Neighbors, This letter in the UC Review, "Friends of Clark Park," demands a close critical reading. This author does not know the writer and makes no assumptions about him or his personal intent! The text is discussed as a probable foreshadowing of a new corporate push for "mandatory assessments" also known as a BID tax. Here is the link to the text:
http://www.ucreview.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=105&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=1599&wpage=&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2320&hn=ucreview&he=.com "Without the support from Penn, Drexel, the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, the University City District, ABM, Allied Barton, UNICCO, Unique Advantage, Diversified Search Odgers Bernston, Copabanana, HUP, The Restaurant School, Urban and Bye, O'Donnell Real Estate, Parkhurst Dining Services and CRW, Clark Park would have overgrown grass, scads of trash, and unkept grounds." Similar versions of the above portrayal of Clark Park have continuously accompanied the corporate power grab for the public asset, Clark Park, for nearly a decade. The earliest versions also portrayed the long established vibrant community culture in the park as nothing other than dangerous criminal activity (prostitution, gang activity, drug dealing, etc.) In recent years, the UCD claims that the very same vibrant Clark Park culture was completely created by it's corporate marketing efforts. At the beginning of the power grab nearly a decade ago, the partnering Friends of Clark Park organization made a "no holds barred" push to eliminate entire stakeholder groups from the park. (The FOCP is a dues paying insular club. For decades, it has pretended to be a representative of the large diverse neighborhood as well as Clark park stakeholders. It refuses transparency in its deliberations and has a long track record of maintaining power for its inner group of leaders with the use of false information and stone wall tactics. Leaders refuse to conduct business of the organization using internationally recognized principles and processes of representative democracy.) Working together from the beginning, the UCD formed a secretly hand picked Quality of Life Task Force and the FOCP lobbied government to eliminate long term park users, by whatever means, claiming that the park was "overused." If the park was overused by the same stakeholder groups when the corporations first targeted it, how can the current use of the park be credited to UCD marketing? The contradiction can only be resolved by defining the pre-existing culture as bad and destructive, and a created replacement culture as good and vital. Both the dangerous "ghetto" portrayal and the subsequent corporate "salvation literature" of this public asset have no basis in fact. Long term residents of the area have long known that the entire portrayal is false orchestrated literature published to justify grabbing/privatizing more and more power through deception. Using a nearly omnipotent omnipresent propaganda machine powered by university/corporate resources, these false histories of the asset are now asserted as inviolate truth. This repetitive propaganda process observed in West Philly for nearly a decade was described by Joseph Goebbels in the 1930's, and is known as the big lie: "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..." >From the letter: "While there are many who support the Party for the Park, >there are several businesses that don't give anything after many appeals. My >question is why. Why don't these businesses contribute when the neighorhood >and customers benefit from the vibrancy of Clark Park? Why don't they give >when Clark Park is such a vital factor in contributing to the quality of life >for residents?" The answer to this apparent question is quite simple and it has nothing to do with selfishness, as the text seems to imply. As discussed, the premise that Clark Park is and was a doomed dangerous wasteland is not believed in the community. Moreover, an entity that uses the big lie process must not be blindly trusted and supported, but instead firmly and blindly rejected. Community activists supporting truth and democratic principles will instead wish to spend resources against a corporate entity and agenda employing the big lie technique. Certainly, the answer to, why won't they give, is not obvious as the text would seem to suggest. Conclusion: After close and critical examination of the text, readers will recognize the implied financial problem caused by voluntary contributions rather than mandatory tax (BID). This new tax is designed to be transferred directly to the unaccountable corporate entity. Support for the tax and transfer of power to a very few private corporations is based upon a big Clark Park lie developed and repeated locally for nearly a decade. (Authors note: Again, this does not imply any motive or insincerity on the part of the Party for the Park official credited as the letter writer.) The premise that the public asset is either a "crown jewel" or dangerous wasteland depending upon money flowing to an unaccountable entity, UCD, has no basis in fact. The UCD entity as well as it's "community based" partner, FOCP; have met requests for transparency, honesty and accountability with a stone wall. Using a technique known as astroturfing, the corporate entity has routinely asserted support for its agenda by dividing neighbors within the West Philly community. This has proven to be highly divisive. Members of co-opted civic associations et al are used to not only mask demands for power such as questions, as asked in this text, but often to crush dissent to the agenda with fallacious or mean spirited strategies or argumentation. Those individuals used for astroturfing are placed in an untenable position. Silencing dissent becomes the primary tactic of the corporate entity because open honest discussions will always leave their dishonest agenda revealed. The corporate entity supplies the powerful propaganda machine and neighborhood individuals are targeted and sacrificed, like pawns in the game of chess, to create the appearance of overwhelming grass root community support for corporate concentration of power. (Recent town hall meetings about health care changes provide more examples of the techniques and role of astroturfing to destroy open and legitimate debate of the issues.) Please do your own analysis of the text as well as review the history of UCD propaganda tactics. Consider the implications of the text and the past push for an exclusive corporate BID Sincerely, Glenn ---- 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>.
