Dear hotel opponents,

Jonathon Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC staff were very helpful and 
cooperative this morning.  Mr. Farnham has agreed to cooperate with 
reproduction of the public record, two cassette tapes, of last years PHC 
hearings about the Campus Inn.  As a vocal critic of the PHC generally, I want 
to also praise the professionalism and willingness for transparency which I 
experienced today! 

The PA Right To Know Law delineates the process for accessing public records, 
and this is agreed upon with Mr. Farnham with complete cooperation.

I need to borrow the equipment (or have someone accompany me to city hall with 
it) which can copy cassette tapes at the PHC library during normal business 
hours, asap!  Please help me find access to this equipment by Thursday or 
Friday!

Note: Tomorrow, the developers are requesting the architectural committee to 
change the “conditional approval in concept” by the PHC to “approval” for the 
Campus Inn.  . 


Independent transcripts will be produced from the tapes.  These will prove to 
be vital to demonstrate the serious problems with the developer’s official 
testimony which demands immediate rejection of the Campus Inn.  The entire 
process must begin again after all parties to the Campus Inn explain the 
serious misrepresentations and directly false statements offered in official 
testimony!  The current application is so tainted by this testimony, that it 
will be worthless when transcripts are published and thoroughly reviewed!

 
As most opponents know, the government’s approval process, after the initial 
rejection of the PHC Architectural committee; has been one that has obviously 
been rubber stamping a project that goes seriously against existing rules and 
standards without any credible explanation.  The Architectural committee had 
rejected the project, after doing their job of project review, and the members 
provided their rational for doing so.  They justifiably followed the local 
rules and federal standards when they rendered their decision to reject.  

Mr. Vincent Rivera, architectural committee, and Mr. Scott Wildes, Office of 
Housing &Community Development, tried very hard to stop the PHC commissioners 
from arbitrarily bypassing the architectural committee when the developer’s 
seriously misrepresented the committee’s rejection.  This occurred on Nov. 9th. 
 

In an outrageous maneuver, other commissioners backed the serious 
misrepresentation being provided by the developers that day, and the commission 
voted to ignore the committee rejection (and their own process for drastically 
new plans).  Without any review of the committee’s actual work, the same 
commissioners then approved the Campus Inn immediately without any reasons 
given.  (Ms. Sarah Merriman of the Commerce Department and Mr. David Schaaf, RA 
are identified, in the brief incomplete report generated by PHC staff, as the 
individuals making both motions.)  The complete hearing transcripts will 
provide the full picture and all statements made.


Neighbors, accurate transcripts from these hearings will conclusively show that 
this project should never have been approved by PHC without going back to 
committee.  Reviewing transcripts along with later evidence will show 
conclusively that the developers were repeatedly and deliberately offering 
seriously false testimony at both of these hearings!!!!!

The evidence of clearly deliberate misrepresentations and uncorrected false 
claims, which completely invalidate the entire process and all approvals, must 
not be "swept under the rug" by our government.  Our government must send this 
project back to the beginning, adding a requirement; (for an explanation from 
all parties on the development team about the false testimony provided last 
year) before any new applications should be seriously considered!  Everyone 
makes mistakes, but trust and credibility only come when these are admitted and 
corrected.

Otherwise, no citizens of Philadelphia can have any faith in a fair process for 
project development, and also no faith that the government protects our rights 
generally.  When confronted with evidence of serious false testimony by 
developers, and then continuing approval, it would demonstrate that the 
government serves powerful developers only, and thus would have no credibility 
in a system of representative democracy!  Let's be hopeful.

Please help me find the cassette copying equipment,
Glenn
PS: Time for the rally, 15 and Market!

----
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>.

Reply via email to