Huh? I wrote to say that we were both incorrect, that's all. I feel that
it's important to keep the information honest and factual while we are writing
views that may influence others' opinions on this proposal. Wouldn't you
agree?
Yesterday you wrote, <<a 120+unit stack,>>
- not, as you are wording it today, <<120 Residential units PLUS the proposed
4,000 square foot, public Bar with Restaurant (with Liquor License and) plus
the proposed "Breakfast Salon for hotel guests" which were included in the
public presentation>>
The impression I got was that you were telling folks yesterday that there
would be 120+ (that is, more than 120) hotel rooms. If that's not what you
meant, I'm sorry.
I was at least equally incorrect, if not more so, in stating that there would
be 115 rooms, instead of the correct number which is 120, exactly 120. I
was telling folks the wrong thing too, and I made that correction as well.
I'm
not sure that there was anything in my email to provoke such a strong
reaction, but if there was, again, I apologize. I just think it's important
to give
out the facts.
I've also reviewed the UC Review's article after reading Ray's post, and I
think the reporter gave out some misinformation in the article. At the
presentation, the range "115-150 rooms" was repeatedly mentioned as the number
that
the hotel chain required for this TYPE of inn. However, the developers didn't
give a RANGE as the number of rooms to be in THIS proposed Campus Inn; I
think they gave only a single number - they have drawings and the rooms can be
counted on the drawings; there isn't a range. And as I said, I checked today
with the developer, and he says the proposal is for 120 rooms. If someone
wants to listen to the recording of the presentation, they can confirm this one
way or the other.
Now, does anyone want to talk about compromise on this site, or will we be
more successful if we just continue trading barbs?
- Melani Lamond
In a message dated 2/21/08 2:29:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ...So Ms. Lamond, why is the difference between your not quite honest only
> "120" and my use of "120+" worth the public attack on the quality of my
> information? And why are you still 'in bed' with Tom Lussenhop? Where is
> your self proclaimed protection of our "Streetcar Suburb" now?
> I suspect your correction of my mistaken owner identification from CA to
> UCH was intended as spite, but you provided more accurate information, and
> that
> was important, so I expressed gratitude and swallowed my suspicion (until
> today's sneak attack).
> Today, you seem to be revealing an agenda, using information that is both
> specious and detractive to the overall debate.
> I guess my "Gateway" post struck a nerve. Informed passion often does. I
> know my strongest reactions are to the posts that lead my mind and my heart.
> I even joined UCNeighbors to read the posts by Bender and Cassidy. They are
> brilliant. It makes me wish we that more of us "could just get along".
> Liz
>
>
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
Recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards:
Diamond award for over $8 million in sales,
and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards:
- Top Lister
- Top Seller
- Top Overall Combined Volume
- Top Listing Units by Area
- Top Selling Units by Area
- Top Overall Combined Units by Area
**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
