HEC Meeting Tonight/Regarding Broad & Wash - PhillyBlog

Lat12 · #1 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 01:38 PM

This just came through my mail slot - verbatim (note the typos and excessive commas)

STRATEGIC MEETING
6:30 pm
At the Cultural Center 12th and Carpenter Sts
Hawthone Residents:
Your attendance is required, to help with, ideas &
suggestions, to bring down the propose towers, at
Broad St. and Washington Ave.

Bring a Friend

Is anyone planning on going?

raider.adam · #2 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 02:15 PM

Better question ...

Anyone going to support the development of that intersection?

Lat12 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 02:23 PM

That's what I mean - to support the development. I'm all about building the towers. ASAP.

seand · #4 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lat12

That's what I mean - to support the development. I'm all about building the towers. ASAP.

Even if the same developer basically lied, stole public land and violated the law at 1352 Lofts? You would support it even if the same developer has shown himself to be untrustworthy and acted like he was "above the law"?

How do you know he won't screw you when if comes to parking?

Hospitalitygirl · #5 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

Even if the same developer basically lied, stole public land and violated the law at 1352 Lofts? You would support it even if the same developer has shown himself to be untrustworthy and acted like he was "above the law"?

How do you know he won't screw you when if comes to parking?

That's kind of what I was thinking. This is a project that needs to be moved on cautiously, given old Sammy's history. (1352 South Street, incase anyone has forgotten.)

raider.adam · #6 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

Even if the same developer basically lied, stole public land and violated the law at 1352 Lofts? You would support it even if the same developer has shown himself to be untrustworthy and acted like he was "above the law"?

How do you know he won't screw you when if comes to parking?

That is why people need to be clear on the stance. Are you against the development or the developer?

You don't want opposition to be misinterpreted to mean you want 4 story buildings either.

Let them know you are for the growth, just against the developer. Fight the development because of him, not the plan.

seand · #7 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

That is why people need to be clear on the stance. Are you against the development or the developer?

You don't want opposition to be misinterpreted to mean you want 4 story buildings either.

Let them know you are for the growth, just against the developer. Fight the development because of him, not the plan.

I'm against the development if it is badly implemented, for it if it is well implemented - which requires that the developer follows through on what he says he will. This one hasn't.

RuggerAl · #8 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 04:13 PM

RuggerAl know developer not nice man, but RuggerAl also know land where towers say may go, is where towers should go. Uneasy line walk, RuggerAl not fan of man, but power to towers. Smell what RuggerAl is cookin? RuggerAl, if able and instead influence others make go place, would go meeting and listen for reasons HEC say no. If HEC say 1352, RuggerAl agree, and say developer need change, plan should go ahead- by magic if need. If HEC say no, no mention 1352 or man not nice, RuggerAl be loud and proud and say yes to towers. RuggerAl just no want HEC say no cause they oppossed for own reasons and views not shared by RuggerAl.

Cheers,
Tenneesse

Lat12 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 04:27 PM

HEC opposes the towers because they're high end and it will bring more white wealthy people to their hood. Since HEC can't even spell Hawthorne, use proper grammar or see the value in building a high end project in the blighted lots - I really don't see them being too aware about 1352.
It's up to the zoning commisioner and the city to enforce development according to code. I really don't understand what's wrong with this city and why is it so hard to make things work here that work without issue elsewhere. It just boggles my mind.

seand · #10 (**permalink**) 07-23-2007, 04:29 PM

Isn't Samir Benakmoume still litigating against the city in opposition to having to tear down his "ramp"? Didn't this same guy's publicist still stand by the decision to threaten discussion on this blog with word's like "libel" on WHYY just last week?