In a message dated 6/26/07 2:07:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > 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 > Hi, Mario, I'm sure everybody's getting tired of my posts this afternoon, and Al is probably going to threaten again to sue me, so I'll try to be brief. And remember that I am not an official or even unofficial spokesperson for the UCD or the BID. I'm sorry that the BID meetings weren't more informative, but would you agree that there were a number of folks at the meetings who wanted to create an uproar rather than getting down to working out the details?
You ask a very good question. The UCD was founded before the PA "enabling legislation" allowed a BID to be funded by landlords, so that's why the organization didn't start out as a BID. Maybe someday the two would be able, if the BID were to be approved, to streamline into one organization. But right now the UDC exists and the BID remains uncertain, given the very vocal opposition, so I don't think anyone considered CLOSING the UCD and REPLACING it. Plus, the landlords who have provided feedback and the community reps who have chimed in have stated that they don't want marketing and some other components. So, the BID as proposed currently would concentrate on clean and safe and stay out of the services that its funders don't want. But others involved with the UCD do want those services, so if there are two organizations working together, the people who want the other services (the institutions) can pay the UCD for those AND for their share of clean and safe, and the BID funders can pay only for the limited services they want. I'm not sure the landlords want to pay for park improvements, etc., but to others, those are the things we wouldn't want to do without. The BID proposal didn't change the makeup of the UCD board, so where there are currently landlords and community representatives on the UCD board, they would still be there. It proposed a BID advisory board of landlords and business owners, most recently written to have several each in the categories of larger, midsized and smaller entities. As I mentioned before, suggestions and changes have been heard, considered, and incorporated into the proposal as much as possible under BID law. Unfortunately the BID law does not allow some of the suggestions folks have made, and some folks seem disinclined to believe that; instead, they just fault the UCD for not doing things THEIR way. There are a lot of issues, wants & needs to be considered - including the law! Your point is helpful - if you weren't aware of this, others probably weren't either, and we won't be able to get anywhere till we all understand the ground rules. Thanks, Melani 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.
