"Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those."
Frank, This is not what Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC secretary have asserted. Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him at the PHC architectural hearing. Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this "public hearing" and was denied. Farnham justified the refusal while asserting that an accurate record would be produced. As I later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words "transcripts" and minutes interchangeably. Even the minute by minute recording, "minutes" is considered to be a much more detailed record than a sloppy outline. The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, "these are not transcripts." That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was calling them "transcripts" She got angry but never disputed my complaint. I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew. (Melani and Andrew- help me out). The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these official hearings! Consider: These commissions record these official public hearings. They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting "transcripts" will be available. Then, when the published record appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern. (Thank God for the new public access TV cameras) As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the public submissions, no one knew where the file was located! Most of those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors worked on. Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings. Like I said to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing more than a smokescreen placed in the "minutes" to be pointed towards at the approval show. Think about it. Did any of those commissioners say anything specific about the traffic study? Matt mentioned the problem of the promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St. Did they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument or any other potential problem raised by the opponents? "I believe the traffic study and parking won't be a problem," is the red flag which shows its real purpose. If anyone presented their study, as support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I demanded their survey and data being asserted. They left it at home 'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested! I could see and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately called their survey propaganda) It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand. All the written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the traffic study went directly into the trash. The staff couldn't even locate the file for me to look at!!! glenn PS In my opinion, I don't think the organized group got very good legal advice. -----Original Message----- >From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators > >At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that >aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as >things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have >more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not >really a "valid" thing to complain about. I assume this was true at >other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major >talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of >the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle >on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that >there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, >which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those. > >Frank > > >On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote: > >> Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard >> community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also >> has a large potential impact on public infrastructure, as well as on >> community members who don't live right next to a project. Traffic is >> a meat-and-potatoes city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if >> PCPC did not consider traffic at this site. >> >> It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in >> September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April, >> before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some >> people before making up their minds, and city planners are under >> permanent pressure to read and consider studies. >> >> -- Tony West >> >> >> UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: >>> 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? >> >> >> ---- >> 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 <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
