Re: [UC] Radical variances was Campus Inn

[Glenn moyer]

"The Developers seek radical variances to codes which are designed to protect neighbors.  Neighbors should not have to subsidize the "hardships" of poor, institutional choices."   Liz, the "radical variances" are the key issues.  At the PHC reversal hearing, the commissioners repeatedly silenced our neighbors whom were challenging lies from the developers, real estate cronies, and SHCA President.  (Karen's report was completely accurate.)   Why was the truth irrelevant?  Because Penn was not "officially" arguing a financial hardship.  (Please note, financial hardship is a specific term, in this case, which imposes additional processes/requirements. )  Yet the 2 "big lies" are the justifications for granting a "financial hardship" and have absolutely nothing to do with interpretation of existing rules!  At each and every hearing, Penn has been given a free pass to present these "irrelevant" arguments packed with lies!   Now, the Penn troops/commissioners will not allow the veracity of those same arguments to be challenged because, the issues are irrelevant! The PHC commissioners asserted that concerrns from the public, the actual occurence of public forums, and 17 or 18 alternative proposals were irrelevant!   They claimed that only application of the preservation standards would guide them, as they silenced the truth repeatedly! Then, they threw those standards in the rubbish pile like PCPC, and approved the tower without explanation!  We got lectured for not being "open, transparent, and inclusive" with the developers!!!!  Since PCPC, Greenberger et al., go so far as to repeat the "unwanted parcel" lie as justification for radically ignoring all rules and laws!   It's been a perfect little system; a perfect little show!   "Radical variances" are also requested from ZBA laws.  Remember, ZBA too rejected the application, as was revealed back in February. Our Penn-friendly city commissions are allowing Penn to argue this "financial hardship" to create a false record of a public process.  The reason Penn does not place "financial hardship" on its application is because the 17 or 18 proposals would need to be presented, and the university would have other responsibilities to prove, "financial hardship!" We need a radical court challenge against the city's violation of our rights and their rubber stamp!  We've known for a long time that the Penn team is full of __it.   I believe we need to focus on the city's violation of standards and our rights!  Happy holidays, Glenn     -----Original Message----- From: "campio...@juno.com" Sent: Dec 24, 2008 12:34 AM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Campus Inn Guy has provided some thoughtful writing on the 40th Street Hotel plans. Tony, I think the profits / volatility argument is more a consideration for the developers. We neighbors have every right to continue to defend our existing zoning, building codes and height limitations against rapacious developers. If the Hotel fails the neighborhood is stuck with a monolith and 100+ units that can be easily converted to use as a Homeless Shelter, Dormitory or Condo.  An 11 story building is a dramatic and permanent anomaly within our Victorian Street Car Suburb.  The neighborhood will bear the risks and annoyances of construction and the ultimate use.  The precedent could than be used to attempt hi-rise construction on the se corner of 43rd & Baltimore, or any other lot, existing or to be razed, in our neighborhood. If a Restaurant, within a conforming structure fails, the adaptive uses might be less onerous. Glenn reminds us that Esau Sanchez spoke of plans that were rejected and hopes by Academic departments that were not funded.  Like Glenn, I'd like to see the proposals. PENN can eliminate competition, by overpaying.  But PENN should not be rewarded for eliminating competition or organic, growth.  The Developers seek radical variances to codes which are designed to protect neighbors.  Neighbors should not have to subsidize the "hardships" of poor, institutional choices. If PENN hadn't overpaid, another family, like the O'Donnells of 4100, might have settled in already.  The current delays are because the Developers wants what they want.  This does not include playing within the codes and regulations that were in place, when they bought.  Pretending they were not aware of codes or their obligation of "Due Diligence" is little more than a flipping of the bird at us neighbors. Resistance is righteous.  Encroachment is an unwanted and unwarranted act of aggression.  Don't let's confuse who is profit seeking at the expense of whom.   Merry Christmas and all the best in 2009 and beyond to all good neighbors! Liz -- Anthony West <anthony_w...@earthlink.net> wrote: You have many interesting ideas about 40th St. development, Guy, that deserve deeper thought than a snap response on an unmoderated listserve. I'm sure the people in the business are giving it thought, amicably or otherwise. One caution ordinary readers should note is that a long-term business plan based on a "high end restaurant" is even shakier than a plan based on an "extended stay hotel". The Campus Inn concept has been justly criticized for that very weakness: of hiding the longterm risk of downmarket users behind an initial promise of an upmarket user. If Campus Inn goes belly up, foes argue, it could be converted to rooms where students might sleep ... and there goes the neighborhood. We don't want no students sleeping in Spruce Hill, do we now? Ew. The entertainment industry, I must warn readers, is even more volatile than the travel industry. It's great for Penn, and flattering for West Philadelphia, that Distrito is pitching in such monstrous rents for (gasp!) 40th St. nightspot square footage. Maybe a new high-end entertainment district will coalesce around 40th St. someday soon. I'm up for that. But I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it today. Long-range planners for a sustainable 40th & Pine property are free to dazzle the public with visions of another Distrito ... but should gladly settle for another FuddRuckers, if that's what washes up on the beach. Still beats a stop & go. There will be no intrinsic protection, however, against that site's becoming a stop & go in the future. There's nothing wrong with either risk, in my opinion. None of the above worries me. I could live with walking past any of the above outcomes. For me, an upscale restaurant beats a dorm, but an extended-stay hotel beats a stop & go. The true challenge for the neighborhood, as it mulls over these options, is to figure out how to honestly compare apples with apples. -- Tony West > I dream that the 40th and Pine site is developed by Campus Apartments > and Tom Lussenhop as a high end restaurant with 25 car parking and > either classroom or community space on the second and third floor. > > Guy ---- Elizabeth Campion PRUDENTIAL, FOX & ROACH REALTORS, LLC 210 W. Rittenhouse Square, Suite 406 Phila, PA 19103 215-790-5653 Desk & Voicemail 215-880-2930 Cell & Emergency 215-546-9781 Shared office Fax campio...@juno,com  or home.in.ph...@juno.com for Rental questions    Link to Photos of available Listings and public, 'social' photos: www.PicasaWeb.google.com/CampionEF  To check out all PFR and Multiple Listed Properties and to review CONSUMER NOTICE, link to www.PruFoxRoach.com   ____________________________________________________________ Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD! Shop now at www.ftd.com/17007 ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .