Melani,
Why does the UCD, its staff and steering committee, want to have two
separate legal entities? What would the scope of control be in such a
scenario? I'm assuming both non-profit orgs would each have their own
separate funds. Would the local landowners paying into the BID/NID no longer
have any say in how UCD is run, even if they have a say on how the BID/NID
is run? Why would the neighborhood want two non-profit entities when only
one seems to be required here? What is the reasoning for this increase in
bureaucracy? At what point was this dual entity solution explicitly put
forward. Every meeting I've gone to in the past two years and the discussion
by Mr. Huston mentioned nothing about there being two non-profits, one the
BID/NID and one the current UCD.
Mario Giorno
36 S. 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19139
On 6/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*
In a message dated 6/26/07 12:07:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* But here we are. We must take the UCD for what is is. We may never
truly come together under a generalissimo UCD director, but that's hardly a
problem. If UCD stayed as it is now getting funded by local businesses and
citizens by choice rather than by surcharge, it could still survive on more
meager means, it would simply provide less service. The question we need to
ask is, is this a better idea than sucking it and giving some percentage of
our real estate tax to UCD each year so that it can do every and anything we
want it to do? Do we still want to take the recommendation of Wendell and
the UCD steering committee to only take 12% of the annual RE tax from those
with 4 or more bedroom units on the property? Do we want every landowner to
maybe pay 6% of their annual RE tax instead so that everyone has skin in the
game and can vote to restrain or enbolden specific UCD practices or works.
Brian's right. This will only work if we will it to work. Lewis
Wendell will do all that he can to keep UCD afloat and hopefully efficient
and productive, but he and th rest of the UCD can't do it without our
support. Eventually we as a community will have to make a deliberate attempt
to uphold UCD or destroy it. Whatever democratic dialogue has been exchanged
on this list for the past 2 years about what to do with UCD will become
purely academic unless we the citizens of UC either shit or get off the pot.
We need to reconsider the UCD NID plan. If changes need to be made, then we
need to tell UCD what those specific legal and/or financial changes are and
come to a compromise.
Just to be clear, the BID proposal was IN ADDITION to the current UCD
services. It was to fund clean and safe operations on MORE streets. What
was proposed was *not to replace* the UCD with a BID; it was *to add* a
BID component to the already existing UCD. So there would have been a BID
with a Steering Committee, working with the UCD and its Board - a little bit
like what Guy Laren proposed, when he suggested that somebody else could
form a BID and subcontract to UCD for workers and services.
So if the frugal landlords prevail and there is no BID, that does not
automatically shut down the UCD; it just doesn't allow the expansion of
services farther into the western and more residential areas of the
neighborhood. Which some folks think is just fine, if they do lots of block
clean ups and aren't feeling the need for more safety ambassador patrols.
But what's happening now, in this outcry of anger at the UCD, must be
making the people who pay for the UCD itself pause. If the neighborhood
doesn't want their free clean, safe and marketing efforts - what should they
do? Might they feel it's better to get out of the hot seat and quietly go
back inside their buildings and do nothing?
Would that really be an improvement for us in the neighborhood?
Melani Lamond
*Melani Lamond, Associate Broker*
*Urban & Bye, Realtor*
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
