GUEST COLUMNIST: Statements on vending misleading

While University Council Petyk claims that "the proposed ordinance will make only modest changes to vending in University City," the truth is that vending would be banned entirely on Walnut, 34th, 36th, 37th and Chestnut streets, as well as on Spruce Street east of 36th Street and on the east side of 38th Street. And while the ordinance would allow 100 vendors in University City, 48 of them would be relegated either to Market Street or to spots well south of the hospital complex. Scheman, vice president for government, community and public affairs, and Executive Vice President Fry assert that "The University has spent countless hours during the past six months negotiating with community groups, the Penn Consumers Alliance and the [University City] Vendors Alliance on the vending ordinance." This is not true. The administration has made presentations to various campus constituencies about the "fresh air food plazas," which are not in the ordinance or guaranteed in any way. Attendees of these meetings unanimously report that the administration neither negotiated nor discussed the provisions of the proposed ordinance. Since September, the administration has used the food plazas to divert attention from the ordinance. Scheman has gone so far as to claim (falsely) that they are part of the ordinance ("Response on vending," Almanac, 1/27/98). Yet the administration has refused to add a contingency clause that would provide adequate vending spaces near the central campus if the plazas are not built, and it has not yet put forth a reasonable, secure lease offer to the vendors. Discussion of the ordinance has occurred only during a few meetings between the PCA and Managing Director for Economic Development Jack Shannon. Shannon set up the meetings as presentations about the food plazas; the ordinance was discussed only at PCA's insistence. Aside from getting the University City cap raised from 75 to 100, no provision of the ordinance has been successfully negotiated between the administration and any campus constituency in any of these meetings. Scheman and Fry state, "The assertion that the University has not negotiated in a forthright way is? false. We have negotiated? our remaining differences are not for lack of good faith efforts." These statements are themselves false. In January, after soliciting ordinance proposals from PCA and the University City Vendors Alliance, City Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell called upon the administration, PCA and UCVA to negotiate. After the administration refused to attend two meetings convened by the PCA with a neutral moderator, Blackwell called the groups together on February 9. At that meeting, we reached agreement on a number of important issues, and Blackwell urged us to continue negotiating unresolved items. The administration then reneged on more than half the agreements and refused to meet with us again. Now the administration washes its hands of the problem, stating that "The vending ordinance is now a legislative matter" (Scheman and Fry). Petyk argues that "a good case can be made that the University should reduce the total number of vendors in University City over the next five to 10 years -- especially as more space for moderately-priced restaurants becomes available." He exemplifies the administration's indifference to the campus community's needs in the assumption that "moderately-priced restaurants" could fill the need for the kind of fast, diverse, inexpensive service our vendors have provided for more than a century. As Petyk indicates, and as Fry has admitted at University Council, the administration wants to capture a larger share of the campus food market, replacing vending with a relatively small number of Penn-controlled retail establishments that will charge consumers $2, $3, $5 more for a meal than vendors do. The University will "compete" with the unique benefits offered by the vendors by legislating (or failing that, litigating) them out of business. In contrast to the administration, the PCA represents the interests of the students, staff and faculty who purchase thousands of lunches every day from the vendors. PCA invited representatives from the UA, GAPSA, A-1s, A-3s, unionized staff, the African American Association, the Faculty Senate and the Spruce Hill Community Association to every public meeting, including the one with Blackwell. We have never hidden our motives: We want vending to remain diverse, convenient and accessible. Nor have we or UCVA ever been a force for the "anarchy" Petyk cites. Both groups support safety regulations, design standards and bans on vending near hospital entrances, ambulance parking and the space in front of Sansom Common and local retail businesses. PCA is ready and willing to talk about the vending issue anytime, anywhere, in public. The administration has refused to participate in any public forum on vending. We urge readers to demand a public accounting from Rodin and ask Blackwell to withdraw the current ordinance.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.