Glenn moyer wrote:
Dear neighbors,
You probably read about the latest FOCP survey victims in
the UC Review last week. The report also uncovered that
the FOCP/UCD partnership plans to close A park in March.
The editor published my response this week. (Sorry for
not providing a link. For some reason, my message
bounces back when I include a UC Review link. Just type
in "Weekly Press" or "University City review")
here's the link to the article about the clark park meeting:
http://tinyurl.com/yar6jp6
the most revealing line from that article:
"The best way to have a say in Clark Park," said [Tony]
West, "is to become a member."
the most revealing comment so far about that article:
Frank L. Chance | chanc...@gmail.com JAN 15 | I would
also like to thank the UCR for covering *our* meeting. It
is very important to get the word out to *our* community
about *our* activities, and especially about the upcoming
revitalization construction in Park A.
and here's glenn's letter about that article:
http://tinyurl.com/y995xgm
Re: Mistrust Generated Over Results of the Large Events
Survey at Friends of Clark Park UC Review | 20.JAN.10
Eight years ago, I reported in this paper that the Clark
Park Music and Arts festival and Woodland Ave. Reunion
were targeted by one of these dishonest FOCP surveys.
These surveys have always been an attempt to manufacture
a crisis, and bully individual Clark Park stakeholder
groups. Dog owners, festival organizers, drummers, and
immigrant soccer players have all been targeted by the
leadership of FOCP over the years. The People?s flea
market organizers are only the latest victims.
Corroborated by the current article, the FOCP and their
UCD partners have instituted a pay to play power
structure over a public Clark Park. At this point, your
readers probably laughed at the reassurances about the
survey and justifications by the civic association
leaders. But the ridiculous survey is not the important
information Ms. Contosta uncovered.
Since the planned UCD redesign of Clark Park was first
announced, the leadership of FOCP has maintained a secret
exclusive back room process over all park plans, and does
not allow the public or stakeholders to participate.
Their public meetings are tightly controlled dog and pony
shows at which they sell their plans formed in back
rooms. Throughout the years, this redesign process has
been repeatedly rejected by the larger community as well
as the members of the FOCP. A so called "planning
committee" decides where to put fountains, etc. Have the
public or stakeholder representatives ever been invited
to participate in those meetings?
The park is about to be closed between Baltimore and
Chester. The three month timetable reported is no more
believable than any survey conclusions. This park
redesign has always been designed as the physical support
for the Penn myth so often in the news, that UCD/Penn
recreated a ghetto wasteland into an upscale paradise.
Control over "public space" is a well studied technique
used in the community destruction and corporate
gentrification process. The old Clark Park and the rights
of the public must be redesigned to support the myth,
even though the community likes the park and its
wonderful culture.
How many times will the community stand helplessly and
ignore the truth about this partnership between UCD and
the insular civic association leadership gang? The
surveys and park closure are both intended to wipe out
the park groups who currently use park A. The flea market
and capture the flag will be banned by fiat because a pay
to play FOCP exclusive activity has a monopoly on the use
of park B most Saturday?s when these activities will be
locked out of their normal space. When the rights of some
are so easily destroyed, it?s foolish to think that any
rights will be preserved under the new order. We either
need to fight the UCD park conversion plan or lose our
rights to a public park.
Thanks for the coverage,
Glenn Moyer
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
----
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>.
