Krigman writes on University City listserv: "This issue of "standing" is important in zoning matters, of course. In this case, I believe that an extended geographical radius is appropriate because Penn's history shows that a precedent may be set if the variance in question were allowed, which affects a broad area of West Philadelphia."
Mr Krigman and Mr Grossbach, This reasoning regarding the setting of precedent makes sense. I completely agree. But I also agree with a request of a neighbor at the public meeting of Feb. 13; I think the Spruce Hill Civic Association should step aside on this issue. It was suggested that the Woodland Tr. neighbors be allowed to represent the immediate neighbors. The above reasoning makes a strong case for the relevance of testimony from individual members of the larger community too. The problem with the SHCA zoning committee is not the distance of the individual members' homes from the site. It is the problematic relationship between their members and the developers, as well as the relationship between the committee and the developers. Some members of the committee have relationships with the developers through the UCD and its hand picked Board, and hand picked committees, etc. But the SHCA zoning committee has failed to remedy the use of their committee name in false testimony provided to the PHC about 2 "public open forums," conducted by the committee to present the Campus Inn, prior to Oct. 23. This is extremely problematic because of the extent to which this incorrect information has already tainted the process. It was established on the public UC list, 2/13/08, and at the meeting, 2/13/08; that no such forums were sponsored by the SHCA zoning committee. Let me be clear, I am not disputing that it is perfectly reasonable to accept the assertion made publicly 2/13/08 by Mr. Grossbach that the false testimony was given in good faith. It is not; however, reasonable at all, that neither the developers nor the SHCA zoning committee has reported the false testimony to the Philadelphia Historic Commission! It is simply not a matter of good or bad faith. The false testimony about public disclosure and public participation so tainted the process that the application must be withdrawn from the PHC and the process restarted. The developers should have retracted the false testimony on Nov. 9th . I personally had testified in front of the developers and zoning committee chairman on October 23rd that no such public open forums had occurred. The developers absolutely had an opportunity to verify that testimony and make a retraction at the full Philadelphia Historic Commission rather than repeating the assertions. The developers did not. Today is February 22, 2008. To my knowledge, the SHCA zoning committee has not announced that it reported the use of their name, "the Spruce Hill zoning association" (October 23rd, 2008) in the false testimony. The combination of the close relationship of committee members and developers, as well as the failure of the committee to correct the problem creates the need for SHCA to step aside. The assertion made regarding the testimony having been given in good faith is completely irrelevant to the uncorrected false information. This is simply too important to ignore. Sincerely, Glenn Moyer Cc: Barry Grossbach, Chairman of the Spruce Hill zoning committee Al Krigman, UC listserv
