RE: [UC] Forwarded from

[Glenn moyer]

So reading between the lines, that didn't sound very neutral to me.   Yes, UCHS and SHCA leaders chose to heavily involve themselves as active members of the Penn/Campus Apts agenda last summer.  Claiming that because some neighbors hired a lawyer, they needed to go silent now is so ridiculous and so condescending to this community that I laugh openly at their pathetic humiliation.   After the first secret backroom meeting, they could have recused themselves from involvement and made a very simple announcement of Lussenhop’s basic intention to develop.  That could have been a responsible way to carry out their minimum duty to both their groups and this community with whatever personal support for the thing they wished to add.   But they chose to keep their members in the dark and have at least one more backroom meeting of which we know.  SHCA and UCHS members found out about the delisting and hotel like the rest of us when the UC Review broke the story.  At that point, we learned that the Penn team had tried to sneak a secret delisting of the property, to clear the way for demolition, with the knowledge and cooperation of these “leaders.”   The betrayal of the community and the organizations membership by those leaders was confirmed at that early point.   Then, in October and Novemeber, the development team was repeatedly lying in testimony to a government commission about previous public meetings and community support while these leaders were present.  First ignoring the issue and then claiming it was all a little mistake, 4 months later, the excuse is again laughable.   If it was a mistake in October, why did Grossbach, Hardy, and Stewart not correct the development team before it was repeated in more official testimony?  Why did the Penn team fail to ask Grossbach, Hardy, or Stewart why that hot head Moyer repeatedly testified that the public forum claims were not true before repeating the very same claims?  Why was an additional claim made in official testimony that a third public forum was scheduled the following week with SHCA?  And why did that turn out to be an SHCA election without a Lussenhop presentation on the agenda given to members?       Hahaha Mr. Grossbach we had one hell of a lot of mistakes in a row!  Then, it’s time to go silent because a lawyer is hired-hahaha.  Who is this guy kidding?   All of the problems you correctly report about UCHS are just more of the same.  They refuse even the most basic announcement to keep their members ignorant while their leaders are trying every method possible to pretend that the community supports the hotel.   It’s time for the members of SHCA and UCHS to stand up and tell these clowns to retire.  If they don’t want their group to continue to be used by a few while the groups lose all credibility as community organizations, they need to act now!!!  We will not know whether it is money or the perception of power these clowns are after.  But community leaders in reputable community organizations conduct themselves ethically and transparently when doing community business.  Period!   Take care, Glenn -----Original Message----- From: KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 28, 2008 1:13 PM To: Glenn moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, univcity Subject: RE: [UC] Forwarded from I agree with everything Glenn says here.   I was that "lowly UCHS member" who spoke against Campus Inn at the first PHC hearing, and I was specifically named in Belynda Stewart's editorial letter to UC Review, where she made a deliberate point of saying that I was merely a one-out-of-500 member, and did not speak for the organization. She then went on to pump up the opinion of another one-out-of-500 member by stating that the proposal was supported by a prominent neighborhood Realtor who was also a former UCHS Board member (as was I, but that somehow didn't get mentioned. Oddly, the fact that I've served on the boards of a number of community groups over the past 20 years got left out too).  So reading between the lines, that didn't sound very neutral to me.   It also seems very odd that there has been NO official public announcement of the UCHS Board vote against the proposal, which was announced by an individual Board member testifying at the PCPC hearing earlier in the summer (but unfortunately, since the PCPC hearing minutes do not include the text of what the witnesses said, that's not readily apparant to those who were not in attendance).      Karen Allen     > Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:50:36 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Univcity@list.purple.com > Subject: Re: [UC] Forwarded from > > So perhaps these bodies' muteness to date isn't > so curious. Joining the fray late rather than early is often moral and > often smart. > > > Nonsense. > > Both SHCA and UCHS leaders betrayed this community and their own memberships. The gangs' leaders have been secretly colluding with the Penn team from the beginning, over a year ago, while doing everything in their power to keep all Penn's plans secret. They were secretly involved with the initial attempt to demolish the property over a year ago and continued to cloak the false claims of massive community support. > > The leaders of both groups were present in October when the development team boldly lied about SHCA conducting open public forums and generating massive public support. This was reported by me immediately and confirmed by Andrew on the list the day the lies were first uttered. Not until February (and despite numerous public requests for data by me) did Mr. Grossbach admit that these claims were false while assserting that they should be "swept under the rug." > > People will remember that SHCA provided a cloak at their elections to give the false appearence of an announced public meeting. People will remember that SHCA attempted to quietly have another "public meeting" at their clubhouse until opponents discovered the trick and forced a move to an appropriate venue. > > > While testifying in direct support of the Campus Inn, UCHS newsletter editor, Mr. Mike Hardy, has continuosly forgotten to mention the Campus Inn or the secret e-mail vote in the UCHS newsletter he controls. Instead of reporting the Campus Inn plans to the UCHS members, Ms. Stewart, the president, also watched the bold lies of the the development team in October. > > Instead of telling the truth to the community, Ms. Stewart published a letter in the UC Review complaining that a lowly UCHS member offered her personal opposition in testimony. Asserting that she spoke for the 500 members, she stressed that an award winning real estate saleslady spoke in favor of the hotel. That was not silence as you are asserting. > > Announcing all of these issues to their members was the most important job these leaders are trusted to do. It has nothing to do with their support or opposition. These leaders have betrayed the trust and duty to their members and members of this community. They have been abusing their power in the effort to shield the Campus Inn for whatever personal reasons they may have. > > > And while the PCPC did not know where the file of public submissions was located when I attempted to inspect these, I've heard that a letter from UCD's Lewis Wendell was among them. But then few citizens of the district have much respect left for that contemptible front for Campus Apts/Penn real estate agenda. > > So no, SHCA and UCHS leaders have not been silent at all; they have simply been deceptive. These leaders show the same contempt for the community which the FOCP leaders have shown for years as it did backroom deals with UCD. These are not little mistakes by hard working volunteers. This is the evidence of how wholely these gangs jump at the divide and conquer strategy used by the Penn colonialists rather than their duty to their neighbors and the community. > > It is clear and deliberate abuse of power against the needs and security of their neighbors. Forget about the oranges, let's seperate the bad apples from the abused residents of this neighborhood. > > Shame, shame, shame!!! > > > Mr. Moyer > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Aug 27, 2008 6:43 PM > >To: univcity <Univcity@list.purple.com> > >Subject: Re: [UC] Forwarded from "SCRUB" -- Unisys Sign Denied by Zoning Board > > > >Let's separate the apples from the oranges first. > > > >Neither UCD nor PennPraxis has any sort of warrant to weigh in on a > >zoning issue, until some neighborhood group asks them for their > >assistance. It would be bizarre and stupid for them to do so. > > > >The hotel proposal is clearly in SHCA's bailiwick, likewise in UCHS's > >bailiwick. It looks like there has been some ducking, dodging and > >deferring by both those bodies. > > > >Typically this happens in politics when communities are split; when > >there are pros and cons; when there are supporters and detractors. In > >this case, that's what we find. Lussenhop has his petitions, Woodland > >Terrace has theirs, no? So perhaps these bodies' muteness to date isn't > >so curious. Joining the fray late rather than early is often moral and > >often smart. > > > >There are at least three stations of official approval before anything > >can happen: the Historical Commission, the Planning Commission, the > >Zoning Board of Adjustment. Did I miss any? Passing one test does not > >predict passing another. > > > >In addition, development proposals are subject to constant revision and > >evolution -- the process is intended to foster just that. > > > >I have no idea at this point what the eventual outcome will be. That's > >where I grow curious. > > > >-- Tony West > > > >> yes, and how sad is it that our existing defenders -- uchs, shca, ucd, > >> penn praxis -- have been so curiously unable (un-vocal and un-visible) > >> to help the neighbors in this hotel battle. > >> > >> .................. > >> 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>. > > ---- > 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>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .