The public has never been permitted to know the schemes of the anointed until the witching hour.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the anointed. The shadow knows! Ha ha ha ----- Original Message ----- From: KAREN ALLEN To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:29 PM Subject: RE: [UC] Story in the on-line edition of the University City Review What I don't understand is why UCHS President Belynda Stewart wouldn't speak to the UC Review reporter and needed additional time to prepare a statement. I heard rumors as to the outcome of the UCHS vote, but since at this point it is only a rumor, I will not post it to the list. But I will say this: how long does it take to say "The UCHS Board voted to [support] [oppose] the Campus Inn Project." Sounds odd to me... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Story in the on-line edition of the University City Review Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:40:06 -0400 From the UC Review: "While the Spruce Hill Zoning Committee has yet to take a public position on the Campus Inn, the University City Historical Society (UCHS) did vote on it earlier this week. “It was the second in two votes,” on Campus Inn, explained the UCHS’s President Belynda Stewart who requested that the outcome of this week’s vote not be published until she has had the opportunity to issue a public statement. When asked if the statement would be published before the hearing on Tuesday, Stewart responded, “possibly by Monday" Neighbors, On October 23, 2007 at the hearing of the Architectural Committee of the Philadelphia Historical Commission both the President of UCHS and the SHCA zoning committee's chairman were present and maintained silence. On that date, the Campus Inn developers asserted that the neighbors of the future hotel and the larger community had overwhelming support for their project. As part of that presentation, FALSE TESTIMONY was provided by Mr Olshin of the Penn/Campus Apt team about the occurence of two "OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS." The false testimony claimed that SHCA zoning association had conducted 2 open public forums about the hotel PRIOR to Oct. 23 2007. On Nov 9th, 2007 before the PHC commissioners, the claims of overwhelming community support were repeated by the development team as well as the false claims of open and public forums. Scheduled the following week, an additional public forum, was announced in testimony on Nov 9th (This turned out to be the SHCA election thoroughly exposed without an announcement of a hotel presentation in the agenda provided to SHCA members.) First on October 23 and again Nov. 9th, I personally testified to the PHC (in the presence of the development team, and SHCA/ UCHS leaders) that these claims about "open public forums" were false. Incompetency of the civic association leaders and ignorance of the development team, causing ignorance of the truth, can not be believed after Oct 23, 2007. The confused Mr Olshin, Mr. Grossbach, and Ms. Stewart were all present when I testified. Neighbors, this FALSE RECORDED TESTIMONY occurred over seven months in the past! Several months after the original lies, on February 13, 2008, (hours before the first and only announced public meeting regarding the hotel); Mr Grossbach of SHCA, reported that the source or reason for the false testimony was the SHCA itself!!!!!!! Mr. Grossbach informed us (in writing on the public listserv and later that evening when community members voiced overwhelming opposition to the hotel) that Mr Olshin of the development team had been misinformed by SHCA about the status of their backroom meetings aand believed they were "open public forums." Of course the duty of the development team to honestly report the false testimony to PHC remained clear. But the duty of the entire SHCA zoning committee to the betrayed community and deceived PHC also finally became clear, 2/13/08! In his justification, Mr. Grossbach asserted that this false testimony to PHC was unimportant and the future was the concern. Of course neighbors, this response requires no explanation. False testimony to a government commission is very important and the contrary assertion is the type of nonsense often associated with a cover-up. Neighbors, seven months after the FALSE TESTIMONY neither the Spruce Hill Civic Association, the hotel development team, nor the University City Historical Society has made a public correction of the false testimony by publishing a retraction, explanation, or apology (having been delivered to the PHC) about the false testimony provided Oct. 23, 2007 and reiterated Nov. 9th!!!!!!! Over 600 hundred concerned residents (recorded through petition) were denied a good faith opportunity in 2007 to send their comments of opposition to the deceived PHC. In fact, the false testimony to the deceived PHC gives the appearance that these excluded neighbors do not even exist! The deceived PHC and their approval of the hotel is so contrary to standards set by the federal government that a reasonable person would conclude that only a pay to play system; or perhaps the false testimony about the overwhelming support by the community would have caused PHC to overrule its committee, change its procedures without discussion, and give approval to the Penn/Campus Apt. project This silence by the SHCA and UCHS is not silence at all. Both of these organizations have a responsibility to their members as well as the larger community. Yet these organizations have provided a shield for the conveyance of false testimony to a city commission. The false information and assertions based on these lies exemplify the most profound betrayal of this community and the associations' members. Abusing power coupled with repeatedly shielding false testimony is an attack on the foundation of our system of government and system of law. It is not silence! The corporate developers have made it abundantly clear that they have contempt for voices from this community. How are we going to react to this collaboration by SHCA and UCHS leaders shielding RECORDED FALSE TESTIMONY to an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION? Those leaders have every right to personally support the hotel. However, those association leaders do not have the right to cloak false testimony to a government commission in order to secretely go against their mission statements and betray all citizens in this community! If members of the SHCA wish to call a special meeting of the association to expel members of the zoning committee from the association, I will give full cooperation and provide eyewitness testimony at such a meeting. (I will not give any money to the associations. I personally believe that SHCA, FOCP, UCHS must be disbanded so that new responsible organizations may be established in our community.) All that I would ask is that we take action based on the former SHCA ethics rule without malice or a desire for revenge. (Please note the SHCA by-laws, according to the web site amended in 2005, no longer includes an ethics rule for officers.) SHCA leaders and Penn lawyers aren't so incompetent afterall! Justice and the future of our community demand actions. I believe justice never comes from revenge or malice. Let's take strong action against SHCA with love for the community and love for justice. We can forgive and understand those who have betrayed their duty but we must not let the scales of justice be thrown out to make us cleaner and safer! Very sincerely, Glenn Moyer cc Barry Grossbach, Spruce Hill Civic Association zoning committee chairman ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:26 PM Subject: [UC] Story in the on-line edition of the University City Review The following is currently the lead article in the on-line edition of the University City Review: http://www.ucreview.com/ The vote by the University City Historical Society is groundbreaking. The letter by State Representative Roebuck is gratifying. Always at your service & ready for a dialog, Al Krigman -- 36-year local resident & housing provider ------------------------- PA State Representative James R. Roebuck joins opposition on 400 South 40th St. By Nicole Contosta UC Review Staff Reporter Dateline: 5/16/08 -The Philadelphia Commission Planning staff might recommend approving the construction of the 11-story Campus Inn Hotel at 400 S. 40th St. when it goes before the planning commission next Tuesday, May 20th but PA State Representative James R. Roebuck, Jr. has decided to back the project’s opposition. “I am concerned about building an 11-story hotel in what is essentially a residential neighborhood,” said Roebuck over a phone interview, adding that his apprehension results from “the long-term effects of density and parking.” “It’s a very stable place to live and I’m not sure [how the hotel] would affect the quality of life there,” explained Roebuck going on to add that, “I can’t believe a better location can’t be found for this.” While the Spruce Hill Zoning Committee has yet to take a public position on the Campus Inn, the University City Historical Society (UCHS) did vote on it earlier this week. “It was the second in two votes,” on Campus Inn, explained the UCHS’s President Belynda Stewart who requested that the outcome of this week’s vote not be published until she has had the opportunity to issue a public statement. When asked if the statement would be published before the hearing on Tuesday, Stewart responded, “possibly by Monday.” Below is the copy of the letter that Roebuck sent to Andrew Altman, Chairman of the Philadelphia Planning Commission: Dear Mr. Altman: My constituents have informed me of the growing opposition to the proposed Campus Inn at 40th and Pine. They have brought me over 600 signatures addressed to The 3d District Councilwoman by residents and especially by immediate neighbors of the site, all opposing the project. I am myself concerned about the building’s excessive height and mass and its total lack of parking. It appears to run into insoluble problems because it attempts to place an out-of-scale high rise on an inappropriate parcel, encumbered by the preexisting historically designated mansion. This is not a good way to revitalize a long-neglected corner in a historic residential neighborhood. It is a development that rezones by variance and will bring new problems of traffic, noise and congestion. The dilapidation of the mansion, which has been allowed to go on for five years, is certainly no good reason to trade its restoration for an 11-story slab. The lack of preliminary consultations with the community and the disregard of the neighbors’ objections on the substance are disrespectful and objectionable. In sum, I ask you to join me and a growing group of my constituents in opposing the proposed Campus Inn. I thank you for your consideration, James R. Roebuck, Member PA House of Representatives 188th Legislative District -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1448 - Release Date: 5/16/2008 7:42 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 7:44 AM
