> The fact that they even considered it makes me very > apprehensive, and makes me question whether they are > truly committed to the idea of historic > preservation. When Tom Lussenhop brought this > proposal to them, their reaction should have been to > reject it out of hand. Lussenhop wanted something > that would destroy the character of the community > forever; what would there be to discuss? "Hell, no! > That goes against all that we stand for!" >
Wow! My mistake. I went back to the report. I knew that Lussenhop tried to get the historical part demolished and he was turned down, July 13. But not until the last paragraph of the article was a confirmation that SHCA leaders knew about this in advance. I think I stopped reading at the end of the first page because I expected such a loud public, "hell no" from SHCA that I didn't realize how far advanced this had moved. It was obvious that Lussenhop and Penn have been at this plan for a long time. But I really thought SHCA must have been kept completely in the dark too. I've made no secret of my view about these civic association leaders saying "the community this and the community that." And how outrageous it is to take on these projects secretly with Penn and UCD. This hotel goes against everything this club has claimed as the SHCA ideology. To be dealing secretly with Penn without informing this entire community would be incredible. Did I completely miss a huge public information campaign? Was there any announcement by SHCA to the community in the Review or posters about this horrible plan generally or about the july 13th decision by the historical commission????? I didn't learn about this until the October 10th report in our local paper. Thanks in advance for any other peices of the puzzle, Glenn --- KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:48:18 -0700> From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [UC] Stop the hotel > and SHCA> I share the concerns about the vision for > a hotel at> 40th and Pine. ... > > > Some years ago The Spruce Hill Civic Association > tried> to push an historic designation over this> > neighborhood. Of course, this would have had> > disastrous effects upon our most vulnerable > neighbors> with almost no benefit. But preserving > the historical> character was being asserted > whatever the human costs.> > Glenn Moyer > What I don't understand in this is why Spruce Hill > is considering this proposal at all, given the fact > that it flies in the face of everything they claimed > to have stood for in fighting for historic > designation. Historic designation would have > prevented this very thing of a hideous, out of > scale, out of character building slapped up wherever > some connected hotshot developer could squeeze it. > > The fact that they even considered it makes me very > apprehensive, and makes me question whether they are > truly committed to the idea of historic > preservation. When Tom Lussenhop brought this > proposal to them, their reaction should have been to > reject it out of hand. Lussenhop wanted something > that would destroy the character of the community > forever; what would there be to discuss? "Hell, no! > That goes against all that we stand for!" > > So my questions are these: is "historical character" > only an issue that is raised when little people want > to make relatively little changes to individual > properties? Or is historical character (and our > neighborhood) to be thrown out like yesterday's > newspaper when the front men for big instititutions > want to make devestating changes to the entire > neighborhood? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---- 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>.
