Wow! I cannot believe what I am seeing here. For the record, I have sat many committees in two neighborhood associations in UC; I also go beck to the WP Partnership Board when Sheldon Hackney was President at Penn.
The "Who are you", "Do you own or rent", and "Are you a member or not, and if not be still", political line is indicative of the problem and judgmental to boot. That does not justify what amounts to a small inner circle making sweeping decisions and judgments ostensibly in the name and interest of the community, while saying "The public be damned!" On 2/14/08 10:42 PM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you just wrote is untrue, Frank. > > I addressed the challenge of sitting on a committee and arriving at a > committee's decisions. I have sat on many committees; how many have you > sat on? > > Anyone who reads the dialog you copied below will see I did not "equate" > meeting attendees with liars, bla bla.... That's all your own angry, > careless rhetoric. The last tine we interacted on line, you were telling > the on-line community you were suffering from the illness of a friend in > Atlanta. I respected that. > > I too have faced many health challenges in the past 12 months. Did I beg > public forgiveness for my manners on account of them? Pity is a one-way > street for you, it seems. > > Angry, dishonest rhetoric (neighborhood "fight talk") is the central > purpose of UC-list these days. Personally, it sickens me. I am in the > political business, so I am familiar with this pathology. I deal with it > for a living ... but I don't want to come home at the end of the day and > deal with it some more. > > What do you do for a living, by the way, Frank? Where do you live, and > how do you afford to live there? Can you please tell the neighborhood > exactly who you are? You are a frequent angry critic of how your > neighbors manage their properties and their public spaces; yet we know > strangely little about you. What's the scoop? How much do you pay to > your landlord for the environment you think this proposed hotel would > disrupt? If information about the hotel is rightfully public, isn't > information about you rightfully public as well? Tell us who you are and > where you are. > > -- Tony West > > > Frank wrote: >> You are equating people who chose to attend the meeting with shameless >> liars/ignorami and those on the committee with people who struggle to >> tell the truth in public/experts? That's preposterous. People who >> learn zoning law don't necessarily speak truthfully. Where did you get >> that idea? There is no connection. Why would you equate them? >> >> Everyone who attended the meeting "contributed" simply by attending. >> The committee wanted public input and they got it. As I said before, >> not every interested party can be accommodated on a board or >> committee. How dare you accuse everyone who isn't on a committee of >> laziness? You're saying the public input has no meaning because the >> public didn't bother learning zoning law. If that's so, why bother >> asking for it? >> >> Your reasoning is just silly. >> >> Frank >> >> On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:49 PM, Anthony West wrote: >> >>> Frank, >>> >>> As a simple member of both SHCA and FoCP (but an officer of neither), >>> I can tell you that any member of either body who wants to serve on a >>> committee like the Zoning Committee now in the spotlight, has only to >>> request it. It's much easier than getting a US passport or voting in >>> the April primary. It is participatory democracy at its purest. Let >>> me be blunt: anybody who doesn't sit on the SHCA Zoning Committee is >>> just too lazy to do so. >>> >>> Why, then, should neighborhood decisions be decided by people who >>> don't contribute rather than by those who do contribute? >>> >>> That doesn't equate with "participatory democracy at its finest". >>> Every form of government can make wrong decisions. If the US Congress >>> can blow any given assignment; so can SHCA. In this case, criticize >>> the decision; don't criticize the "process." >>> >>> My point is that "people who actually went to the meeting" are not >>> the same as "people who actually learned zoning law, and decided to >>> speak honestly to their neighbors." The word of a willful ignoramus >>> should not bear equal weight with the word of an expert. The word of >>> a shameless liar should not bear equal weight with the word of a >>> person who struggles to tell the the truth in public, regardless of >>> personal cost. >>> >>> Do we disagree on these two points, Frank? >>> >>> -- Tony West >>> > > Frank wrote: >> Yes, we disagree. >> >> You are equating people who chose to attend the meeting with shameless >> liars/ignorami and those on the committee with people who struggle to >> tell the truth in public/experts? That's preposterous. People who >> learn zoning law don't necessarily speak truthfully. Where did you get >> that idea? There is no connection. Why would you equate them? >> >> Everyone who attended the meeting "contributed" simply by attending. >> The committee wanted public input and they got it. As I said before, >> not every interested party can be accommodated on a board or >> committee. How dare you accuse everyone who isn't on a committee of >> laziness? You're saying the public input has no meaning because the >> public didn't bother learning zoning law. If that's so, why bother >> asking for it? >> >> Your reasoning is just silly. >> >> Frank >> >> On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:49 PM, Anthony West wrote: >> >>> Frank, >>> >>> As a simple member of both SHCA and FoCP (but an officer of neither), >>> I can tell you that any member of either body who wants to serve on a >>> committee like the Zoning Committee now in the spotlight, has only to >>> request it. It's much easier than getting a US passport or voting in >>> the April primary. It is participatory democracy at its purest. Let >>> me be blunt: anybody who doesn't sit on the SHCA Zoning Committee is >>> just too lazy to do so. >>> >>> Why, then, should neighborhood decisions be decided by people who >>> don't contribute rather than by those who do contribute? >>> >>> That doesn't equate with "participatory democracy at its finest". >>> Every form of government can make wrong decisions. If the US Congress >>> can blow any given assignment; so can SHCA. In this case, criticize >>> the decision; don't criticize the "process." >>> >>> My point is that "people who actually went to the meeting" are not >>> the same as "people who actually learned zoning law, and decided to >>> speak honestly to their neighbors." The word of a willful ignoramus >>> should not bear equal weight with the word of an expert. The word of >>> a shameless liar should not bear equal weight with the word of a >>> person who struggles to tell the the truth in public, regardless of >>> personal cost. >>> >>> Do we disagree on these two points, Frank? >>> >>> -- Tony West >>> >>> >>> Frank wrote: >>>> The fact is that not everyone who has an opinion on or is affected >>>> by any given project can be accommodated with a place on a board or >>>> committee. Meetings like the one last night are one of the very few >>>> places where some members of the community can actually be heard. We >>>> took advantage of it. What exactly is the problem with that? Is this >>>> not part of the public process? I would also argue that discussion >>>> on a community listserv is also part of the public process. >>>> >>>> Secondly, the people who have been writing about this process are, >>>> for the most part, the people who actually went to the meeting last >>>> night and participated in the process. >>>> >>>> What is your point? >>>> >>>> Frank >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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>. >> >> > > > ---- > 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>.
