I thought the article pretty clearly showed that the "unanimous" was a
quotation from Chris O'Donnell.
Frank
On Feb 14, 2008, at 03:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to start any drawn out, unpleasant thread here, but in
the interest of complete reporting, I'd like to point out a couple
of things about last night's meeting. First, the subject line of
this thread is interesting: when I saw it, I wondered who put
quotation marks around the word "unanimously," which seemed to
signify that the writer wasn't taking responsibility for the
description. Reading further, I was surprised to see that the
headline of the DP article itself read that way: the writer, Katie
Karas, put "unanimously" in quotes in her own article.
But I can understand her ambivalence. First, she reports that there
were about 50 people present - hardly all of the "area residents."
Next, it had been stated that the purpose of the meeting was to ask
questions - not to pass judgment - so those who had no questions to
ask, if they followed the format, had no need to stand up and
speak. All 50 (by her count) people present certainly did not
speak! So it wasn't possible for her to know if even ALL 50 opposed
the plan.
The writer must have heard, as I did, the request by the Spruce Hill
zoning committee chair at the start of the meeting that those
present follow a format for the evening. It was a SHCA zoning
meeting, after all, and those of us observing it were an audience of
sorts for the zoning committee's meeting. The chair asked all
present to listen first to the presentations (just as the zoning
committee was doing), and then let the zoning committee ask its
questions of the developer, as they would at any other meeting they
held.
Following those steps, he explained, the floor would then be opened
for all present to ask their additional questions. He asked that
people take advantage of the opportunity to get answers from the
developers and architects. He asked that people try not to
duplicate questions already asked, in the interest of having more
time available for different questions.
He stressed that this was a fact-finding meeting and the first
presentation of a detailed plan to SHCA's zoning committee; it was
not a meeting where decisions would be made. As a matter of fact,
he said, some of the opponents have hired an attorney who is now
meeting with the developers' attorney, so SHCA will be waiting for
the results of their negotiations before even beginning any decision-
making process.
If anyone present disputes my description of the format, please say
so! And I'm glad that it was recorded!
The requested format worked reasonably well, but not exactly
according to plan. There was annoying microphone feedback, and one
of the community presenters had difficulties with her slides. Some
of the zoning committee members' questions were asked too quietly,
and had to be repeated to the rest of the observers. Bored children
circled the room noisily. And at first, some observers were so
eager to speak that they didn't wait for the open Q&A session, but
after a few reminders, things settled into place better.
Some of the questions were very helpful, bringing out new
information. Some were repetitious. There were a couple of Penn
people present who are in charge of the property now, and they
explained that there had been other proposals, but none which were
financially feasible. Several people from the medical school or HUP
asked questions about the expected guests and/or gave additional
information to the developers to consider about the needs of folks
here for medical visits. People had a lot of questions (or a lot of
variations on the same questions) about parking and whether or not
guests would use SEPTA. The developer also explained the proposed
shuttle service and valet parking, which prompted more questions -
often, perhaps, better characterized as negative comments of
disbelief.
Although many of us in the room have been to enough community
meetings to recognize most of the participants, few introduced
themselves by name and address. This, too, would have made it
difficult for the reporter to be certain that all who were speaking
were from the "area" - in most cases she couldn't have determined if
they were from the block, from the few surrounding blocks, from the
area known as Spruce Hill, or from a further distance. That, too,
is a consideration when measuring opposition. I was more impressed
by the views of those living close to the project than by those from
other locations.
I didn't say anything at the meeting for two reasons: first, I
didn't have any questions that weren't asked by someone else.
Secondly, I feel supportive of the project, if there can be
negotiations and compromises, but that isn't a question, and we had
been asked for questions, not our opinions. I don't think I was the
only person present who could see merit in the renovation of the
mansion as a good point of this proposal. I don't think the
opposition was total and unanimous.
I was glad to get additional information and have some rumors about
the project laid to rest. I was glad to hear from actual neighbors
who felt strongly negative, and to find out why. When it is not
just a case of knee-jerk negativity to any project where there is
Penn involvement, I am more impressed by the opposition - and I
think the developers will be, too.
I was especially glad to hear one observer ask the developer if
there is room for compromise: his reply was "yes."
Reading the several emails posted since the meeting, I wonder if we
hear one another. The zoning committee said that they can't begin
any decision-making process till the attorneys for both sides come
to conclusions, yet both email and the DP article neglect to mention
that major point. Email suggests that SHCA is about to come to a
conclusion without community input - how different that is from the
actuality of waiting till the opponents and developers' attorneys
try to find a compromise before beginning to deal with the results
of those negotiations. Thanks to the speaker I do not know, who
asked that question and got that important point out in the open:
compromise is possible.
Melani Lamond
Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101
**************
The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards.
Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
