[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think the conflict here is simply between the
neighbors and penn. I think the conflict is also to be found
in shca's hesitancy to stand up for the neighbors it claims
to serve, to stand by its mission statement wrt zoning.
In all fairness -- and it's no secret that I'm not exactly a fan of SHCA,
let alone its defender -- the organization went on record at the open meeting of
its zoning committee last month that it wouldn't come to a determination
until discussions between the Woodland Terrace people and the developers were
concluded. Presumably either having reached a compromise that would work on
both parts on not.
While it appears unlikely that any such compromise is in the offing --
because the concessions the developers appear ready to give do not address what
the opponents consider the fundamental problems -- the delay in the zoning
committee's decision to endorse, oppose, or take no stand should not be
interpreted one way or the other. In fact, a decision reached before both parties to
the compromise negotiations have presented their conclusions would be a
mistake on SHCA's part.
that we're even this far along without shca having said NO
to the proposed hotel, along WITH the woodland terrace
folks, the regent square folks, and the overwhelming
opposition by neighbors at shca's meeting on feb 13, is a
conflict. in addition to that between the neighbors and penn.
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
----
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>.
