Re: [UC] Here is the FOCP survey

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:55:14 -0700

Liz,

 

I'll pass on your answers to the flea market folks, if they haven't already received them.  The intended FOCP sampling methodology was never revealed, only that flea market supporters were prohibited from data collection.  So I have no idea if FOCP or the unidentified "community organizations" will include your responses in whatever report they deliver to the city.  I'm sure the market organizers will appreciate your honest responses!

 

 

Liz asks:  "Could another explanation for the survey be to collect evidence to support the Flea markets and help sway the non-likers into a position of cooperation?"

 

No, not a chance.  I've personally faced the FOCP call for permit restrictions many times. But let me explain what I've uncovered about this specific situation...

 

 

Background:     Apparently at some FOCP meeting, the President announced that the very popular, Clark Park People's flea market, would be cut from 7 to 4 per year.  Another FOCP board member interjeced, "no, we decided only 2."  This description came from the market organizers, who were in attendence and witnessed these statements in shock and disbelief! 

 

Subsequently, I attended a meeting called by the market organizers to address this threat. (I was in their position against FOCP, 5 consecutive years, and understand the entire process.)  At that meeting, the FOCP President and Tony West attended.

 

Several flea market supporters spoke eloquently in support of this flea market, and added how important it was to many segments of our diverse community.  We saw the survey at that meeting, and we learned that at some point the FOCP/UCD was planning to close Park A.  Of course, that means that any large events would all need to receive permits for their events in "the bowl."  That's when it was immediately clear to me that the underlying reason for the FOCP attack on the markets was the same as I faced from 1999-2004.  (FOCP wanted all large events with sound banned at that time.)

 

 

The Real Reason for the Current Demand:    FOCP closes much of the park to non FOCP members 18 Saturday mornings per season (9 consecutive Saturdays in the Spring and 9 in the fall).  During the summer, FOCP takes a break from their, PAY TO PLAY, domination of the park.  Now, folks can understand the motivation to allow only 2 flea markets, in the middle of the summer.  (FOCP will not share the park on their Saturdays, and have a 10 year tradition of demanding others to leave.)

 

 

 

Liz, the PAY TO PLAY monopolization of the park is completely inappropriate for a neighborhood park, but the fee required league soccer is highly appropriate for a free Philadelphia recreation center!  Several years ago, I was given a terrible explanation for the need to have PAY TO PLAY in Clark park.  I was told that the "white kids won't use the rec center" which is only a few minutes walk from Clark Park!  (I once even offered to be a soccer coach, if FOCP would stop the attacks against park stakeholders and move the PAY TO PLAY soccer league to the Rec center.)  The exclusive FOCP ONLY soccer league would have bathrooms and equipment storage on a field much safer for the children, if they used the Rec center!!! (FOCP ignores rules like "the porto-pottie" rule in the park, which is abused against other stakeholders through dishonest reports of rule breaking.) 

 

New Status for the Park:    Clark park is being redesigned, as the exclusive domain for a small upper economically elite class, rather than a community park, which is free and open to neighborhood residents.  (In the past, it was discovered that over half of the PAY TO PLAY soccer families are not from the local area.  Of course, many neighborhood children can't afford the large fees and FOCP membership, but the PAY TO PLAY league was never designed for all the neighborhood kids.  It breaks my heart to know that little kids are told they can't kick the soccer ball in the park because mommy and daddy can't afford even FOCP dues!  Rec centers are a very different place for organized leagues.)

 

 

 

Summary:   There you have the background of this situation, and the conversion of Clark Park to a private recreation zone for the wealthy minority.   PAY TO PLAY is advanced as the model to keep parks in the new wealthy zone, exclusive for the wealthy. 

 

 All the other successful activities in Clark park for decades; soccer, volleyball, basketball, chess, etc. have always been pick up games, free and open to everyone who comes to the park!!! 

 

Only the PAY TO PLAY event is restricted to a single club, FOCP.  League sports for any age can be scheduled in Philadelphia's many recreation centers.  These are designed and maintained for private athletic events as well as open use!  It takes 5 minutes on Saturday morning to walk from Clark Park to 47th and Woodland/Linmore.  It is very safe and the center is used by lots of working class whites for league athletics!  This is where the league soccer belongs!

 

I can not accept, what I know to be a racist classist justification, for setting aside the rights of the vast majority and the 1st amendment.  Doing all manner of dirty dealings to create a type of wealthy, "green zone," where one powerful group FOCP/SHCA has complete control and domination of their exclusive Rec center.  The FOCP/SHCA leadership demand no rules or standards for them, and the vast majority of Philadelphians to have no rights or voice in the public park. 

 

Sorry for the long response, but you deseverved a complete explanation.  (I think we should discuss the Supreme court decisions and the doctrine of permits or restrictions on public land, "for all or for none."  It's so boldly inappropriate for FOCP to ask, "how many groups should be allowed..."  The real question is what standards are appropriate for public parks, so that rules apply equally to all!!!!!)

 

All the best,

Glenn

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "[email protected]"
Sent: Oct 18, 2009 1:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UC] Here is the FOCP survey

 

Hi Glenn and all,

Could another explanation for the survey be to collect evidence to support the Flea markets and help sway the non-likers into a position of cooperation?

I had not seen the survey, and supply answers below, in the hopes that my opinion will be counted among the results.

1. I like the occasional Flea market, a lot.
I have bought things for my own use and also gifts for others at the events.

2. I think no more than 1 / month is ideal.
This allows weekend days to highlight other uses (and my occasional favorite, unstructured use) of the park.

3. I value events that encourage neighbors to broaden their definitions of neighborhood.  I have enjoyed attractive events at Black Oak park, Cedar Park, the Kingesessing Rec Center and the Haverford Rec Centers and hope uses of those open areas can be encouraged and their info distributed through a more comprehensive community calendar.

4. I think each Flea Market should be huge!  The greater the number of vendors the better for buyers and sellers alike.
Why tie up the park unless it is a big event?  Also, make it big enough that the table rentals can support the one day rental of one or two Port-a-potties.

5. Are their groups competing for the right to have Flea Markets?  If so, I think one date should be reserved for the group that started the trend, and the others dates, 6 Total could be available, (one each May thru October), should be distributed by lottery.

6. For me, the best parts are: the bargains, the opportunities to de-clutter our own homes, (several friends have had tables!), and the fun of comparing "bargains" with neighbors and fellow shoppers.

7. See 6 above.
Things that displease me include some of the traffic and loading headaches that occur.  Maybe some thought could be given to creating Loading and pick-up zones, or even a "Bag-Check / holding area" for the duration of each event.

Thanks for sharing the survey.


---------- Original Message ----------
From: Glenn moyer <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UC] Here is the FOCP survey
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:04:09 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

Dear neighbors,

Here are the survey items from the “Friends of Clark Park and other community organizations.â€�  The other “community organizationsâ€� are not identified.  The survey respondents are “anonymous.â€�  (Six to eight choices are given for each item.  Those unimportant choices have been eliminated, at this time for brevity.)

1 How much do you like fleamarket activities in the park?
2 How many fleamarkets during the warm weather season would be best for the community?
3 Three other community parks lie within 1 mile of here.  Are they an alternative place to stage community fleamarkets?
4 How big should a fleamarket be?
5 How many groups should be allowed to hold community fleamarkets in Clark Park?
6 What is the best part of Clark Park for fleamarkets?
7 Are there things about fleamarkets in the park that please you?  What are they?  (This has no choices provided.  It has a blank line.)



Please note:   It has slipped out that the FOCP leadership has already secretly decided to end the monthly, “Clark Park People’s flea market.â€�    This survey is to be “evidenceâ€� of community wishes.  (FOCP/UCD will soon close park A. The FOCP monopoly of exclusive, pay to play, Saturday mornings will not be considered. With 18 weeks monopolized in spring and fall, for fee required exclusively FOCP activities, FOCP would never consider sharing their park.)


Neighbors, there are multiple tactics to be exposed through an analysis of the survey and research design; such as anonymity and stuffing the survey box, sampling methods, individual items, etc.  For the sake of brevity, only the immediate rejection of the survey validity, based on the items, is introduced at this time.  The FOCP leadership traditional tactics and precedents of the past decade can be discussed at other times.

Validity of any survey:   Most of you will immediately reject the “findingsâ€� on the most basic issue of validity of the survey itself.  Only one question must be asked for evidence to support the FOCP demand; ending the monthly flea markets of this political advocacy organization.

Proper Question:  Should FOCP destroy the monthly People’s flea market?  Yes  No

Any survey is immediately rejected on the basis of validity, when test subjects are completely deceived about its singular purpose!  Ostensibly, the FOCP expert researcher, Tony West, will interpret the data from these smokescreen questions to support the FOCP demand.  (Mr. West refused a request for flea market supporters to collect data too.  The reason: West's expertise is necessary to see that the anonymous surveys are collected the same way-hahaha)

Would an anonymous respondent unfamiliar with civic association treachery understand the singular purpose of the survey without the proper question asked????   (Take another look at the questions.)

Such deception is understood to be an attempt to manufacture evidence for a conclusion, ex post facto.

Example of the technique:  Should criminals be allowed to get away with crimes?  Conclusion:  The vast majority of respondent data demands the death penalty for off-leash dogs.  (Respondents are deceived about the predetermined conclusion, which could not be understood from the actual uncontroversial survey question!)


Lastly, please consider item 5 in the context of the first amendment right to public assembly.  Remember the doctrine that constitutionally valid permit rules apply to “all or noneâ€� on public lands.  To keep it short, we can pick up the topics of permit rules, FOCP precedents, 1st amendment, etc, for a thorough inclusive public discussion.  (That discussion won't be allowed at any FOCP/UCD performance, but it is possible on our public listserv!)

Important note:  The FOCP findings will not be revealed at the upcoming FOCP elections!  Traditionally, FOCP permit demands targeting other park stakeholders comes in December.  Since it is never the business of the community, the demands will be delivered to the city after the FOCP board approves them in a routine vote without discussion.  This tactic creates a last minute catastrophe for the victims and the supporters of the victims are harder to organize for the emergency during the winter xmas season.  
(I resigned from the board of FOCP when they targeted me with this “research tactic� after I tried to treat their leaders like mature adults for over three years!)

Don’t be shy about this discussion,
Glenn
(PS: Disclosure: I worked on real NIH supported research projects at Penn for many years.  My last few years were in the Instrument Development division of our research center.  The Inquirer called the leader of our team, the best in the world.  Please consider this when I am called an evil child hater once again!)



____________________________________________________________
House Rescue Bill Passed
$133,000 mortgage under $679/mo. Compare rates and save!
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .

Reply via email to