At yesterday's hearing (I was the "woman holding a large sign reading NO HOTEL in our HOOD", thank you very much, DP!), I had a concern regarding the "75 dedicated parking spaces" Penn promised in their parking lots: I was concerned that Penn was promising that now just to get the building built, and once it was up, the parking spaces would disappear. The agreement will be between Penn and the developers, which means that the neighbors would have to rely on Lussenhop and Campus Apartments a/k/a David Adelman to demand enforcement of that agreement. Given Lussenhop and Adelman's relationship with Penn, it is highly doubtful, in my opinion, that if Penn told them that the spaces were being pulled, they would do anything to enforce the provision unless, of course, it hurt their bottom line. If the result was simply a matter of causing parking problems for the neighbors, Lussenhop/Adelman/Penn would just send their mouthpiece out to insult everybody's intellegence by telling them some sob story about how there was never really any such agreement, how if there was, poor Penn can't be expected to live up to their agreements; that Penn's mission is education, not parking; and that the neighbors should just shut up and convert their kids' play yards/side yards/rear bedrooms into parking lots. Or they would trot out rental-property mogul "Danny" DeRitis to tell everyone (paraphrasing his testimony yesterday) that he lived in this neighborhood leventy-zillion years ago, and since he left, there are "hardly any residents" in that area anyway [apparantly, his tenants don't count as residents]. In light of this concern, I broached the question to the Commission: who has standing to enforce the parking provision? Did the neighbors have to rely on two like-minded parties for the enforcement of this provision? Later in the hearing, it was stated that the local community association would have standing to enforce the parking provision. In this case, that would be Spruce Hill Community Association. Yo, Chris O'Donnell: I know a good paving contractor!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:25:52 -0400Subject: [UC] Three terrible ideas, and the Nutter Administration is just getting its feet wetTo: [email protected] The UNISYS sign on One Liberty Place (the ZBA turned it down, does anyone know where the PCPC stood on this?) Putting the Foxwoods slot parlor into the space now occupied as The Gallery (Nutter and Rendell are for it; Chinatown leaders -- whose area backs up onto the Gallery -- are strongly opposed. Has anyone really considered issues like traffic, the clientele it will attract to Market Street East, the chance that people will really use SEPTA to get there?) Campus Inn (whatever happened to "vox populi, vox dei est"? Also, is the report in the DP really true, that the developers' attorney "said the approval application submitted to the ZBA stipulated that the hotel be used for extended-stay visits only"? If this is the case, then what happens if someone comes in and just wants a room for the night? Will they be legally required to either turn the person down or rent the room for whatever the stated minimum for "extended stay" is, whether the person uses it or not? And what will be the definition of "extended stay" -- three or more days, five or more days?) Enquiring minds want to know. Al Krigmanreminding you that you read it first, here, on the popu-list
