Karen,
I do so get to define you. If I think highly of you, which I do, I get
to say so in public. If I think a comment of yours is pointless, I get
to say so in public. That is /not the same /as cursing, not a question
of universal manners. UC-list is a medium of amateur journalism. You can
define me right back.
Pointless are your assertions either Lussenhop or I made these claims
you keep claiming we each claimed. As far as I can tell by reading,
neither he nor I made such a claim. So why not just quit it?
I return now to my earlier question, 'Why this internet rage?'. Not just
yours, but so many other people's, that surround this developer's proposal.
I honestly don't know. Perhaps University Citizens have been too
isolated from experience from large- and mid-scale development over the
past 20 years, so few people on this list know what it actually
involves. I probably wouldn't either if I hadn't worked outside the
neighborhood.
But I have covered a lot of stuff happening in other neighborhoods,
particularly Northern Liberties, where some projects recently planted or
now on the table make Lussenhop's hotel look like a toothpick. I've
covered a lot of developers and a lot of neighbors trying to track those
developments. No developer is an angel all the time and some are more
devious than others, to be sure. But then, their "community" foes aren't
all a bunch of Gandhis either.
I have to say, from the little I've seen so far, that while community
concern and angst and suspicion are perfectly normal, healthy and
legitimate -- Lussenhop isn't doing anything abnormal or substandard as
he goes about the process of seeking his project. This is what they all
do; it's legal and necessary to their business. Doesn't mean the project
has to be approved ... that's a different question altogether.
This business of pounding away at the developers themselves -- depicting
their persons as sinister conspirators and their deeds as semi-criminal
-- is, in my opinion, a waste of time, most of the time. ZBA has heard
all this before. People who assault neighbors' characters and raise
dubious consternations about "process" tend not to be comfortable with
the real issues at hand, which are both vital and technical.
That's why I recommend you avail yourself of every opportunity to study
Lussenhop's proposal closely. Information is what the community needs at
this point, not invective. Don't be distracted by the spurious comfort
of mudslinging.
And don't shoot the messenger. You need more messengers, not fewer.
-- Tony West
Lussenhop is trying to pass off appearances in the neighborhood as
"public" meetings, despite the fact that there has been absolutely no
attempt by him, his friends or his apologists to reach the average UC
resident who does not happen to belong to the Historical Society, SHCA
or any of the entities who show up at First Thursday or the Friends of
40th Street. Those organizations reach a small percentage of UC
residents, and all UC residents, and not just the members of those
groups, have a right to be informed and to be heard.
I am not parsing words as you seem to be doing. Is SHCA or this list
public? Yes, in a narrow way. Anyone who chooses to join are part of
that "public" that makes up these entities. They are not private. But
are these entities all-inclusive? No. You still insist on calling
what I wrote to be "insulting nonsense" when I made it very clear what
I meant by "public" and why what Lussenhop is doing is not going to
pass muster in front of the Zoning Board if he tries to palm
his "appearances" off as being "public meetings".
I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and I'm not going to change
my opinion. And if Lussenhop appears before the Zoning Board and
tries to claim those appearances qualify as public meetings, I'm going
to see to it that that claim is challenged.
You will note that in my reaction to your insults that I did not ask
for an apology. I don't ask for apologies because a bell cannot be
unrung. I also regard an apology accompanied with excuses and more
insults to not be an apology, but further insults. And for the record,
you do not get to define for me the standard by which I consider what
is "pointless", "insulting nonsense", and what is "out of
character". You seem to think that your opinons are Truth Inviolate,
and woe unto anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. If you
don't agree with me, fine. But you don't get to deem my opinion
"pointless" "out of character" "insulting nonsense" simply because I
committed the cardinal sin of disagreeing with you.
And you also do not get to define me. You have decided what my
"character" should be, and now you think that I have violated your
"standards" of what you think my character should be. You now have to
remind me what my "place" is, and how you expect that I won't violate
your standards again. You do not define me, or what my opinon is or
should be. You are very arrogant, sir, and you really need to do
something about that.
Karen Allen
----
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>.
