Quoted by Ray from a Penn blog site: > What’s most shocking, though, is the developers’ attitude > toward their future neighbors. They’ve known of and heard > these complaints for a long time now, but they still > haven’t done anything to reassure current residents that > anything but their worst nightmares about the hotel are > true. > > I’m not too attached to my current address. I probably > won’t be around for the hotel’s construction or its > completion. > > But the people who live on this block really are the > University’s closest neighbors — so the University’s > decision to support the project as it has is a > particularly cruel message.
Mr Noyce’s casual observation of the U.’s disregard for the community, the people, is on target. Even a passive short term resident can easily see through the marketing propaganda. Had he been attached to his current address, he suggests that the powerlessness and bullying from the U. would make an uncomfortable long term home. Ray has noticed the common thread, the planned dishonesty, going back to the DP editorial board endorsement published just after the “unanimous” community rejection of the project and developers’ lies. The Penn propaganda machine had obviously planned the smoke screen, a resolution of parking/traffic as the only issue, from the earliest times. The delay and switch tactic of the university needs such a smokescreen to justify the delay and switch to a single issue when overwhelming community opposition is encountered (remember the Clark Park revitalization delay). The city/corporate process which emerged deliberately reminds citizens that they are helpless against the corporate machine and fool’s for believing in good faith, honest, transparent dealings between citizens and their government. Unlike Tony West, I attended all city “hearings” for the project so my reports aren’t simply wind blowing from the backside. I recognize that Mr. Noyce needs to move from the city and not just the UC District! Public access TV recorded my testimony from Sept 16, which was forwarded to the list, when I accused both the PHC and PCPC of falsifying records of their own “public hearings.” Those less involved would not know if the conduct of these city agencies was gross incompetence or willful complicity with the ruthless dishonest development team. Our city government has a long tradition of both gross incompetence and serious corruption. Because I was present, unlike fantasy intellectual Tony West, I can point to the early DP endorsement of campus Inn, PCPC falsified records of the May 20 hearing, and the PCPC charade captured by the new “eyes” of public access TV on Sept. 16. (I have been told that Philadelphia government has dragged it’s heals with compliance to public access TV law. Not surprising from a government which refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording of a “hearing” which would have exposed the falsification of PHC records.) Throughout this smokescreen of propaganda, all important relevant issues raised by the community were erased from all the city records while the falsified records put forth only a single unresolved issue behind the delay, the parking/traffic study. Was all of this a simple recurring error? Was the DP editorial board amazingly prescient so long ago? Why would all other issues not cloaked by a traffic study and worthless U. promises be erased after tabling the matter in May? The government of the city of Philadelphia has no more credibility than Penn Real Estate, Campus Apts, and the development team. This level of corruption revealed by this traffic study smokescreen should remind citizens that they are completely helpless under this system. The views, voices, and concerns which neighbors, (doing their duty as citizens and brought forth in good faith), were always meaningless and doomed. Maybe we can dismiss the corporate weasels doing the dirty contemptible lying, as doing the dirty contemptible things which we expect of them? But I, a subject of a ruthless plutocracy, have a message for the PCPC, PHC, and the current platitude spewing ambitious actor at its helm. Fuck you!!!!! A subject of the regime, Glenn -----Original Message----- >From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 3, 2008 12:03 AM >To: univcity <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators > >Anthony West wrote: >> PCPC did consider physical size and scale an issue, and a serious-enough >> one to reject the proposal in April -- but not, I repeat, as a >> deal-breaker. > > >pcpc DID consider the hotel's height and scale, from the >very beginning. it was that serious. > >but pcpc couldn't justify approving the hotel's height and >scale in the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc >staffer's reservations (even after the developer's >revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision in may, scrubbed >the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and instead >used an approved traffic study months later in september as >their justification to approve the hotel -- while telling >the neighbors they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the >hotel's height and scale. > >the hotel's height and scale was always an issue that pcpc >considered. they chose to ignore it, to minimize its >importance, and to choose, instead, another issue (traffic) >as their reason for approving the hotel. > >that is why I originally asked: 'what happened to the main >issue: the hotel's massive scale and height and footprint?' >---- >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>.
