----- Original Message ----- From: KAREN ALLEN To: Frank ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:05 PM Subject: RE: [UC] Penn Hilton III "vote"
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. Karen, I'm quite sure it was the Penn architect making that claim at both meetings. I made a request to Mr. Farnham through the secretary yesterday. I've requested to listen to the tapes so that I can transcribe the exact quotes and get the exact identification of the architect and all the identities of the Penn team. I'm curious to get legal opinions from lawyers on the list. Is it acceptable for applicants to lie at official, recorded, proceedings like the PHC meetings? Could a neighborhood resident ask a court for an injunction requiring a developer to refrain from making additional false testimony and be forced to conduct the process in the neighborhood which they falsely claimed before any further action on the development could take place? I would like to see Penn Real Estate be forced to conduct at least 3 public forums in Spruce Hill about this hotel before any further actions are allowed. That is the minimum number of public meetings which they have claimed that I know about to date. And with all announcements of these forums, could a court order force the developer to disclose that they were required to conduct these in the neighborhood with acceptable standards because of the false testimony? I'm not a lawyer; just thinking about a fair remedy for what has been done against our neighborhood.. Glenn > 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>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 9:27 AM
