling the board); failed to disclose her or his relationships with the development team. That person even completed a private survey on this list to gather evidence of community support for UCD/Penn BID. That is actually strong connections with the entire development team. To me, this is like when Mr. Zitcer, the arts activist, forgot to tell the PW readers that he worked for Penn Real Estate when he was confused about why West Philly residents would protest the policies of Penn Real Estate. How can people forget these important details? Especially when they make a point of disclosing that they have no relationships which might interact with their testimony? http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/heardinthehall/Is_it_Ethics_season_yet.html Confused, 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] Disclosure of relationships at hearings
KAREN ALLEN wrote: The only truly public meeting was the Zoning Committee meeting that was first slated to be held in the too-small Spruce Hill office. Spruce Hill was forced to move the meeting to 42nd and Baltimore by accusations that they were deliberately using a location with limited space. Once it was moved, the meeting was publicized by Campus Inn opponents who created the Hotel in Our Hood? fliers and taped them to utility poles. The large crowd that turned out registered overwhelming oppositon to Campus Inn. But during his testimony, Halligan also claimed that the community was evenly split about the project. The community was overwhelmingly opposed, but the Spruce Hill Zoning committee was split... I guess that counts as as even. doesn't mr. halligan read the uc review? his local paper not only publicized the time and location for the 13 feb 08 meeting that his organization (shca) called, but it also reported on the community's response to the project at that meeting: http://tinyurl.com/3ycrsk Spruce Hill Zoning Committee hears plans for 11 stories By Nicole Contosta UC Review Staff With the Spruce Hill Zoning Committee acting like a jury and concerned neighbors as the prosecution, Campus Inn, the proposed 11-story extended stay hotel at 400 S. 40th St. was seemingly put on trial last Wednesday, February 13th when opposing factions convened for a community meeting. If the meeting had in actuality been a real trial, and if the opinions of the immediate neighborhood residents, as well as other local people attending and speaking out against the hotel had impact, the opposition to the Campus Inn proposal might have have triumphed. Opposition from area residents focused primarily on the height and scale of the hotel in a residential neighborhood, how its addition would create more traffic in an already congested area, and the preservation of the mansion in juxtaposition to the proposed new high-rise hotel building. the dp also reported on the community's response to the hotel project at that meeting: http://tinyurl.com/2yrpv5 AREA 'UNANIMOUSLY' OPPOSES HOTEL At three-hour zoning meeting, neighbors largely hostile to proposed hotel at 40th and Pine streets By: Katie Karas Area residents are still up in arms about a proposed hotel at 40th and Pine streets - and they don't seem to be backing down. At a zoning committee meeting of the Spruce Hill Community Association, developers presented their proposal for an 11-story extended-stay hotel that would be located at 40th and Pine streets. But local residents and grassroots organizations responded with overwhelming disapproval and hostility. During the three-hour meeting, the only area resident who voiced support for the hotel was greeted with jeers from the crowd of about 50 people. The hotel, which is slated to be called Campus-Inn, has been touted by developers as a response to the need for a long-term hotel to house families visiting patients at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. The proposed site is owned by the University and would be leased to developers if plans are approved by Penn's Board of Trustees and Philadelphia zoning officials. Opposition to the project, led by the Woodland Terrace Association and individual residents, attacked the coalition of developers and the University on issues from the hotel's planned height to traffic. Marianna Thomas, a preservation architect for the Woodland Terrace Historic District, said an 11-story building is inappropriate in what she deems a low-rise suburban neighborhood. Though she commends the project's plan to renovate the dilapidated mansion currently on the hotel site, Thomas said a building of 11 stories is a violation of the neighborhood. David Gradwell, a local resident who fears that the hotel's construction could produce an onslaught of similar high-rise projects, was greeted by cheers when he said, What's going to happen when Penn casts its envious eyes upon Clark Park? Many residents also expressed worries that the difficult parking situation in the area will only get worse, despite plans for a valet parking system that will, according to developer Tom Lussenhop, keep cars from crowding the street. The solution of valet parking is not a solution, said Magali Larson, a former Sociology professor at Penn and member of Woodland Terrace Association. College senior Evan Fenaroli, whose backyard is adjacent to the proposed site, said although he will not be living there if construction begins, he thinks the project is irresponsible. I don't see an issue with the design itself, Fenaroli said. It's the setting that bothers me. It's somebody's back yard. Asset manager for Penn Real Estate Esaul Sanchez said Penn had received nearly 20 proposals for the site, which most concur is in need of renovation, but nothing else really had traction. Despite the current
