|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classified Chestnut Hill Local Webmaster Don't Miss an Issue, Tell us what you see or ©2006 Chestnut Hill Local Winner of Three |
From our readers
A most probable once in a lifetime happening with Chestnut Hill ties and the Local didn’t pick up on it! Shame! Shame! The co-owner of Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner, Mrs. Roy Jackson, was raised in Chestnut Hill and attended Springside School. Her husband was born and raised in Ambler. And not a word of Barbaro and his owners in the Local. Shame on you. Well, let us all root, root to the sky that Barbaro can win the Preakness and Belmont, and become a Triple Crown winner. Maybe then our “former resident and student” and her husband will get a mention in the Local. Anyways, you folks still missed your chance for a once-in-a-lifetime
story. To the members of the Chestnut Hill community: One of the treasures in Chestnut Hill is in need of your attention. The Bach Festival of Philadelphia was founded here by Michael Korn some 30 years ago. The enormous success it enjoyed continued until his unexpected passing. The recent revival of the festival has been the talk of the town among the public, press and musicians as well. Concerts in several venues of Philadelphia, as well as in our own “village,” have aroused remarkable enthusiasm. However, ticket sales only cover a small part of expenses. Our marketing is seriously limited by lack of funds. Many international musical artists have performed at our concerts at a fraction of their usual fees, as have some of the best among local musicians in our Festival Orchestra. Their love of Bach has contributed to our extraordinary success. Plans for the festival next season are in the making. Many wonderful
choral projects are awaiting confirmation. This is contingent upon our
receiving contributions to cover the costs. Your thoughts and generosity
are urgently needed and hopefully you will send your tax-free gift to
us addressed to: The Bach Festival of Philadelphia, 8806 Germantown Ave.,
Philadelphia, PA. 19118. It will be the most beautiful gesture to the
most musical of causes. New Covenant I have been residing at 6808 McCallum St. for approximately 25 years.
On April 24, I did attend the community meeting regarding a facility for
homeless families on the grounds of New Covenant Church. I understand
that this is an ideal program, professionally supervised, for homeless
women and children. I do believe that this is the right thing to do. We
have to give these young people a chance to better their lives. I have also received a letter from Bishop Grannum of New Covenant, apologizing for the way in which the church has handled its relationship with its near neighbors over the last many years and calling for the re-establishment of a joint committee to address these issues. Finally, we have noted that New Covenant Church placed an advertisement in local papers, also apologizing for some actions over the years. This level of communication is welcome, and I have written to Bishop Grannum, accepting his offer to establish a standing committee to address neighbors’ concerns. I look forward to this as a serious and meaningful effort to heal a very real breech between the church and its nearest neighbors. This process will take time and a great deal of effort on each participant’s part. With New Covenant and the proposed homeless program very much in the news, this seems like a good point to clarify some matters in a public forum: West Mt. Airy Neighbors’ (WMAN’s) and East Mt. Airy Neighbors’ boards have not yet taken a position on the proposed program. Any impression that we have done so, either for or against, is false. Some of the above communications suggest that the number of issues that near neighbors have with New Covenant is quite limited in scope. Anyone who has attended recent community meetings regarding the proposed program for homeless families or has spoken to large numbers of residents on the blocks closest to the church will know that near neighbors’ complaints are not limited to one or two issues. The job of a community organization like WMAN, in part, is to mitigate among – and look for common ground between — the concerns of near neighbors, other residents and the needs of the city at large. This is not an easy task, especially when there is a proposal on the table of the size and scope currently suggested for New Covenant. We do our best to hear all constituencies and we honor all voices in the debate. That being said, we also recognize that there is a special reality to near neighbors’ concerns. Most of us have experienced something about a neighbor that drives us crazy – the teenager who plays his electric guitar too loud, or the person who puts her garbage out in a way that attracts raccoons – so we can understand the concerns of near neighbors. However, we will not always take the position of near neighbors when it comes to every community issue. We endeavor to weigh issues carefully for their impact – not simply on the near neighbors, but also on the community as a whole. Finally, some of the emails we have received have accused us of NIMBYism – a posture of “Not In My Back Yard” regarding the possible addition of homeless families to our community. While we know that there are a few people who are adamantly opposed to having homeless people in the community, and we have heard from them, they are in a minority as far as we can see. Mt. Airy’s history is one of inclusion. Mt. Airy was one of the first and remains one of the most successful racially integrated communities in the nation. Before that, Mt. Airy welcomed Jewish residents when they were not welcom in every community. Later, Mt. Airy became home for one of the largest populations of gay and lesbian families in the United States. Now, we are looking for ways to encourage the economic diversity that has always characterized Mt. Airy — a real challenge given the run-up of housing values. We treasure our diversity, which results from residents’ having been open to different kinds of people, over more than half a century, seeking to make Mt. Airy home. Let’s take the opportunity afforded us by this proposal to take a step back, and take some time to heal the divide between the church and its neighbors. It will take time and commitment from both sides to build trust and establish a positive way of working together. When that is accomplished, it will be easier for all of us to evaluate the specifics of a proposed program such as the one which has occasioned all of these valuable communications and provided the opportunity for real healing.
I am sharing this to encourage that the mind state at New Covenant is not a “handout” mentality but rather a “handup” one. I, like others in this great Mt. Airy community, have a heart for those in need as the Bible mandates. I also realize, from being “somewhat homeless” at one time, that for the grace of God it could be me in need of a facility to help “get my life in order.” As a voting member of the Mt Airy community I want to express my “strong support” of the facility and the New Covenant Church of Philadelphia. I pray that all the good work that our church has done will not be overseen because of the viewpoints of a handful of Mt. Airy residents. Furthermor,e this facility I believe will be a model facility in years to come, and will not only positively impact the lives of those who receive housing and training, but also those in the community who will help host “the poor, the afflicted, the needy” as the Bible encourages. God Bless you. Jesus Saves! When my family was looking to relocate to a new home in 2001, we wanted to live in a community where there was true diversity. As the white parents of both white and African-American children, Mt. Airy’s reputation for openness and welcoming diverse groups of people was very attractive, and so we purchased our current home on Durham Street. I am troubled by the outcry from a vocal minority of Mt. Airy residents who seem to be against the idea of allowing the homeless a second chance in “our own back yard.” It seems to me that this program is exactly the kind of program we should be supporting in a community that prides itself on being champions of progressive politics and social justice. As a member of New Covenant, I would like to put out a call to the nearby residents (many of whom, like me, intentionally chose to live in Mt. Airy) to not only support the program but also to partner with New Covenant Church in being tutors for homeless children, inviting hurting families into their homes for dinner, demonstrating good parenting by being living examples as they interact with their own children on the New Covenant Campus and allow them to play with the children of these highly motivated homeless mothers. These kinds of “extracurricular” interactions are what will make such a program truly effective in creating lasting change for these mothers and their children. If residents are concerned about how New Covenant and the contracted service provider will handle the particulars of the program, they should use the planned church-based ministries to get involved to make sure that we have a strong village surrounding these families. Unlike many city-run programs, having this program housed on a church campus provides those kinds of opportunities for community involvement. If residents have concerns about matters relating to New Covenant as a neighbor, let’s address those head on! I’m a member of the church and I’ll help hold New Covenant accountable for responding appropriately when concerns are raised. But let’s not let the past challenges residents feel they’ve had with New Covenant stop us from doing the right thing, which in this case is to help those in need. We are in a privileged position in Mt. Airy. Let’s work together to make sure we use that privilege in a way that is consistent with our beliefs. Please support the homeless program but, perhaps more important, please help us at New Covenant to support these homeless mothers who need to make positive changes in their lives.
Several members of the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia contacted our office to inquire as to whether we were the group behind an electoral coalition participating in the recent elections of the Chestnut Hill Community Association. I want to state, categorically, that the Action Alliance has nothing to do with this group. The Action Alliance of Senior Citizens has a long history of advocating for the rights of senior citizens in our region. In its 33-year history, the Action Alliance has not engaged in this type of electoral activity within communities. We hope the individuals involved in that electoral group would refrain
from using our good named in the future. The Action Alliance of Senior
Citizens counts hundreds of dues-paying members, clubs and supporters
in the Chestnut Hill community. We are in the process of waging a citywide
campaign to minimize the negative impact on senior citizen homeowners
expected with the city’s change on real estate assessments expected
for next year. They could have made significant contributions during an (assumed) future for our association. Let us hope they can be interested in joining our CHCA committee structure, which is where the real action should occur anyhow. A large portion of the votes cast for my candidacy came from the normally
silent majority of our membership. I want them to know that I will be
trying my best to deserve their support. To achieve the ultimate expectations of the CHCA, the board must now create opportunities for regular community input to a community agenda. Your comments on the conceived agenda must be acknowledged. Proposals for periodic meetings held for community discussion are on the table. The community will need your time and energy. If money is needed to meet the community’s goals then the board must ask you to respond. All of this means that your participation in the election was just the first step in your yearlong involvement in your community. The election was fun, intriguing and sometimes frustrating, however,
it is over. The board, with your involvement, must now produce. Please
help us! That was a triumph in itself and both the Action Alliance and the Second Opinion Caucus contributed to it. Both campaigned hard and the victory of the SOC was won against an impressive opponent. But the people heard SOC when we pressed so hard for the editor of the Local’s freedom to control the editorial policy; when we stressed that the Local is not just a business but a forum in which we can exchange ideas and share thoughts and feelings; when we insisted that the bylaws must be followed; and when we explained that, unlike most community organizations, the CHCA is a quasi-governmental organization, not just a corporation; and when we absolutely insisted that finances should be transparent and we should have clear and regular accounting of where our funds go as well as where they come from. We are also finding that more and more people who are not in the SOC agree with us, and are not just giving lip service to these concepts. As we talk together we are looking for the places where we agree and can go to work to make the changes that are needed. And we want to be inclusive and use the talents of all the people, not just those of our party. It is a new day and a promising one! From the outset, Chris Kemesis asked for volunteers at the annual dinner; plus, notices were posted on the front door of the Town Hall. It is a shame that more people were not available. Fortunately, the election results were in the excellent hands of three careful, considerate and competent judges. The Rev. Clifford Cutler, the Rev. John Saraka and Douglas Miller gave hours of their time to fairly and impartially oversee the validating and counting of the ballots. From the night of the annual dinner through Monday, May 8, the two ministers doggedly organized the piles of ballots while Mr. Miller gave many hours to oversee the validating process. The CHCA should be grateful to these men who ensured a final accurate
count of the greatest number of ballots cast in recent years, allowing
no room for error or controversy. Friends of the Wissahickon were recently awarded a grant from the William Penn Foundation in support of their Watershed Protection Program. FOW is also an “enthusiastic partner” behind the nasty wetland project at Saylor Grove. FOW will use its William Penn money to “actively market conservation easements to private landowners” while at the same time it enthusiastically endorses confiscation of Monoshone Parkland in a way that turns the freshwater spring that was Fisher Foundation into a sump for grit, grime and toilet paper. FOW seems to be completely blind to the city’s worsening sewer
failures that are wrecking the Wissahickon, including the Monoshone. I am always amazed by vociferous detractors who distort the higher meaning of (in this case) the sad but dignified life of a beautiful, wounded, Canada goose and how its plight relates to their “caged comrades.” I’d rather refrain from personal attacks and allow the federal court and almighty God to sort out the mess I’m in. And yeah, Frank, writers are a self-aggrandizing polyglot – so thanks for visiting my website! Your reference to me as a “bird” was both humorous and creative – and if the editors would be so gracious as to print my poem “If I Was A Bird,” this is my reply to you, bird watcher.
If I Was a Bird I’d have better things to do than to hang out with my crew — The pink skinned swans and golden colored doves, The little Sphinx Moths, Hummingbirds, and swift Falcons. On darker days, I’ll slice through rain clouds and make a bright clear day. Flutter through eons of old folks’ agony and pain. I’ll take luxurious baths in lush blue streams And quench my thirst with sugar water. I’ll wing way way out on solo Missions of honor. Soar high along The California Coast And fly back over the shores of Maine. Glide over poor towns. Pause mid-flight. Swoop down low and drop food into The mouths of starving babies. I’ll beat my beak into the ground one thousand times So brokenhearted girls could bury their sorrow. And I’ll wheel through the prisons in America And release all my Comrades locked down in cages. Yeah. Hang upside down. Take in the injustices around the Entire world through these small, Beady eyes. I’ll be a witness for truth. And you’d never even know I was there.
The debacle that is the Commerce Bank construction project on Germantown Avenue is a recent and notable boil that is symptomatic of the grand dysfunction that is planning and zoning in Philadelphia. Almost every building project in the city requires a variance because the last comprehensive planning for the city was done in 1961. Not only are we stuck with 45 years of patchwork and slap dash add-ons, the basic premise of the 1960s plan was conceived in an era of outrageously naive and just plain bad urban thinking. Need an example — look no further than the concept of urban renewal and its progeny that gave us eviscerating projects such as I-95. The city’s Planning Commission has failed to provide any kind of dynamic leadership when it comes to a comprehensive rethinking of the vision of Philadelphia and its neighborhoods. Whether this is a result of desultory leadership, or its nominal power as an advisory body, or its failure to recognize the problem, or a combination of all three is hard to say. But the time has surely come for leadership to emerge. Perhaps the Commerce Bank fiasco will energize a critical mass of engaged citizens to get the ball rolling. Philadelphia needs comprehensive rezoning. Rezoning that incorporates the best of urban planning and design to emerge in the last decade. Rezoning that defines and preserves the best of our unique neighborhoods. Rezoning that considers relationships between neighborhoods, transportation corridors and regional assets. Rezoning that protects our parks and open spaces, including public access to the Delaware River and the Schuylkill. Rezoning that encourages preservation and adaptive reuse of historic and architecturally significant buildings. Rezoning that fosters clear and transparent decision making. Rezoning that takes decision making out of the pay to play era, and puts it squarely into the public interest. Comprehensive rezoning can be welcomed by citizens and developers alike because it levels the playing field, providing clear and certain guidelines for what is, and what is not, acceptable to a community. So long as the current labyrinth system endures, buildings and developments are rarely, if ever, going to meet the needs and expectations of the community. We need comprehensive rezoning in Philadelphia and we need it now.
We very much enjoyed the Local’s coverage of Emily Watson. We look forward to the publication of her essay. We’d like to congratulate Emily for her impressive accomplishment, and to congratulate all of the women on the Mount St. Joseph’s Varsity 8 for their recent win. We’d also like to know the identity of Ms. Watson’s teammate, pictured in the article. Thanks for a great feature story. I was one of the bidders on the Flourtown Country Club project, along with my partner Michael Nichols of Queen of Hearts Catering, based Paoli . My father, Angelo DiCandilo, operated FCC for the past 27 years and I worked for my father performing every job, role and function that he needed for the past 19 years. From the beginning of this process, I have remained silent for the most part. However, I can remain silent no longer. From the onset, when the request for proposal (RFP) was issued in May 2005, there have been many questions that to this day go unanswered. During the past 11 months, I have often wondered why there were so many questions and why there was so much controversy. Replace the former lessee with a new lessee, right? This should have been fairly straight forward and clear, right? Why did Springfield Township need to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars contracting with an outside consultant? Now I read that the township is going to spend even more money on an outside architectural firm. When will the township see a return on its investments with the present lease? During my father’s tenure at FCC, it was constantly preached to Springfield residents that FCC was not a burden to the taxpayers. Is this still the case? Was the bid for the FCC that difficult that outside counsel was needed? What was the net result of the outside consultant with the present lease negotiated? Is there anything really that different in the lease that the township management could not have handled? Does the current lease (on the township’s website) follow the parameters of the original RFP? One of subjective criteria on the RFP was “relative experience.” Does the lessee have any “relative experience” in the “country club” business? Were the proposals clear and concise, and did they follow the parameters of the RFP? Were there any proposals that were unclear and incomplete? Did they include complete profit and loss statements, loan information, rental fees, and percentages of gross revenue, annual membership fees, etc.? Were you allowed to change your proposal? How many times were you allowed to change it? Did any of the bidders change their proposals? Where were the objective criteria in selecting a candidate? Were there any criteria at all? Why then did every other bidder except for one complain about this process? Are the commissioners and the township managers that much smarter than the entire group that bid on the FCC? Why then were there a number of organizations that did not even submit proposals for the FCC? Why then were there so many residents upset with this process? Why were residents given only five minutes to speak the night of the vote when clearly more time was needed? Why was it always the same exact people every week in the papers and at the meetings in favor of Joe Halligan, never a new face? Lastly, how can a group of people that YOU elected be able to make a decision despite so many questions and much opposition? Why were some of the commissioners so adamant about one candidate? How can anyone claim that this process was fair and equitable when residents, members and bidders are openly questioning the process? In my professional life, working for four Fortune 500 corporations, I have been exposed to many contract negotiations and business dealings. The haphazard, make-it-up-as-you-go-along process used for the FCC bidding strayed so far from the norm of traditional procedure, how could anyone not question the outcome? (Regardless of who was awarded the lease). I certainly understand that local government is not corporate America. I also have an appreciation for the commissioners who donate their time for the betterment of their community. However, business is business and when you stray from the boundaries of traditional business, you walk a fine line and this is where the township (especially the commissioners) failed. In closing, I know that there are a number of people that will read this letter and think that I have a case of sour grapes or that I am a sore loser because I was not the successful bidder and that I am attacking Joe Halligan and his family. I am not upset that I lost and this is not a personal attack on anyone, especially Joe and his family! However, I am upset with how this process was handled and the smug attitude of Springfield Township. It is truly unfortunate that the FCC lease was determined by politics, Democrat vs. Republican, not by who had the best proposal, as it should have been. This is what has me frustrated. I hope everything gets worked out with the club; it was great place to grow up. I very much enjoyed my time there, and was hoping to get a fair shot at being able to continue in the fine tradition my father built at FCC for the last 27 years. I guess the old saying holds true: “It is not what you know, it is who you know.” It rings loud and clear in Springfield Township!
A lot of hard work went into making the May 7, Home & Garden Festival such a success. Thirty-five thousand attendees saw more than 250 vendors, restaurants, community organizations, stores and musicians line Germantown Avenue — more than in any previous year. The crowd saw Chestnut Hill at its finest, especially after the afternoon sun appeared. The Chestnut Hill Business Association would like to thank the following people for helping to put the festival together: Frank “Stretch” Hendrie and Donny Thomas for being jacks of all trades Myles Menardi and his crew, Dan and Felix, for supplying electricity to all those who needed it. Joe Bird, Sgt. Rich Paraschak and all of the other police officers who helped keep the Avenue free from traffic and pitched in on so many other jobs that needed to get done. Katie Longstreth, Leah Mathews, and Maureen and Mark Stanton, who staffed the CHBA office. Derek Newell and Tom Walsh, who made sure the streets stayed litter-free throughout the day. Joe Magarity, who so nicely allowed his parking lot to be turned into a food court. All the volunteers for the AbZOOlutely Chestnut Hill raffle table: Carol Hausserman, Betty Brady, Ann Spaeth, Chris Lane, Sister Jean Laurich, Tom Hemphill, Pam Waters, Kris Sullivan, Claire Lemish, Kari Ghezarian, Jane Piotrowski, Lou Aiello, Virginia Mallery, Mark Keintz, Sarah Boothby, and Ron and Judy Recko. The Thomas Family, owners of Jacob Ruth, who lent us space to store equipment. The city Streets Department, which coordinated post-festival street cleaning Our terrific corporate sponsors — Subaru, Verizon, Stonyfield Yogurt, B101-FM, National Penn Bank, Valley Green Bank, Chestnut Hill Healthcare System, Smart Card, PNC Bank, Home Vantage Home Improvement Co and Fit Life. Finally, the Chestnut Hill community owes a very special thanks to Peggy
Hendrie, Peggy Miller and Kate O’Neill. They worked long hours to
put together a festival that people of all ages would enjoy and that would
present Chestnut Hill in the best light possible. When you see them, let
them know how much you appreciate their efforts. |
