Hi Jeff! Okay. I admit it; I am a rube.
I have never lived where a television series has been filmed before. For that reason and that alone, I would have liked some advanced briefing on the protocol applicable to such an event, so I would at least know how to conduct myself. May I sit outside or not? Are we allowed to watch? In the event someone you know car gets towed while they are away, where would it most likely be? Alternate "Hack" routes for gaining access to your property on shooting days. Perhaps even a tentative schedule of shoots for those in repeatedly affected areas. What do you do if you are coming from the trolley through a scene being shot with "regular people" who are really actors, but who look like everyday folks and one of the actors (dressed as a Philadelphia cop) tells you to go ahead through the scene only to be yanked by the director who tells you to stop? (Actual incident involving my husband.) It would make it a bit easier for us unsophisticated types like me so I could at least get out of the way. Regards, Wilma de Soto On 8/28/03 6:50 PM, "Jeff Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:14:19PM -0400, Brian Siano wrote: >> I think you're missing the point, Jeff. > > Maybe. > > I'm hearing people say, "We are inconvenienced because it is hard to > park. But we don't see much economic benefit to this." > > I would like to put this in context. The inconvenience from filming > hack means that several days a month parking is tight. Parking being > tight means some people (about 135, it seems) will spend a bit of > extra time parking and have to walk a few extra blocks. This is > inconvenient, but not much worse than that. > > Where are the benefits? They don't eat at White Dog, maybe not at Rx, > Marigolds, or Fiesta, either. But they are spending money, a lot of it > by University City mercantile standards. That money is going > somewhere. The caterers come from somewhere, and they buy food and pay > staff. These people stay somewhere, probably in hotels. The hotels > generate revenue (that is then taxed) and pay people. They are using > power (electricity, gasoline), which they purchase. They are paying > some people for use of private property, although the details are > likely intentionally obscured. > > These are very real ways in which money is flowing into our city and > our region. Exactly how much flows into UC? I don't know, but is that > our primary criterion? Is the inconvenience not worth it if it only > improves the lot of some people in Northern Liberties and Point > Breeze? Or in Center City? > > Meanwhile, the reason the film office exists is because some people > believe that a city appearing in film benefits from that exposure from > increased publicity to the city and the region. It encourages people > to want to live here, for example. I have not researched this, but I > suspect these claims are well founded. > > We could make an argument that the particular goods and services being > purchased have a low residual impact on the local economy. (For every > dollar spent, how much stays local? It's a much higher fraction for > restaurant food, for example, than for gasoline.) But no one has made > that argument, and it is a hard argument to make. It requires > extensive research in general. > > >> Judging from the responses I've seen so far, it appears that there >> was no effort to notify the neighborhood that we'd _become_ this >> popular. Thus, there was no community input on how to handle the >> logistics of the filming-- to develop some manageable scheme for >> handling parked cars, for example, so we can have the production and >> minimize its impact on our lives. Did the producers meet with >> community representatives? Were these issues discussed? > > I am with you all the way when it concerns government action or the > actions of large entities who are proposing to alter the built > environment of our neighborhood. > > But I disagree that every time someone wants to do business or conduct > some affair that they should be required to hold community > meetings. What would be the threshold of concern? Over a certain > dollar amount invested? But invested in what? How would you measure > it? Should you need to hold a public meeting to have a block party? > You inconvenience neighboring blocks. > > Imagine you decide to get married in a UC church and invite a few > hundred guests (who will park their cars for the day). You cater a > nice long lunch for everyone. (You're into five figures here, but this > happens often enough for such events.) You exceed the monetary > threshold. You now have to hold public meetings about your upcoming > wedding. > > I know, a wedding is different, but my point is that I don't think we > are thinking through very well this proposed obligation to consult the > community. We don't have a right to be consulted on everything. ---- 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>.
