tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1957537260422450632.post1939892666514658959..comments2008-07-01T13:15:05.468-05:00Uptown Updaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10714258095661297253noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1957537260422450632.post-60939610589370343902008-07-01T13:15:05.468-05:002008-07-01T13:15:05.468-05:00It should be noted that UCC didn't lose their funding until ~ 20 years AFTER the article was posted. <BR/><BR/>It should also be noted that that ~ 1999 UCC had at least 3 employees, including a "housing specialist".<BR/><BR/>According to guidestar.org, one of UCC"s 990 forms (i believe 2005)said that UCC had only raised ~ $6400 in private donations. That's ~ $1 per anti-Shiller vote.<BR/><BR/>i find it hard to believe that with its 50 years of existance, UCC hadn't touched enough lives to have a donor base to sustain at least 1 full time staff person. Even if just 1% of the anti Shiller vote were responsible for raising $1000 each (on average, with some being more sucessful), whether by writitng 1 grant a year, rally support through friends, family & co-workers, or personal donation (and certainly some Uptown residents can donate that kind of money to a non-profit), again, a full time person could easily be supported. <BR/><BR/>They had at least a decade and a half to find alternate/additional funding, so UCC needs to be held partly accountable for their situation.JP Paulushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13860554217847927753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1957537260422450632.post-76238115602480409062008-06-20T12:59:41.443-05:002008-06-20T12:59:41.443-05:00"I can prove this organization is not doing what it is supposed to," Shiller said.<BR/><BR/>whoa<BR/><BR/>if this is the criteria, a lot of funding is in jeopardyHughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15522429207805068382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1957537260422450632.post-70983686710222206972008-06-17T10:58:27.385-05:002008-06-17T10:58:27.385-05:00For anyone who doesn't really know the truly interesting history of political action in Uptown, this particular move was part of a sustained effort to silence and delegitimize certain voices in the community so as to make the so-called "voice of the people" the <I>only</I> legitimate voice in Uptown. <BR/><BR/>Up until around the time she became alderman Uptown civil discourse involved local business and political elites, middle class and upperclass property owners, religious institutions and shifting groups of "radicals" who either "gave voice" to the poor or became that voice (depending on how you read the situation). <BR/><BR/>Given the situation today, I think the sustained effort they mounted was successful. But, what does the future hold? <BR/><BR/>PS-I did not send in this article but I always appreciate reading stories that I don't remember seeing.Saskiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07023321034518238290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1957537260422450632.post-76549913901005606582008-06-17T10:38:02.810-05:002008-06-17T10:38:02.810-05:00How did UU find this?edward2ndhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04681832915881944010noreply@blogger.com