I don't see what the big deal is in trying to downplay Chris's asking for a
show of hands. He probably meant it as a rallying point. It was obviously not
official, and I'm sure he wasn't intending to palm off a mere show of hands as
an official vote. I didn't vote because I'm not a member of Spruce Hill.
What was important was that Chris pointed out that last night's meeting was not
a public meeting on the hotel issue. The relevance of this is that at last
week's HC hearing, the lawyer or architect (I don't remember now which one)
made a statement that there had been two previous public meetings on the
project, and that Lussenhop was going to be making a presentation at another
"public" meeting at what would turn out to be last night's meeting.
Chris pointed out that he didn't know the issue was going to be discussed,
that he found about it through the "grapevine", and that the issue did not
appear in the printed agenda for the meeting. Cindy Roberts conceded that last
night's meeting was not a public meeting.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [UC] Penn Hilton III "vote"> Date: Wed,
> 14 Nov 2007 10:27:39 -0500> To: [email protected]> > Chris' little
> piece of theater must have been quite effective to have > inspired such
> spin.> > Frankus> Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible.> > PS. I am,
> unfortunately, in Atlanta this week or I would have been > there myself.> > >
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Lewis Mellman wrote:> > > The poll Chris OD
> attempted was clearly jive, but, in the interest > > of accurate reporting, I
> have to agree with Melani on the apparent > > result.> > I was seated in the
> back of the room by the door with a clear view > > of the audience. As much
> as I love Chris OD and understand why he > > doesn't want the added traffic
> from this hotel a block from his > > house, I think he saw the result that he
> wanted to see rather than > > the slight edge that went to those who
> supported the concept of an > > 11-story erection at 40th and Pine.> > There
> were a number of people who chose not to vote, and I doubt > > that they were
> all "undecided".> > By the time Chris got up to speak, quite a few people had
> left as > > the hammer-TLus portion of the evening got underway.> > And the
> representative from the Committee of 70 left in tears (that > > last part was
> total fabrication, but... you get my drift).> > -Lew> >> > Speaking as
> someone who has taken responsibility to run genuine > > association
> elections, fake elections hold little weight with me. > > They are
> public-opinion toys, nothing more.> >> > My reckoning of that inconsequential
> moment was that a few more > > hands were raised for 'opposed' than were
> raised for 'supported'. > > But you could just as well be right! It doesn't
> matter at all, > > because it was not an official vote officially presented
> and > > counted. It was just one speaker's rhetorical ploy.> >> > It did,
> however, closely match my subjective measure of the > > "expressed bias" of
> the 18 commenters. Two cheesy data sources that > > independently agree are
> stronger than either one alone. My final > > evaluation was based on that
> concurrence of data.> >> > Enough of who won nothing. The real news is these
> are, on the > > whole, tentative responses to a project that is still
> evolving in > > response to its responses.> >> > An anxiety that recurred
> throughout the SHCA meeting was that > > people want to know exactly how far
> along in the decision-making > > "process" this particular event lay. My own
> reading is that we're > > somewhere in the early minutes of the second
> quarter of the game.> >> > -- Tony West> >> >> > /> > In a message dated
> 11/13/07 11:38:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > writes:> > /> > /Two different
> measures suggested that those who were decidedly > > opposed> > to the
> project slightly outnumbered those who were in favor, but that> > undecideds
> and neutrals were numerous, and many people expressed> > complex, ambivalent
> responses. I did not get the sense that either > > side> > was dominated by
> ringers who had been marshaled to make a pitch for> > their bossman, as has
> been seen before at some public forums in> > University City./> >> >> > Tony,
> I believe you'd already left when Chris O'Donnell got up to > > speak. Some
> others had too, of course. At the end of Chris' > > comments, he called for a
> show of hands: who was in favor of the > > project? A number of hands went
> up. Chris started counting, but > > stopped before finishing and said, well,
> how many are opposed?> >> >> From my seat at the far edge, near the back, I
> glanced around > >> quickly. I'd swear that it was a smaller group of hands
> raised > >> for "opposed." But Chris quickly moved on without giving us any >
> >> counts, and the people with their hands in the air put them down > >>
> before anyone else had time to count. And Chris finished up saying > >> that
> more study needed to go into the project, or something like > >> that, and
> the meeting ended.> >> > - Melani Lamond> >> >> > ----> > 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>.
