Notes from SPAR public meeting - 10.29

[chris farley]

I am curious why it was nessessary for Strider to put the page from the latest newsletter on here,  It did not need any sunshine law to do this, it is being mailed out to all Spar members and is available for pick up.  It is just the continual  hijacking of threads.  Who is it you are trying to convince that what you keep saying is really so, yourself.  As to the Spar forum and web, I was there last week, actually folding newsletters and part of a meeting for the total use and improvement of the web.  Derek was there going over it all with Brenda and Margaret Gloag.  Why keep boxing shadows? 

There was a request that the JFK photo be posted on here, when it went in the newsletter from material that Rita and I (both lolas, probably proudly so) produced, even that produced a completely unnessessary comment which had nothing to do with the situation.

It is sad that informative and productive conversations regarding Springfield keep being turned and turned again to very very unkind comments, I just do not understand.

[zoo]

To me it is quite clear: there are those that want this community to continue successfully revitalizing, and those that do not -- either because it may interfere with what they are attempting to do, or because they have lost credibility as positive contributors. As good things keep happening, they must continually put out information that attempts to discredit those involved as organizers, promoters or participants.

[strider]

i'm curious as to why there is no response from the same people who were so harsh about describing how SPAR doesn't communicate well, that the website was taken down to prevent debate, that SPAR has a demo list, that they are nothing but LOLAS, they don't enough things to unite the neighborhood, and they are just up to no good.

again, seems like she wanted to make a point of correcting of clarifying these issues so that the same propaganda couldn't be repeated over & over again.

did it work?

A quick comment on her comments:

1)Spar never gets the word out….

She simply states what everyone already knows….how the word is supposed to get out and does not address the cases it doesn’t make it, or if all of the “news” gets out or that it is often put out selectively.


2) Spar doesn’t care about saving houses…

She simply restates the “company line”, she did not address the hard issues of the fact that  the houses were put an the fast tract to demolition to start with (as FSU813 said they were on this forum) nor did she address her e-mail that was posted on a different thread.

3) Spar is just a bunch of little old ladies…

Of course the make up of the board is not all little old ladies, she just ignored the whole basis of why the term LOLA exists, or perhaps she proved Stephen right….

4) Spar doesn’t do fun things….

Ok, she’s right on here….  Give her one point.


5) What does SPAR do anyway? 

SPAR Council does do things.  I believe that the vast majority of posters have said that, so this isn’t the issue.  The issue was and still is if what they do is for the betterment of the entire community or just a select few…

And, to quote you:

Stider said: "So I take that to mean she did not address any of the tough issues...like explaining her e-mail, the lack of elections, and the various lies and innuendo she and others have been spreading about the rooming house issues."

Correct. These issues prolly take a lot of backstory & what not.

So, even from your own words earlier, nothing of substance was addressed and so I fail to see where any misconceptions were corrected. Perhaps on Thursday, but then again, it is all a matter of perception after all. If you can feed someone hamburger and convince them it is steak, you win.

[strider]

I am curious why it was nessessary for Strider to put the page from the latest newsletter on here,  It did not need any sunshine law to do this, it is being mailed out to all Spar members and is available for pick up.  It is just the continual  hijacking of threads.

It was simply to put it out for those who are not on the mailing list, even when they are members, not able to stop into the office and as far as I can tell, putting Louise's own answers to the concerns expressed here on this forum is far from hijacking this thread.  In fact, as some here believe that this letter answered many mis-conceptions, it seems I did Louise a service by posting it.  I gave her voice the same coverage as those who have been voicing the concerns got. Only seems fair.

So, I am curious as to why someone would consider that it was posted was somehow ...wrong....?

[ChriswUfGator]

To me it is quite clear: there are those that want this community to continue successfully revitalizing, and those that do not -- either because it may interfere with what they are attempting to do, or because they have lost credibility as positive contributors. As good things keep happening, they must continually put out information that attempts to discredit those involved as organizers, promoters or participants.

I agree with you 100%, I just think we disagree 100% about which group is which...

I can't recall the last time I cashed a check from a developer who buys the vacant lots where the historic houses I'm lobbying the city for fast-track demos of used to stand. I can't recall the last time I tried to ban one of my neighbors from public meeting. I can't recall the last time I went on a rampage, and tried to have my neighbors zoned out of business. I can't recall the last time I wrote an email b!tching at the city for not tearing historic houses down fast enough. The same houses I'm supposed to be protecting.

But yeah...somehow...it's us on this forum who are standing in the way of Springfield's progress. LMFAO!

Proof's in the pudding, during the decade SPAR's been around in its current form/leadership, 1/3 of the neighborhood has been turned into rubble. Why get upset at the people who just point out the obvious flaws in this organization?

[Dan B]

To me it is quite clear: there are those that want this community to continue successfully revitalizing, and those that do not -- either because it may interfere with what they are attempting to do, or because they have lost credibility as positive contributors. As good things keep happening, they must continually put out information that attempts to discredit those involved as organizers, promoters or participants.

I agree with you 100%, I just think we disagree 100% about which group is which...

I can't recall the last time I cashed a check from a developer who buys the vacant lots where the historic houses I'm lobbying the city for fast-track demos of used to stand. I can't recall the last time I tried to ban one of my neighbors from public meeting. I can't recall the last time I went on a rampage, and tried to have my neighbors zoned out of business. I can't recall the last time I wrote an email b!tching at the city for not tearing historic houses down fast enough. The same houses I'm supposed to be protecting.

But yeah...somehow...it's us on this forum who are standing in the way of Springfield's progress. LMFAO!

Proof's in the pudding, during the decade SPAR's been around in its current form/leadership, 1/3 of the neighborhood has been turned into rubble. Why get upset at the people who just point out the obvious flaws in this organization?

You are totally mis-characterizing the situation.

The vast majority of SRGs lots were purchased 8-10 years ago, well before a relationship had ever occurred with SPAR. Since then, right or wrong, SRGs main push was not to expand its foot hold or grow its market, but to make the neighborhood safer, and cleaner for the people who had bought, and were going to buy their homes. (Those BASTARDS!)

I know of exactly two properties that were demolished at SRGs urging, and they were owned by the SRG! If there are others, I am not aware of them. I would also be surprised if they have bought more than a handful of properties since their initial flurry back in the 2000-2001 range.

Also, the 1/3 speculation is asinine. There have been demolitions, far too many of them, but 1/3 is a gross exaggeration.

[ChriswUfGator]

Dan, drive around and just start counting up all the vacant lots one day. You'll lose track after 10 minutes. No joke.

[soxfan]

Chris, all of the vacant lots in Springfield don't belong to SRG..

[Dan B]

Well that is incorrect.

Before you moved into the neighborhood, I was at the Springfield Roundtable in 00.

SRG has always had a relationship with SPAR

While that is probably true, the depth of the relationship, particularly, the financial portions of it, weren't until later when the crime fund was started (remember that big jump in financing you all pointed at as some nefarious plot), the litter patrol, and many other things.

[fsu813]

"I can't recall the last time I cashed a check from a developer who buys the vacant lots where the historic houses I'm lobbying the city for fast-track demos of used to stand."

- if you don't think there could be perceived conflicts of interest i RAP, you're nuts.

"I can't recall the last time I tried to ban one of my neighbors from public meeting. I can't recall the last time I went on a rampage, and tried to have my neighbors zoned out of business."

- this is pertaining to the same issue. what "rampage" are you referring? (ha). perhaps if most of the rehab/boarding houses were in your 1x1 neighborhood (with more possibly on the way), exploiting a loophole, then you'd see it differently. Since you don't have this issue, you can't speak to it. Well, you can....but not with legitamacy.

"I can't recall the last time I wrote an email b!tching at the city for not tearing historic houses down fast enough."

-  At least 2 people who have knowledge of the issue posted about it, explaining the backstory. Re-read them.

"But yeah...somehow...it's us on this forum who are standing in the way of Springfield's progress. LMFAO!"

- actually, Chris, if you care to tally, there are 4 or 5 people who have posted regularly share most of your same views, including yourself. far more as to the "otherside" aka SPAR may have some flaws, but is by far the most positive organization in the community and deserves to be supported.

your progress comment is a joke. if you are referring to the "progress" of additional boarding/rehab houses...yes.

[Dan B]

So we agree.  There was already a relationship.

One in which we enabled SRG to obtain the land at very low cost.

How did you enable that?

[fsu813]

Stephen sees things is his own "special" way. He can figure out how to twist and contort anything to his agenda, no matter how far he wanders off the ranch, persay.

It's like trying to talk with the Mad Hatter, when it comes to this issue.

[Johnny]

stephen, was the bargain low prices not available to anyone else other than SPAR or SRG? I wasn't in the market at that point in time, however I've spoken with many, including my neighbor and they all bought very low in that time period.

I want to point out that I am not a member of SPAR and really do not follow what it is they do or plan to do so I do not currently have an opinion either way on the organization.

[chris farley]

Tom Purdie bought the lots for SRG in 2000/2001, (he beat me to the punch on one that was up for taxes) at that time it was Rita and Jim O'Steen at SPAR.  The round table was HSCC so if there was a relationship it would have been with that organization.

[chris farley]

Yes FSu they were available.  Many on which taxes were owed were listed downtown, that is how I found out that I had just lost out on the lot I wanted next to a house I had bought.  As soon as I came into the neighborhood in 2000 I went to meetings of all the organizations, I do not remember any such discussions on the buying of lots and I may just go look at the minutes, they were kept when the organizations merged. It would take a lot of digging though and I know what the answer would be. I did finish up as secretary to HScc when Adam became president and strider vice president so I do know a little about the subjecy) Tom Purdie ( I know he is Mack's cousin) did his buying quietly, for which I do not blame him, the prices would have risen quickly. He did buy some houses also but then stayed away from them, the two green ones - I think at 5th and Pearl - were his at one time - he asked me if I wanted them.  I followed his tracks a little.
Incidently in 2000 lots were going for a song, one went to a friend of mine for $500, a house with a huge lot for $4500, anyone doing research and acting quietly could easily get lots, without  having to "payout" as is being alledged) people did not want them and is some cases gave them away or donated themto the non-profits.  After the new houses started being built and sold, then SRG bought land at fair market value, ie what people asked, they even offered $80,000 for one on Market.