Re: [UC] Update on PCPC agenda

[Glenn moyer]

Why not just say "the 200 Block of St Marks Place"? I believe its done to erect general barriers and cause a feeling of disempowerment among ordinary citizens, the public.   As with the local civic associations, the public is considered a nuisance  because they interfere with the process of backroom dealing among the elite. So the commission makes their  "public announcements"  in a form that can never be understood, and they create a false or massively incomplete "public record" of their proceedings.  Using the same basic strategy, the FOCP claims to be too stupid to publicly announce their "open public forums" or claims that newspaper editors are too mean.  SHCA simply forgets to announce its "open public forums" but never forgets to testify that it has abundant open public forums when questioned later.  The truth is that these barriers are all designed to make people feel helpless and cause them to give into the power of the secret plutocracy.  For those people who identify the strategy, names like wankers and greedy slumlords are reserved! During the recent PCPC approval of the Campus Inn, it was clear to me that the rather brilliant and thorough reasoning that demanded rejection, which came exclusively from our neighbors, made the highly paid city planning experts very uncomfortable.  They knew that they had to approve the hotel with absurd bullshit reasoning that strongly suggested to those of us with open eyes, that back room deal making had occurred.  No justification for oblique "public announcements" from PCPC is believable or acceptable.  If they are too stupid to make a simple announcement in plain english, like Gary did for us, aren't they too stupid to be planning our city???? Thanks for helping to clarify the intentionally confusing information on the public listserv. Thanks also to Frank and Guy who also used their time, in the public interest, while the planning commission deliberately wasted it.   The barking cheese leaders seem to be concentrating on the gnome competition like good consumers are supposed to do. The shark   -----Original Message----- From: krf...@aol.com Sent: Jul 17, 2009 3:09 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Update on PCPC agenda     In a message dated 7/17/2009 2:34:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, glen...@earthlink.net writes: www.philaplanning.org/pubinfo/agendas/agenda090721.html Here's what this says: "Zoning Bill 090517: Remapping the area bounded by Walnut, 42nd, Locust, and 43rd Streets from R9 multi-family residential use to R9A single-family residential use (Presented by Paula Brumbelow; Introduced by Councilmember Blackwell on June 18, 2009)."   And Gary Jastzrb of the PCPC stated that the whole thing involved changing the 200 block of St Marks Place (Locust to Walnut) to single- from multi-family.   But then, why does the bill (a different abstract is on-line today than was there earlier this week -- but the whole bill is still among the missing) mention "certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Walnut Street, 42nd Street, Locust Street and 43rd Street."? This not only encompasses much more than St Mark's Place, but includes a lot of property that's other than residential. The area presently has R5, R9, C2, and C3. Very confusing. Why not just say "the 200 Block of St Marks Place"?   To see the zoning map, go to http://citymaps10.phila.gov/ZoningOverlay/ and do a search for an address in the area such as 4240 Walnut.   You read it here, first, on the ever-popular Popu-List Courtesy of Al Krigman Can love help you live longer? Find out now. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .