Tony, >> My instinct is to let the lawyers duke that one out before Hizzoner. It's >> not up to laymen to decide what is or is not "public" in these contexts >> and their opinions, no matter how vociferous, will not ultimately sway > the court.
I respectfully but very passionately disagree. I think it is very appropriately up to ³laymen,² i.e., simple, lowly citizens, in a participatory democracy to decide what matters are appropriately of public concern, and what the appropriate resolution of those concerns should be. There are some obscure matters of law that can¹t really be changed without changing the law, and therefore may be better left to lawyers to argue about, but never anything in the realm of public policy. As an attorney, I can tell you that courts and judges are very reluctant to become involved in matters of public policy, and the issue at hand is a political and public policy matter, not a legal matter. So, the attitude that this is appropriately left to lawyers and courts and judges is extraordinarily disempowering to concerned citizens. Ergo, my posts }:-). Public sentiment is not supposed to sway courts, but it does, a bit, and I¹m not persuaded that it shouldn¹t. But civic associations and the Zoning Board are not courts. They are political animals. Penn is not a court. Tom Lussenhop is not a court. Public opinion can sway decisionmakers, even those not bound by law. I cut my activist teeth in the divestment movement. I wasn¹t a citizen of South Africa, and had no legal or official political standing. But that didn¹t mean I didn¹t have influence. Not little me, personally. But I could look to other entities that I could influence, and did. I was a Penn State student. Penn State had lots of connections, both directly and less directly through its trustees, with companies doing business in South Africa. I had no vote in Penn State¹s decisions, but that didn¹t stop me and my pals from showing up at every trustee¹s meeting, portraying Penn State as abetting apartheid. So I (and many others) protested Penn State, and Mellon Bank, and Johnson and Johnson. And we lobbied Harrisburg. It took years, it wasn¹t easy, since we had no direct influence. But public image and political pressure matter. I will never forget 2 days one, the day Penn State voted to divest, and two, the day Nelson Mandela walked out of jail. They are among the most empowering, important days of my life, in part because it shows what sustained public pressure can do to even the most intractable opponent. > Sounds like Barry did what he should have done and neighbors who were >> concerned about the project did what they should have done. I again have to disagree. Even the way you characterize it, it¹s not what SHCA should have done. It¹s what ³Barry² should have done. I¹m well west of SHCA, and have no personal experience with it, and so have no agenda or ax to grind. For purposes of full disclosure, many people on this list have spoken poorly of SHCA, and some of those are folks I respect, and I have seen many civic associations that function in less than democratic manners. So, I¹m not terribly biased but maybe a bit. But just on the mechanics it seems to me Barry should be representing his members, not himself individually, which is how you seem to characterize the choices. > Even with that done, public "input" should not be >> confused with public "decision-making". Development of privately-owned >> land is regulated by the City but it is not an electoral process; the >> job of ZBA is not to reflect slavishly whatever the community wants, but > to integrate community concerns with a host of other rights. Ahhhhh. Oh, I agree, Tony. Input is definitely not the same as decision-making. But, frighteningly, IMO, much of what passes for democracy in our society is in fact about giving ³input² - i.e., you get to speak your mind, but it has no power versus decision-making i.e., you have some real power/influence over the result. So many Americans are so willing to settle for meaningless ³input.² It¹s insidiously anti-democratic. Not something I would advocate at all. The fact that something is not a subject of an electoral process does not mean it¹s not appropriately a matter of public concern. Walmart might have a legal right to pay its employees minimum wage without benefits, or underbid its competitors, or engage in environmentally destructive harmful activities. That doesn¹t mean the public can¹t object to that, and protest and boycott Walmart. It might be legal, but that doesn¹t make it right. Segregation was once legal, and the folks who changed that didn¹t do so by letting the lawyers duke it out. And private property is not sacrosanct, however much you and others on this list wish it was. As Al has often pointed out, the whole point of the zoning process is to regulate private property. But zoning is not the only tool. My neighbor has a large, dead tree in his back yard. It¹s posing a significant danger to all of the surrounding neighbors. My neighbor is crazy (literally.) We neighbors sent him a letter asking him to do something about it, but it was a formality, since we knew he wouldn¹t do anything. Now we are asking the city to do something, because the city code says that you can¹t have a tree on your private property that threatens your neighbor¹s property. I.e., there are limits to private property rights, and those rights end where the rights of others are impacted. There is nothing wrong with folks challenging Lussenhop¹s plans if Lussenhop¹s plans impact other people, even if Lussenhop¹s plans are on private property. If others are affected, they have every right to have a say. Even if there is no formal, official structure for that say. > Doesn't mean the community won't be listened to. But the working out of >> this listening is more of a political process, and only 5% of politics > takes place in "public". That¹s a tactical question. We live in the world as it is, while working toward the world as it should be. Perhaps, as you say, only 5% of politics takes place in public. That doesn¹t mean that¹s right or good. That doesn¹t mean people should accept that as a given that can¹t be changed. We¹re working toward improvement and betterment and change not defeatedly accepting the status quo just because ³it is.² > In the end, the only persons who can cast decisive votes on this or any >> other zoning matter are the ZBA Members. Nobody on UC-list, neither Tom >> nor Glenn, certainly not I, gets to pull the lever on this one. If >> you're looking for a public occasion on which to cast your binding vote, > the primary will be on Apr. 22. Make sure you're registered. No, Tony, no one on this list gets to cast a decisive vote, you are correct (as far as I know.) But that does NOT mean that folks on this list can¹t affect the outcome of this decision. If I could affect apartheid in South Africa, folks in this neighborhood can affect whether hotel gets built or not. If one tries to make change by sticking to the rules of the folks in power, one will probably not get very far, since the folks who make the rules tend to favor the status quo. But if folks are willing to go outside the tactics that the powers-that-be are comfortable with, they are likely to see results. And that is particpatory citizenship as much as voting or serving on A Committee. Kimm On 2/14/08 5:57 PM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Ray. > > Sounds like Barry did what he should have done and neighbors who were > concerned about the project did what they should have done. > > I'm sorry I missed the meeting -- I had a Home School Ass'n meeting > conflict and family comes first. > > I'm no whiz on zoning. What I have learned over the years is that it's a > multi-step process, and the bigger the project, the more the steps. > > Calling one step "public" and another event "non-public" tends to miss > the point, except within certain restricted legal parameters. My > instinct is to let the lawyers duke that one out before Hizzoner. It's > not up to laymen to decide what is or is not "public" in these contexts > and their opinions, no matter how vociferous, will not ultimately sway > the court. > > Someone does have to make a judgement call as to who or what the > "community" is. Even with that done, public "input" should not be > confused with public "decision-making". Development of privately-owned > land is regulated by the City but it is not an electoral process; the > job of ZBA is not to reflect slavishly whatever the community wants, but > to integrate community concerns with a host of other rights. > > Doesn't mean the community won't be listened to. But the working out of > this listening is more of a political process, and only 5% of politics > takes place in "public". > > In the end, the only persons who can cast decisive votes on this or any > other zoning matter are the ZBA Members. Nobody on UC-list, neither Tom > nor Glenn, certainly not I, gets to pull the lever on this one. If > you're looking for a public occasion on which to cast your binding vote, > the primary will be on Apr. 22. Make sure you're registered. > > If you want to cast a binding vote in a community Association's > decision-making process, follow the same procedure. Stay alert for its > next election and make sure you're registered. > > -- Tony West > > > UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: >> > barry's original announcement for this meeting stated: >> > >> > "Neighbors will have a full opportunity to ask questions >> > and offer comments about the project, and the committee >> > will take all comments into consideration in its >> > deliberations." >> > >> > his announcement added: >> > >> > "I will contact by phone those immediate neighbors whose >> > e-mail addresses I do not have, but please feel free to >> > share this information with anyone who might be >> > interested." > > > ---- > 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>.
