On 12/31/2010 8:25 AM, Richard Moreau wrote:
You may not agree with the position your neighborhood association is
taking, if any.
Good suggestions-
This was the case with the Campus Inn and the 2003 attempt to redesign
Clark Park. In both cases, the developers met secretly with civic
association leaders and insisted on the "done deal" when the plans were
leaked to the public. In both cases, the plans were enormously
unpopular among residents.
It is clear to me that the goal of the coming zoning "reform" is to
tighten up the process, so that in future, Kimm and troublemakers would
be barred from all proceedings and notifications in a "streamlined"
process!
The public was not on the invitation only list for the new zoning reform
"workshops" crafted by Penn Praxis. This is a very important fact about
this "civic engagement process."
The model for zoning reform: The Clark Park Partnership provides the
model, even though most of our neighbors don't understand what has
changed since 2003! In order to know about any plans or participate in
any meetings about the future of public spaces, you must now be invited
by specific civic association leaders, whom are not required to adhere
to any standards whatsoever, as long as they are chosen to represent the
community by the developers. The city maintains that it will not allow
members of the public any direct access to appropriate officials and
that civic associations may bar anyone they like throughout the
process! Efficiency and a lack of time by city officials is the
official justification. (I posted Parks Commissioner DiBerardinis
response when I caught and confronted him twice at public meetings)
(If the public is now barred from decisions and notification regarding
public space, how can any intelligent person expect public participation
on private property zoning decisions?)
It has been publicly reported that the invitation only workshops for
zoning reform were used by Praxis to choose "community leaders" for
additional "training" on zoning. It is that Praxis group of screened
leaders, who will now be defined as the community. The new zoning rules
will conveniently be changed to notification of that group only. That
simple change in the definition of public notification is the key!
How does Praxis and the mayor get these well screened leaders to support
the cancellation of actual public notification?
I directly observed the strategy used on the civic association leaders
when UCD initially crossed fortieth St (1999-2000). They are treated as
insiders who will get special access to information and special power,
if they become "team players" who respect "confidentiality." These 100
or so leaders have been professionally groomed and stroked manipulating
them to agree that they are the experts and community leaders, and they
are given the techniques to avoid wasting time with loud mouth
neighbors. (This feudalism is abhorrent to principled individuals, but
unbelievably attractive to those with low self esteem and certain
personality disorders.)
The reason that long ago I became the number one enemy to Penn Real
Estate, the UCD boss, was because I was the only one of our community
leaders, at that time, to oppose this closed and exclusive system. Of
those 100 new community zoning leaders, you can be sure that anyone who
believes in transparency and inclusion has been screened out during the
grooming process.
My assumptions are based on my experience and studying the local data of
the past 12 years. It's not a bunch of wild guesses that allows me to
accurately give you these insights.
Good luck,
Glenn
