Yes, it was stated publicly at the Planning Commission hearing yesterday by a UC Historical Society board member that UCHS has voted to stand in opposition to the Campus Inn project. UCHS President Belynda Stewart refused the opportunity to state to the UC Review reporter "The Board of UCHS has voted to oppose the Campus Inn project". Why? Consider this: In the October, 2007 UC Review report on the Phila Historical Commission Archetectural Committee hearing, it was noted that I identified myself as a member of UCHS, and that I was opposed to the project. Ms. Stewart wrote an opinion letter in response wherein she tried to marginalize my opinion, while inflating the opinion of a supporter of the project. According to Ms. Stewart's letter, I was merely one member out of 500, that I didn't speak on behalf of UCHS, and tried to imply that my opinion was irrelevant and meant nothing. Ms. Stewart then went on to say that the Review did not quote a supporter of the project, a former UCHS Board member, and a highly successful Realtor. This carried the clear implication that this supporter's opinion should carry more weight than mine (after all, I'm just some dumb lawyer and, incidentally, a former UCHS Board member myself). I think this illustrates that Ms. Stewart is personally in favor of the Campus Inn project, which is her right. But as President of an organization, she does not have the right to put her personal opinion ahead of the official stance of the organization she presides over. I think that had the UCHS vote been in favor of the project, she would have had no problem releasing the results publicly. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [UC] Phila City Planning CommissionDate: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:36:58 -0400
Neighbors, The PCPC tabled a decision on the Campus Apts. Inn. yesterday. Twenty of our neighbors testified in opposition to the proposal. The information and testimony excellently covered the wide range of problems with the proposal and the development team. As occurred at the Phila historical commission, the ZBA staff had mysteriously reversed the earlier rejection of the Penn proposal! (Feb 13, we learned that Campus Apts/Penn had secretly applied for some pre approval to smash zoning rules and had been rejected) Clearly, the invisible hand continues to work behind the scenes, and citizens must not believe that this bold Penn/Campus Apts attempt to smash zoning standards has been resolved. For those of you not in attendance, in my opinion, our neighbors testified brilliantly and the Campus Apts/Penn team looked incredibly pathetic and disingenuous. FYI: It was revealed that the secret vote of the UCHS board rejected the proposal to smash zoning rules. The UCHS members might be terribly confused because their last newsletter failed to make any disclosure of the Campus Apts hotel proposal. (The lead article covers the award given to Campus Apts and there was a major pitch for Penn/UCD’s Party for the Park. Party for the Park is the annual corporate celebration of the transfer of the previously public Clark Park to the University of Pennsylvania corporations.) The March UCHS newsletter (editor Mike Hardy) also failed to announce, in advance, the secret vote of the board about approval of the project. And many people seemed confused recently that the UCHS President, Ms. Stewart, refused to provide the results of the secret vote. One of our neighbors revealed yesterday during testimony that the UCHS board had in fact voted against the project. It appears the members of UCHS have some serious need of new responsible leadership like the SHCA needs!!! Also fyi, the Penn/UCD team submitted some 300 petition signatures supporting the hotel. On this public list, we have previously discussed how UCD has approximately 300 cheerleaders to sign petitions and surveys for any Penn backed attack. I saw Mr. Wendell Lewis at yesterdays hearing. I have not seen the UCD official letter of support for the Campus Apts project. Question: We have had no reports about the UCD corporate event, Party for the Park. Can anyone reveal whether this event was used to gather signatures for the hotel?? And have any leaders of the SHCA, FOCP and UCHS been identified assisting to gather signatures from "the 300?" The answers are not for submission to the PCPC. I’m simply very curious about this secret supporting petition and "community leaders" involved. Good work neighbors and keep fighting, Glenn
