Re: [UC] Divide and Conquer [was Register your objections]

[Glenn moyer]

"And it is important for everyone to stand behind business owners, or anyone being singled out: commercial storefronts today, apartment units next, then what the hell-- everybody later.    The powers-that-be don't single out a specific segment because they're trying to address a problem specific to that segment. They do it because they're using a "divide-and -conquer" strategy and they perceive that segment as being the least powerful or the least sympathetic. The powerful can then separate that group from the whole, and make the whole believe that the proposed change will apply only to those being singled out.  Then once in place, the change expands to include everyone.     Examples: when Nutter wanted to cut libraries and pools, did he propose to cut all of them? No.  Which ones did he select? The ones in poor neighborhoods. Why? The people there were perceived as being the least powerful."   I agree 100% with your analysis. Divide and conquer, as you excellently describe, is currently the principal strategy for those abusing power just like ad hominem character attacks are immediately used to silence dissent.  But how can these strategies be used repeatedly and with seeming impunity in this neighborhood and across society? I think too few people, in our neighborhood and country today, understand the fundamentals of democratic processes and the importance of these to preserve the benefits of democracy.  (I've seen civic illiteracy described as our greatest crisis, and I agree!)   Because "the end justifies the means" belief is too prevalent among us, too many people remain silent until the abuses curve in their direction.  Your call to reject this "singling out" of any of us, by each citizen, is right on! When these abusive strategies are uncovered, the tactics of divide and conquer ( e.g. BID); we must stand together and reject these attempts unequivically and question the credibility of those who attempt it.  Staying silent allows the powers that be to sweep their abuses "under the rug" and employ the same fundamental strategy again and again. Here we go again:  Just recently, we saw how the SHCA and UCHS organizations were manipulated, through their leaders secretive actions, by powerful corporate forces in the neighborhood battle (the 11 story tower) to smash zoning laws for the powerful U Penn,  Now, in the current UC Review, it was reported that SHCA zoning committee is singling out a new target to control at 45th and Walnut.   I was happy to see the report that the developer at the site communicated with neighbors and I would hope that he or she would transparently communicate with the community at large.  But any opinions, deals, or opposition coming from the SHCA zoning committee must be rejected immediately on the basis of SHCA lack of credibility. SHCA must always be rejected until their members successfully rise up and demand ethical standards from their leaders as well as consistent, accountable, transparent processes.  We can no more silently tolerate SHCA abuses against little developers any more than we can tolerate secret deals with corporate developers. Zoning issues are an issue relevant to the entire community and for SHCA to refuse open announced deliberations when it takes on community issues, disqualifies its legitimacy and demands a forceful response from all of us.  I know nothing about the current 45th St project except that SHCA opinion, interference, and deals must be rejected first.  Then, we can wish the members of SHCA "good luck" and hope they rise up and do the hard work to bring credibility to their organization!  Penn real estate used FOCP (and the other associations) almost a decade ago to divide us and portray the community at large as nothing but criminals.  They refused to allow tranparency over their initiatives in Clark Park and eslwhere as they appealed to tiny groupings to rubber stamp their agenda.  I witnessed this first hand!  And those abusing power immediately demanded that all abuses be swept under the rug or dissenters would be branded "hot-heads."  Had more people in the community stood up for proper processes 8-10 years ago when abuses were obvious, we might have redefined the relationship with corporate Penn way back then.  Instead, we fight new battles each year against the exact same divide and conquer strategies and we continue to lose a positive sense of community as our home neighborhood is branded as UPenn's consumers paradise. The response to the abuses of power needs to be fundamentally different than silently ignoring abuses, and hoping, foolishly, that they won't eventually come toward all of us in turn.  Thanks for that excellent analysis, Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Karen Allen Sent: Jul 14, 2009 11:12 AM To: UnivCity Listserv Subject: [UC] Divide and Conquer [was Register your objections] Yes, thanks Al. I changed the wording a bit for my situation as the owner of a rental property and sent it in; it was very easy.   And it is important for everyone to stand behind business owners, or anyone being singled out: commercial storefronts today, apartment units next, then what the hell-- everybody later.    The powers-that-be don't single out a specific segment because they're trying to address a problem specific to that segment. They do it because they're using a "divide-and -conquer" strategy and they perceive that segment as being the least powerful or the least sympathetic. The powerful can then separate that group from the whole, and make the whole believe that the proposed change will apply only to those being singled out.  Then once in place, the change expands to include everyone.     Examples: when Nutter wanted to cut libraries and pools, did he propose to cut all of them? No.  Which ones did he select? The ones in poor neighborhoods. Why? The people there were perceived as being the least powerful.   When UCD tried to get that NID/BID tax, did they propose to tax everyone and create a "residential improvement district" (or RID, which applies to housing, including both apartments and single family homes)? No, because homeowners would rise up against a new tax. And if homeowners did agree to have it, the Penn-connected folks who were behind it would have been outnumbered, and the NID/BID governance would have been controlled by homeowners.   What did the NID/BID supporters propose?  A "business improvement district" which defined the business to be improved as apartments (despite the fact that apartments belonged in RIDs and that BIDs were intended for commercial business strips like Lancaster Avenue or East Passyunk Avenue in South Philly). Why? Because the proponents could count the thousands of units they themselves owned in order to control the governance of the BID and how the money was spent. They could then tax the smaller landlords first while assuring homeowners the BID would never apply to them. And if the landlords resisted, they could be vilified as "cheap" and "greedy" villians who didn't want to use a tiny portion of the wheelbarrows full of cash they were making to clean up the mess that their trashy tenants were causing.    Once the BID was in place, the proponents could come back later and claim that they needed more money and they have to tax eveyone.  And if the homeowners resisted: "Cheap, greedy villians who..."   Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:27:23 -0400 From: glen...@earthlink.net To: krf...@aol.com; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Register your objections to the $500 trash fee proposed for commercial buildings Al, thanks for keeping the list updated about this important issue.  It's very easy to make the submission. Register your objections to this fee now, before it's too late. You may do so by submitting a simple form on the web page at www.icodat.com/notrashfee. What you fill in on this form will be converted to an email message and sent, individually, to each member of City Council as well as the Mayor and the head of the Mayor's new Office of Business Services. -----Original Message----- From: krf...@aol.com Sent: Jul 13, 2009 11:59 AM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Register your objections to the $500 trash fee proposed for commercial buildings You may be subject to the $500/year trash fee the city is about to impose if: you own a small building with commercial space do business in such a building And you may (rightly) have cause for concern if you own any rental property at all, because -- once the city gets away with charging owners of buildings with commercial zoning for trash pickup, owners of buildings with rental licenses will be next. (And -- if you're a renter -- you don't have to wonder whether a fee imposed on your landlord will find its way into a rent increase for you. It will!)   Register your objections to this fee now, before it's too late. You may do so by submitting a simple form on the web page at www.icodat.com/notrashfee. What you fill in on this form will be converted to an email message and sent, individually, to each member of City Council as well as the Mayor and the head of the Mayor's new Office of Business Services.     Alan Krigman KRF Management, ICON/Information Concepts Inc 211 S 45th St, Philadelphia PA 19104-2918 215-349-6500, fax 215-349-6502 krf...@aol.com or al.krig...@krf.icodat.com   PS: And tell your friends (all over the city) who may not be UClist members about this simple way to make their voices heard in City Hall   Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see . ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .