"it's because pcpc couldn't approve the hotel on the basis of its height and scale in april or may. pcpc decided, after tabling the matter and scrubbing neighbors' testimony in may, to use, in september, a stand-in issue as its criterion: traffic."
Ray, you are right on target and touching on some very important matters. Of the four city hearings, only the architectural committee of the PHC actually did the job the taxpayers gave them. They had obviously reviewed the plans, and sure enough, they discussed and rejected the hotel for the range of issues our neighbors have been stressing since the secret project was exposed by the UC Review. It was clear to me that the project would not pass them with some simple tweak to the proposal. Clearly, the work of the architectural committee needed to be completely bypassed by Penn and that is exactly what occurred two weeks later. As the PCPC did, the records of the architectural committee had been “scrubbed” so that had the PHC commissioners wanted to review their architect’s proceedings they could not have done so. At the November approval performance, a representative from the architectural committee argued against the prearranged approval. He was pissed. The new secret plans being presented that day used the single issue switcharoo. The change from 10 stories to 11, with a setback of floors 4-11, was asserted by the Penn team, director Farnham, and the unidentified PHC staff as the complete answer to the architects rejection! Farnham argued that it was OK that "the public" was being surprised with the new secret plans that day because Penn had given them to him earlier (This drew laughter)! First, the entire claim that the illegal lack of setback for floors 1-3, was OK’d by the architects, is complete bullshit. Clearly, it was prearranged in the backroom that the commission would vote to change policy and not send the new secret plans back to the architects as they should have done. Taxpayers and the architects need to ask themselves, why the hell do we provide resources for an architects committee when the records will be scrubbed and they are completely ignored and bypassed???? >From the stupid comments of the other commissioners in this process (eg. The >height is shocking but people will get used to it), none of the other >commissioners ever reviewed the plans, reviewed the written and oral testimony >of opponents, or put any effort into understanding the proposal. Greenberger >and Altman at PCPC led the performance for the benefit of the audience and new >public access cameras. Making some comments about Vancouver and how they had considered the height, etc., Altman and Greenberger were attempting to give the appearance that work and analysis had guided their decision rather than it being a prearranged deal in a backroom. If they considered the testimony of opponents which had been scrubbed from the record, why did they not direct a single comment as a refutation of any of the other issues raised??? The scrubbed PCPC records identified the traffic study as the only unresolved question from May, and sure enough, the September performance of Altman and Greenberger followed the script exactly while the other commissioners said nothing but dumb shit. If the public had honest transcripts of the PHC hearings, we would all clearly see the outrageous and dishonest pretense of a single issue answered, prior to the prearranged approval. As I immediately realized, when I first read the May 20 PCPC “minutes,” most of our neighbors would have also predicted that; “the traffic study,” would be the central single issue for the charade and that approval of Campus Inn had been prearranged. Concluding, there are two important points. These commissioners do not do the work and analysis that is pretended. Like our civic association boards, a few bad actors make the backroom deals and lead the performance. Their buddies go along with their “decisions” and no one challenges the obviously false records and no one challenges the single issue switch. One member from the architectural committee, the one group that did the work they are charged to do, challenged this performance and seemed incredibly frustrated. Most commissioners show up for their paychecks and play along while a few bad actors make the backroom deals. That is our government. That is the system. -----Original Message----- >From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 4, 2008 12:06 AM >To: univcity <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators > >Glenn moyer wrote: >> 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? > > >what's laughable is that pcpc even bothered to consider a >traffic study when they were so confident that the neighbors >would 'get used to' the height and scale of the hotel. > >by pcpc's reasoning, surely neighbors would also 'get used >to' the hotel traffic, along with the permanent fact of the >hotel's height and scale. by pcpc's reasoning, there >shouldn't have been any need to even consider traffic. >neighbors would simply 'get used to it'. > >why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? >and why was traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's >height and scale? and why was traffic so overridingly >important for pcpc to consider in september, but not in april? > >it's because pcpc couldn't approve the hotel on the basis of >its height and scale in april or may. pcpc decided, after >tabling the matter and scrubbing neighbors' testimony in >may, to use, in september, a stand-in issue as its >criterion: traffic. > > >.................. >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>.
