There were only maximum of two apparent opponents at any time. No immediate tax paying neighbors, landlords, profit business and all non-profits save one have not shown opposition at any time. And its one with a questionable past and present.
1.Peirce College: http://www.peirce.edu/
Peirce did not send a representative to the last HC meeting 1-12-2007
Peirce was represented by a lawyer* and had a paid consultant at the 9/2002 Historical Commission meeting. At no time did a member of the board, faculty member or student come to any of the Historical Commission, Architectural committee or License & Inspection Hearings. Peirce' closet point to the mural is the personal and approximate 10 car garage parking. The classrooms, if active, are about 250 feet away and at an angle to the mural. There are no dormitory space at Peirce College. They are not the closest school or non-profit institution. (University of the Arts dormitory property overlooks and is 20 feet from the mural).
In 6 years Peirce has never specifically raised any specific objections to the mural.
They were against the mural not going thru "the process". I have personally attended 7 hearings and the Peirce board zero. At one hearing, one of the commissioners discussed the strategy of getting rid of the mural with Peirce's Lawyer while I was sitting next to him. The lawyer and I were waiting to get a grant of continuance while that person droned on about what an eyesore the mural was. Finally, Peirce's attorney admonished him about my presence. Peirce also received extremely favorable treatment in their "renovations" by the HC that is 100 fold what other projects have been given. Peirce does not need to pay a lawyer. They are well represented in the Historical Commission.
May 2001: Peirce sends head of maintenance to Pine Realty and asks, if I have a permit. I tell him the neighbors wanted something done about the ongoing grafitti problem and I have painted the wall numerous times. Shortly, thereafter an L & I inspector comes to my office and is loud and arrogant towards me and says I should stop painting immediately. He threatened to call the police on the artist. The artist who lived through the the Communist Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime was understandably frightened. Unusual, because most L & I violations of this minor signifigance (paint color?) are dealt with througn the mails.
In response, I call Councilman Clarke's office. Carlie Seltzer tells me that a permit may be needed but she personally approves of the mural.
August 2001:Inspector Sweeny comes to Pine Realty and threatens to order a stop work order and asks if I had gotten the notice. I told him that no notice had been sent. He calls his office and notices that no notice has been issued. He leaves and tells me he will be back.
September 2001:Inspector Sweeny comes to Pine Realty and threatens again a order a stop work order. I tell him again that no notice was received. He calls his office and finds that the notice not sent to the correct legal mailing address. He promises to deliver "personally the notice" the next day. I am still waiting for his delivery.
January 2002 L & I sends the notice to the correct mailing address.
*There is still is some question about the hiring of lawyers and
consultants. As a non-profit It may be
a violation of their mission statement paying a lawyer out of non-profit funding. In the past Peirce has had some questionable practices. See below
Peirce College Pork Barrel intrusion article click here
2.Judith Eden: At this time MS. Eden does not wish to be disturbed. Even though MS. Eden has been vehemently and has said some inflammatory statements in the past opposed to the process. Ms Eden also gave some emotional and contradictary remarks. We respect Ms. Eden's right to her privacy. Ms Eden lived about 2 blocks from the mural and was not an immediate neighbor. Ms. Eden was the sole tax paying opponent. Ms Eden was at the time the Democratic Committee person but was representing only herself. Ms Eden is currently on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Eden was not present at the last meeting and is not be currently involved in this round of hearings.
Ms Eden was at the first three hearings. Her remarks were not rebutted at that time.
From the HC record of Archictectual Committee 1-2002
To this day the HC has not acknowledged the support of Councilman Clarke* or noted anywhere that the statements were either in error or contradictory. It is amazing experience to be in a legal hearing to be called in essence "A liar". In a civil case, if a witness fabricates testimony and is caught it usually signals the end of the case. In Philadelphia, it's business as usual.
Source:PGN:Mural Ordered Removed 1-19-2001
For the record. For months Ms Eden was well aware of the mural and did not express dissapproval til the hearing January 2002. The hearing was about 8 months after the mural commenced (4/2001) and 5 months after the 1st L & I notice. The neighbors who approved of the mural were long time residents and most have had interactions with Ms. Eden including all those working at my agency.