Frank wrote:
Here's a question: What was the decision-making process that lead to
the University City designation on the Clark Park sign?
UCD had a little money left over from a project and its then-
Executive Director Eric Goldstein offered to make them and erect them.
The Dept. of Recreation thought it was a good idea and gave UCD the
go-ahead.
Frank,
It's important to consider that Clark Park was completely under the control
of Penn by the time those signs were placed. In order to answer your
questions, I need to share some important history that I experienced first
hand.
In late 2000 or early 2001, the leaders of the FOCP Board and the SHCA Board
had been anointed as the complete community as far as Penn is concerned.
UCD then claims "community engagement" by meeting with those leaders
secretly behind closed doors from that time forward. While the park
"revitalization" was the first UCD action past 40th St., this process has
been identical and much discussed in each subsequent UCD initiative.
The public is only informed of any Penn initiative and process after all
"community decisions" have been made through these secret meetings. Not
surprisingly, the "community leaders" are always the same in our diverse
urban neighborhood and always are drawn from the same minority; leaders of
the angry, jealous, frightened middle class homeowner associations.
Consider the recent revelation about the Squirrel Hill civic association
being forced out of the UCD Board because they didn't provide 3 names to be
self selected by Penn. It's important to consider how Penn anoints and
manipulates these leaders if you want to fully understand what Penn's expert
Ira Harkavy calls "the corporate model" for engaging a community. What I
call domestic neo-colonialism or corporate neo feudalism; provides the
accurate answer to your questions.
In my opinion, it's naïve to think that the horrible tactics used in
corporate American foreign policy are not also used against the powerless
and third world suffering inside US borders. The ruthless dictator craving
power makes the best corporate pawn. Here are the mechanics of this
process.
Back in 2001, the joint FOCP/UCD spin repeatedly called the people and
groups that used the park and area residents, criminals. They asserted that
the people not only should not have a voice in the community but needed to
be removed or limited from the park. Those you call the community are not
tolerated in any planning processes and were put on trial at the Quality of
Life Task force (Sept. 2001- March 2002) with manufactured accusations.
Good residents had 3 public presentations from UCD/FOCP in 2001 about the
future redesign of the park and culture, and that was your last chance to
shout out your "wish list" in favor of University City signs. That is what a
UCD "public meeting" involves, you get 1 minute to shout out your wish list.
Last year's FOCP claim that they had "17 public meetings" for you to shout
out your wish list was just a bold lie.
The Department of Recreation was thrilled to turn control of the park over
to Penn as its budget was cut significantly. This is no different than the
role for bankrupt government civil servants in 21st century corporate
America. Here, instead of dealing with the constant "crank" complaints from
the group they disliked, the Friends of Clark Park, the Department of
Recreation was relieved of duty while maintaining the pretense that it had
the real authority. The pretense that Clark Park remained a true public park
"owned" by the citizens of Philadelphia was to be maintained by the FOCP
leaders.
FOCP leaders are allowed to relish their feeling of neighborhood power and
act against their many enemies so long as they completely adopt a UCD
agenda. A powerful example was the destruction of the rights of independent
arts organizations while the park was converted into a venue for corporate
events.
The FOCP leaders want a private Victorian garden for themselves and their
activities. UCD wants a venue to plan corporate events to support its real
estate marketing to wealthy suburban homebuyers. If you look closely, that
is exactly how the park appears to be divided between them in 2007. FOCP
leaders; however, are so self absorbed they still do not understand that
their power is a complete illusion that can be revoked at any time they
diverge from the Penn agenda.
What we have today is FOCP leaders ebullient over their power and false
belief in control of the fool's gold. UCD has complete control of the park
and can do anything Penn real estate wishes.
Let me tell you about the first indication I had that Penn had decided to
take Clark Park. I think this is important data to make the Penn process
clear.
In the fall of 2000 the Daily Pennsylvanian covered my rejection of Penn's
direct attempt to purchase the Clark Park Music and Arts festivals and
anoint me as community leader. This was just prior to the UCD
"revitalization."
I had submitted a proposal to the Office of Community Relations for Penn to
act productively on its claim of community engagement as well as its desire
to retain recent graduates in Philadelphia. The previous year, 1999, I had
tried to assist Penn with its own version of a Clark Park festival along
with Andrew Zitcer and Jon Hermann, but Penn's concept was a complete
failure. In a good faith response, I offered a real town gown partnership
suggesting micro grants to the diverse arts organizations to advance shared
goals. I was a loyal member of both the Penn community and West Philadelphia
and a $1000 grant was to serve as an experiment and potential model for
additional partnerships.
Penn held the money promised to the organization I founded. Approximately a
month before the scheduled September 2000 festival, I was told that our
community celebration had to be renamed "The University of Pennsylvania,
Welcome to the Neighborhood festival" in order to receive the promised
$1000. As leader of the CPMAC, I refused this despicable trick and talked to
the DP reporter.
The following year UCD was saving Clark Park, FOCP was the community, and
the rest of us were criminals making the good people feel unsafe. All
community stakeholders have been barred from Clark Park planning since Penn
handpicked the park steering committee in 2001 and handpicked the anointed
community.
I hope the earlier history helps you understand who placed the signs. It's a
bit more than Eric Goldstein and Tony West having a bright idea with some
loose change. That's what we now politely call "spin." Those signs are the
Penn "vision."
Sincerely,
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "UnivCity listserv" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Gentrification Art
OK. Was there any FOCP or other community input? I'm interested
specifically in the wording but other details won't be ignored.
Frankus
Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible.
On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:38 PM, Anthony West wrote:
UCD had a little money left over from a project and its then- Executive
Director Eric Goldstein offered to make them and erect them. The Dept.
of Recreation thought it was a good idea and gave UCD the go-ahead.
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
Here's a question: What was the decision-making process that lead to
the University City designation on the Clark Park sign?
Frank
----
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>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database:
269.12.0/961 - Release Date: 8/19/2007 7:27 AM
----
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>.
