|
|
From our readers
Centennial not forgotten
Near the conclusion of his article on Memorial Hall in the May 18 Local,
Jimmy J. Pack Jr. says that “it no longer holds the past because
no one remembers the Centennial Exposition.”
To the contrary, that event is prominent in both private and public collections
across the country. Private collectors seek such memorabilia of the time
as prints, rare books, images on textiles, stereopticon slides and the
like.
Many public institutions assemble and exhibit materials as well. For
example, the Free Library of Philadelphia has a web page at www.library.phila.gov/
CenCol that provides examples of its extensive Centennial holdings. A
history class at Villanova University several years ago built a site,
which can be seen at www.history.villanova.edu/centennial and which includes
a bibliography of reading material at the Free Library of Philadelphia,
www.history.villanova.edu/centennial/flpbib.htm. The Hagley Museum and
Library in Wilmington has a Web page dedicated to a century of World’s
Fairs, www.hagley.lib.de.us/exhibit-worlds-fair.html; the collection of
1876 material is so extensive that librarians there recently published
a photograph book on that one fair alone. Archivists at the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania have announced the recent processing of 31 boxes
and 27 volumes of Centennial Exhibition Records.
And, lest we think that the 1876 event is of regional interest only,
California State University at Fresno has posted views of their special
collection at www.lib.csufresno.edu/subjectresources/specialcollections/worldfairs/1876philadelphia.html.
The Centennial is well-remembered, indeed.
David T. Moore
Mt. Airy
Arboretum policy
I would like to thank David Traxel for his letter to the editor on May
11 expressing his concerns about the arboretum’s policy of verifying
arboretum membership with a photo ID. Like many cultural organizations
in our area, the arboretum has seen financial challenges in recent years
due to rising operating costs and decreases in endowment returns due to
market fluctuation. As a result, we rely increasingly on gate revenue
and membership support. Though memberships are not transferable, many
have shared their pass with family, neighbors and friends.
We want to keep the arboretum broadly accessible with low admission and
membership fees, but at the same time we need to generate income to maintain
the standards that we have achieved in recent years. Protecting the integrity
of our membership program by checking IDs is the fairest and most equitable
way of ensuring that all of our visitors and members pay their share while
not subsidizing others who borrow membership cards. Before instituting
this policy, we consulted with a dozen of our peer institutions. Our experience
over the past few months, as well as those of sister institutions, has
confirmed that this indeed is a real issue, and not an imagined one.
Many of our visitors have commented on the transformation of the Morris
Arboretum over the last decade into a world-class botanical institution.
This progress has been achieved only through the generosity and support
of our members. We cherish our members, and the great majority has expressed
understanding and support of this policy.
Paul W. Meyer
The F. Otto Haas Director
Morris Arboretum of the
University of Pennsylvania
CHCA election
Congratulations to the newly elected CHCA board members. My sincere thanks
to all who voted for me. Although I was not among those elected, I will
continue my intense interest and participation in activities that concern
the future well-being of Chestnut Hill residents and businesses.
Meredith Fuller Sonderskov
Chestnut Hill
Our community must now come together in a genuine coalition for the service
of the community. This includes a genuine coalition fairly balanced among
the officers and Executive Committee members. I therefore dissented and
dissent from the recommendations of the Nominating Committee, which merely
took the slate passed on to it from the Nominating Committee member associated
with the Second Opinion Caucus, which slate would give 10 of the 11 leadership
seats to the SOC. This is contrary to the voice of the people expressed
in the April 28 election and to the interests of our community, which
called upon all of us to come together to serve it.
Yes, the people have spoken. But what have they told us? No faction won
a majority of the popular vote. The 22 candidates of the SOC got 47.7
percent (14,990 votes) while the 24 candidates of the opposition Alliance
got 45.96 percent (14,532 votes). Those who ran unaligned (including some
excellent and deserving people, caught between the two juggernauts) got
6.63 percent (2,097 votes). To make the comparison fairer, delete the
last two Alliance candidates so that we compare 22 SOC with 22 Alliance
candidates. The numbers then are SOC, 48.95 percent (14,990 votes), and
Alliance, 44.20 percent (13,533 votes), a paper-thin plurality of 4.75
percent.
Fairly early in 2005, a group of board members and others formed a faction
they called the Second Opinion Caucus, privately meeting and planning.
That was their right. Whether such factions are desirable is debatable.
As the April 2006 elections approached, those not associated with them
in every aspect of their onslaught and critique had no choice but to form
the faction for electoral purposes that was the Alliance. Had they not
done that, they would have met the same fate as the excellent people who
ran unaligned. The election was held and the results were those set forth
above. All that is history. The only question now is where do we go from
here.
It is doubtful that the SOC has a majority of seats on the entire board
sufficient to enable its members to impose their will in the election
of all officers and executive committee members and in all matters which
may arise henceforth. Let us assume, however, for the purposes of discussion,
that they barely do. The question becomes whether that parliamentary model
is appropriate and serves the interests of our community.
The British Labor Party purports to stand for something distinct from
the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, holds a small
majority in Commons, and can if it chooses, as it has chosen, govern without
bringing any of the opposition into government. The same holds true in
any parliamentary system. The certain result, however, is the perpetuation
of the permanent party system. As elegantly rough and tumble as meetings
of the Commons, including Prime Minister’s Question Time may be,
do we need or want in our community every meeting of the board to be forevermore
the clash of “them” against “us,” party against
party? Or do we need and want these parties and this divisiveness to die
out and everyone to come together for the community? Where the distinct
parties have distinctly different ideologies, the former answer may be
right. Where, as here in our community, that is not the case, the latter
answer is the only right and proper one.
Yet you have to understand that you can never freeze out people who want
to serve without perpetuating permanent opposition and leaving them no
choice. They then organize in 2007, we go through the same thing all over
again, back and forth, 2008, 2009, etc., etc., all to the detriment of
our working together for our community.
Nor can you say that we’ll control 10 of the 11 leadership posts,
but let the rest of you, including many of you who won 45.96 percent of
the vote, do much of the work because we know you care deeply about our
community. Some people will still do some work, most of them are not into
obstructionism, but all in all it doesn’t work that way.
Get real. To get everyone to work together, you have to bring everyone
together in coalition. A genuine coalition. There are six officers and
five at-large Executive Committee members to be elected this Thursday,
May 25, for a total of 11. How can you justify giving to the people who
polled 45.96 percent of the popular vote fewer than four or five of those
positions? How can you expect to govern effectively and in harmony and
unity if you don’t?
Walter J. Sullivan
CHCA Board member Chestnut Hill
Ed Feldman’s Local ad
It has come to my attention that several Hillers have taken exception
to the ad that I, Ed Feldman, alone and unaided, placed in the Local last
week. It has been difficult for me to ascertain the precise wording of
these objections, due to the fact that none of the offended parties has
had the courage to confront me personally on this matter. So I have had
to hear about it secondhand, as usual. The rumor mill is a mechanism fueled
by cowardice, but it seems to be the news organ of choice for this neighborhood,(the
Lentz Policy excepted), and Hillers just love tradition. I prefer to air
my views in public, which, among other personal attributes too numerous
to mention, makes my presence in this neighborhood (choose one): refreshing,
hated, sexy, execrable, exciting, scary, cute.
So I hereby go on record and state that all my actions, in print or otherwise,
are mine and mine alone, and in no way represent the following entities:
the Second Opinion Caucus, the CHCA, The Furniture Guys, the Discovery
Network, the Writers Guild, the American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists, Moore College of Art, the University of Pennsylvania, the
Art Institute of Philadelphia, the International Communist Party (I threw
that one in to scare you, but I could never join them. Their meetings
were run, remarkably, on the Corporate agenda, just like … ), the
Elders of Zion and Super Fresh Club Fresh. All these organizations, regardless
of my affiliation, unless otherwise stipulated, are not responsible for
my actions. Simply put, if you have a problem with me, kindly have the
guts whatever god you worship gave a slug, and speak to me personally.
I further stipulate that the advertisement placed in last week’s
Local was composed by me and me alone. It was the fulfillment of a campaign
promise for open and public meetings made by the SOC, but its wording
and composition were mine. Its cost will be assumed by me. The placement
of the “official” CHCA logos (not trademarked, and therefore
neither illegal nor actionable) on the ad was purely decorative, and used
only because my personal logo, a Star of David combined with a Skull and
Crossbones, was too complex for my Windows Paint program. Further, the
“civility code” of the CHCA, a pledge that was followed as
assiduously by the outgoing board as the Volstead Act, does not apply
to me until I take office. See, I can work the angles too, kids. In the
word of Nelson Muntz, “Haw, Haw!”
Remember also, and I can prove it, the following: When the board was
run honestly, and I was a member, I was a model of decorum, just ask Stewart
Graham; that I was personally asked to run for the board in spring 2005
by Maxine Dornemann, before I was aware of the events that have made me
into an angry and avenging angel; that I have been threatened with police
action for speaking out of turn at a public meeting, twice, and that finally,
at each and every meeting and discussion group at which the bylaws were
adhered to, and that were run in a manner lacking in arrogance and in
the spirit of inclusion, I have been a decorous and valuable presence,
just ask the DRC. (And if there’s anything I hate more than anchovies
on my pizza, it’s justifying my actions. So you know this last part
was hard for me. It’s just so non-Dada. Besides, they’ll probably
see it as a sign of weakness and use it against me.)
But wait, there’s more. I may deal in facts, but here’s what
I hear, someone is trying to change the board meeting site to the library
at the last minute, so be aware and find out how your very presence may
be thwarted. And what will happen at this meeting? Does Maxine have incriminating
phone recordings from Ed Feldman? Are they available in MP3 format? Will
his very installation on the honored board be blocked? Does Ed have evidence
of financial fraud by his accusers? Has he sent letters to that effect?
What will happen? And will the Local cover it? I’m doing my part.
I’m making this dreary little corner of lily-white America as exciting
as I possibly can, and remember, I’m doing it all in my spare time.
Ed Feldman
Chestnut Hill
Barbara Plager
Thank you so much for the article on Barbara Plager [Local, May 18]. What
a nice tribute to such a remarkable person. Although I am very new to
Health Partners, in the short time that I’ve been here, I have heard
only the nicest things about our former president. However, I did not
know that she was a native of Mt. Airy. I grew up on Allens Lane.
Anyway, I found the article online this morning and shared it with some
of our employees, who were most appreciative.
Felicia Phillips
Senior Communications Specialist
Health Partners
Center City
New Covenant Church
On behalf of all of us at West Mt. Airy Neighbors, I want to thank the
Chestnut Hill Local for its recent comprehensive coverage of New Covenant
Church of Philadelphia’s plan to provide housing for homeless families
on their campus. This is an important community issue deserving of complete
coverage by our local papers.
A point of correction in the last article, however: On April 24, the
near neighbors voted by a 2–1 margin not to support the program.
The following is an excerpt from a letter from Jarma J. Frisby, president
of West Mt. Airy Neighbors, and Derek S. Green, president of East Mt.
Airy Neighbors, to Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller the day after the meeting:
“On April 24, residents who are near neighbors of New Covenant
Church of Philadelphia voted by a margin of 2-1 to oppose the proposed
program for homeless women and children on the site.
The vote came at the end of an East and West Mt. Airy Neighbors-sponsored
meeting to which only near neighbors (7300-7500 Germantown Avenue, unit
blocks of Roumfort and McPherson, West Gowen Avenue and Gowen Circle,
7300 block of Bryan Street, and Rural Lane) were invited. While there
were others present at the meeting, they did not vote. The purpose of
the meeting was to hear input from the near neighbors, who are an important
constituency in all matters regarding community issues.”
While near neighbors’ voices are clearly not the only ones at the
table, a fact noted in Jarma Frisby’s letter in these pages last
week, they are an important constituency and it is essential that their
views be represented correctly.
Laura Morris Siena
Executive Director
West Mt. Airy Neighbors
The war in Iraq
Open letter to our Congressional Representatives, May 12, 2006.
Re: Cessation of funding for the occupation of Iraq and Support for HB
4232.
As your constituents and people of various faith perspectives, seeking
to conduct our lives with moral responsibility, we, the members of Northwest
(Philadelphia) Peace and Justice Movement, call on our representatives
to Congress — Robert Brady, Chaka Fattah, Richard Santorum, Alyson
Schwartz, and Arlen Specter — to immediately discontinue financing
for the occupation of Iraq.
We acknowledge that you have previously taken positions to hasten the
termination of U.S. military involvement, but this is not enough. It is
in fact contradicted by your repeated votes for funds to continue this
occupation.
We believe that this is an occupation that never should have happened.
It was based on lies that continue to devastate the lives of thousands,
both in Iraq and the United States.
Northwest Peace and Justice Movement first spoke out on Feb. 15, 2003,
when we demonstrated with 10 million people around the globe, and we do
not stand alone in our perceptions. On July 27, 2005, the AFL-CIO’s
convention in Chicago voted to support our troops in Iraq and “to
bring them home rapidly.”
On Nov. 11, 2005, 96 bishops of the United Methodist Church repented
“of our complicity in what we believe to be an unjust and immoral
invasion and occupation of Iraq.” On Jan. 12, 2006, the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops urged the United States not to occupy Iraq “for
an indeterminate period.” Then, on Feb. 18, 2006, the representatives
of 34 U.S. congregations at the World Council of Churches Assembly in
Porto Alegre, Brazil, said, “We lament with special anguish the
war in Iraq, launched with deception and violating global norms of justice
and human rights.”
We call on you to vote against further appropriations for the occupation
because the U.S. military presence in Iraq has re-energized and emboldened
terrorism throughout the world. The country has become a training ground
for terrorists and will remain so while we maintain troops there. The
abuse and torture of detainees violates human rights and severely damages
our nation’s moral credibility. The Islamic world now views the
Iraqi government as a puppet state, whose assets and powers have been
usurped by occupying forces and global financial interests. The U.S. is
not winning hearts and minds in this attempt to impose democracy through
military might.
Every six months since the beginning of the occupation in March 2003,
President Bush has requested supplemental funding of approximately $70
billion to conduct the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each
of his requests has been approved by you and by Congress six times.
Meanwhile, the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have yet
to receive the adequate resources they need to recover from Hurricane
Katrina, and communities around the United States are impacted every day
by drastic cuts in social spending. Additionally, the war has brought
new assaults on our civil liberties and democratic rights.
We strongly urge that you support and co-sponsor H.R. 4232, a bill introduced
by Rep. J. McGovern (D-Mass.), which would prohibit the use of Pentagon
funds except for an orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This bill
would permit the use of funds to carry out social and economic reconstruction
activities in Iraq.
Signed by 54 members
of Northwest Peace and Justice Movement
“Escaping ticket: Take two”
While I acknowledge that missing continuations are rare in your paper
[Escaping ticket: Take two, Local, May 18,] and I thank you for printing
the entire article, it occurs to me that with adequate publication software
such a slip should never occur.
As a retired electrical engineer and software designer, I claim that
the task of transforming all the articles, advertisements, photographs,
etc. from the raw items into the final production should be by computer,
under the supervision of the production people.
Particularly, in the case of an article, I assume that the raw material
is in the form of a “galley proof,” which takes the form of
the entire article rendered in one long column. In the printed paper,
of course, the article will in general be rendered in several columns
on one page, and perhaps continued to one or more later pages.
As the composers lay out the article, if they determine that a continuation
is necessary, then the data in the computer should include a continuation
flag showing where in the galley and the paper the article is to be broken,
and another companion flag showing where it is to be resumed. Moreover,
the “continued to” and “continued from” lines
should be generated automatically, not by a human composer, and the paper
layout must reserve room for those lines. The program should never release
the paper for publication unless both continuation flags are present.
Sydney T. Fisher
Erdenheim
Restaurant in Deb Shop
Editor’s note: This letter was written more than a week ago, before
the Local reported on the restaurant. A story appears on Page 1 of today’s
paper.
It seems there is a restaurant moving into the old Deb Shop, that is,
into the small building, with an even smaller parking area, that lies
between CinCin and McDonald’s. I say seems because it feels as if
the whole thing is a mystery, and a deliberate one at that. At the time
of my writing this there is only a hand-lettered sign on the building
that says, “Restaurant Coming.” So it appears that this is
a no-name restaurant, owned by a no-one, who therefore has no contact
information. When I politely asked the workman at the site for the name
of the owner, or at least the name of the person who had hired them, they
politely refused to tell me. Oh dear.
I say, “Oh dear” because I live right behind this site on
Roanoke Street. Like most of the houses in this area, we have no off-street
parking — and, as things are now, what with CinCin’s lack
of adequate parking spaces, we can never park anywhere near our house
on weekends. This area is mobbed. Now CinCin is a great restaurant. We
are pleased by their well-deserved success. We are pleased that they installed
a proper ventilation system so that the neighbors are not plagued by cooking
smells. But we are not pleased that CinCin was allowed to develop that
site without any provision for proper parking.
And now here comes mystery restaurant — mystery restaurant that
has made no attempt to contact the neighbors and let us know the answers
to two crucial questions: 1) What will be done to guarantee adequate parking
spaces for the restaurant’s patrons? 2) What sort of filtered ventilation
system is going in to cut down on smells here? (Both McDonald’s
and CinCin can give advice on this because they both have such systems.)
I, for one, would much rather patronize than picket this new mystery
restaurant. So what can be done, by the neighbors, by the CHCA, by the
CHBA, and by the owner, to solve this mystery and give it a happy ending?
Kay Wisniewski
Chestnut Hill
|
|
