Here is an article that appeared on City Watch at: http://citywatchla.com/
LA’s Grassroots Voices: Ratcheting Up the Volume
CityWatch YearEnder-‘08
By Ken Draper
Grassroots empowerment in LA took another turn this year. The City’s myriad activists … neighborhood councils, homeowner groups, independents … are beginning to figure out how to ratchet up the noise level to get City Hall’s attention. City Council’s passage Wednesday of a three-month moratorium on off-site electronic billboards and supergraphics is an example. The package was less than the neighborhoods wanted but more than the Council wanted to give. And the result was the direct result of the empowerment work of Dennis Hathaway … President of one of those grassroots groups called Ban Billboard Blight … who organized and energized the angry voices from all over the city. The fury could be heard through the walls at the Council’s deceptive closed door meeting the day before the vote was taken.
This week the people of unincorporated East Los Angeles celebrated the completion of a petition drive for cityhood.
Just a few days earlier, the opposition coalition … Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, No2HomeDepot group and independents … got the good news from City Planning that Home Depot will not be able to short-circuit the CEQA process putting a major kink in the HD planned invasion of Sunland. A considerable ‘David’ victory in the more than two year battle with the home building materials ‘giant’.
In June Lucile Saunders and her LaBrea Coalition sued the folks at City Hall. They want the City to obey the law and provide an updated Annual Report with contemporary infrastructure, transportation and population growth information so that the millions of building permits issued annually by LA can be done so with contemporary numbers and analysis. Wouldn’t it be helpful if NCs could provide development advice based on the latest stats?
Jim O’Sullivan and his coalition of HOA’s, NC folks, and Chambers of Commerce filed a similar suit last month.
This spring, O’Sullivan and a Westside citizen’s coalition took the Mayor to court over his Olympic West/Pico East Traffic Plan. The City, they said, hadn’t done any impact studies. They have no idea what kind of damage the Plan will have on Westside businesses and neighborhoods. The Court agreed. Ordered the Mayor to get himself an Environmental Impact Report before he starts redirecting traffic. Cost to the City: $500,000 or more.
Last June a neighborhood council DWP oversight group forced the City Council into extended deliberations on proposed rate increases and got the Council to agree to a citizen’s oversight committee. It has yet to be appointed, but you get the idea.
Soledad Garcia and her DWP oversight gang have now formed the DWP Committee. A watchdog group made up of representatives from NCs and activist groups citywide. They got snubbed by the DWP Board and now they’re mad. One of their chief goals for ’09: an independent Ratepayer Advocate. In the meantime, they will serve as the ratepayer’s voice.
Ron Kaye, former Daily News editor turned activist, kicked off his own revolution on Bastille Day at City Hall. Formed his own Saving LA Project. A kind of coalition of causes and activist groups who share their frustration with City Hall arrogance and aim to make a difference.
SLAP has a list of candidates for the March ballot they want in office. Neighborhood councils have yet to discover ways to influence elections. The kind of influence that has real clout. If SLAP scores one or to victories in March, they will instantly become a force to be reckoned with.
There’s more. I haven’t covered all of the stories and organizational efforts in this column. But I think that if you want to put a defining tag on 2008 it would note that the angry and frustrated grassroots voices across the city are beginning to learn the lessons of collaboration, organization, base expansion, having financial and legal expertise on their side. The art of petitioning and navigating the courts. And ratcheting up the noise level until City Hall gets it.
Former LA Councilman Joel Wachs introduced the neighborhood council concept in his 1992 campaign for mayor. He called it Family of Neighborhoods in 1992 and a lot changed about the first vision as it compromised political route through the system and the Charter Reform Commissions.
But the reason Wachs called for neighborhood councils was because he believed that the public had become cynical about and disengaged from its government because none of the City’s electeds ever listened to them. That part of the neighborhood council concept has not changed.
The folks you have put in office don’t trust you enough to be honest and transparent with you. Few will listen to you. And the few that do don’t understand the difference between listening and hearing.
Otherwise, they would stop violating the Charter by making important decisions without giving NCs time to weigh in and advise them as the Charter mandates.
And that arrogance is what has chased LA’s grassroots community to the courts. To petitions. To ratcheting up the volume on their neighborhood voices.2009 looks like more of the same. Only louder.
(Ken Draper is the editor of CityWatch. He can be reached at
editor@CityWatchLA.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Even though R Neighborhoods Are 1 was not mentioned in the article, I feel that organization fits in well with the issues posed by Mr. Draper.
R Neighborhoods Are 1, along with another local group is part of the La Brea Coalition lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles.
Ms. Soledad Garcia is a member of the Governing Board of our own Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council.
Besides the Home Depot fiascos, R Neighborhoods Are 1 has been very concerned with the Los Lomas project that recently found failure in the appeals area and not that massive project has been relegated to the history files.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 has followed the redevelopment project proposed for the downtown area of the city of Baldwin Park and the group communicated with C.A.R.A., the grass roots orgqanization built to fight against that redevelopment project in Baldwin Park.
A very familiar name was involved in the project before it was abandoned.
That same familiar name continues to surface in dealings with the city of Santa Ana and the City Place project and a plan to build a high rise condominium tower in that city.
Some time ago I opined that R Neighborhoods Are 1 was one of the founding groups within the city of L.A. to begin an overall overhaul of the way planning is done and how developements are dealt with throughout the city.
I feel reassured that the group, along with so many others that have been formed and keep everyone informed, has helped to create a climate where government officials and bureaucrats are required to take a better look at projects that will impact all of us and PERHAPS, L.A. City Hall is finally getting some message through the thick walls built by lobbyists.
2009 will bring more issues to light, more challenges for R Neighborhoods Are 1, more input from OUR community, and more requirements to be more informed now that the developer of Ponte Vista at San Pedro has changed, the Planning Department has established guidelines, and Councilwoman Hahn seems to be supportive of those guidelines.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Captain Has Left the Bridge While the Ship Sinks
"Ponte Vista". In Italian and Portuguese it means 'bridge view', which also means the bridge of a ship. It also can mean 'crane view', scaffolding view, and its main translation as a view of a bridge over something.
Now it seems we can witness the bridge of the ship carrying Bob and all of his supporters sinking quickly into the blue Pacific. However, as the ship continued to sink, Bob was hauled off the bridge, leaving only supporters stranded.
If we can imagine Bob and his supporters trying to hold on to scaffolding that is falling faster than the economy, that is also appropriate, it seems.
If we view Bob and his supporters dangling from a crane that is lowering them to the bottom of the shaft of credibility, that too, is also something we can view in our mind's eye.
It took the real threat that Credit Suisse would lose it precious funds over what is truly best for OUR community to haul Bob out of here. But whatever it took, I am glad it finally happened.
It is also becoming apparent that Bob was not willing to listen to his financial backers during the last few weeks and months. The dramatic step of completely removing Bob from the development team seems to be telling all that Credit Suisse was no longer interested in listening to what Bob was continuing to attempt to do.
Perhaps Bob had told Credit Suisse that he was still wanting to go to the Planning Commission with the application and other documents already proven to be items that would never find approval?
Perhaps Bob's ego continued to get the best of him while folks with more vision and intelligence were trying to get Bob off his 'high horse' and really consider compromising using more reasonable counts for units at the project.
We have all seen evidence that Bob was not that willing to listen to genuine efforts to get him to come to the table to create something responsible at Ponte Vista.
We have all continued to witness some blind support for Bob's continuing plans, without true regard for OUR community.
Now that Bob is gone, he has left behind a number of individuals and groups that supported him and whatever plans he wanted. I wonder if they will continue to defend their positions like at least one supporter seemingly continues to do?
Defending a team member who got himself thrown off the team is pretty tough, I bet.
Defending plans by that team member that have been judged as being bad by others AND other members of the same team, must be worse.
I guess during that first meeting between Bob and Councilwoman Janice Hahn when she told Bob that 2,300-units was too many units that she could support, should have been a sign to at least some of his supporters that they were following something they should have thought more about.
I feel there will continue to be some of Bob's supporters whose egos will not allow them to have contrition over their support for plans that were so bad, the team had to be taken over by more reasonable folks.
Yes, I still want some senior housing at the Ponte Vista site. It is one of the best ways to place population stability on that land and keep folks from being so transient. It also can benefit some seniors in OUR community that really want that type of housing there and can afford to move there. It would also be nice if some of the senior units were for lower income residents, but I bet others who want senior housing at Ponte Vista do not wish to have lower income residents living near them.
We have known for some time that Bob would eventually leave. Either he was going to take his entitlements and leave the area without actually building anything, or he would find another way to get away from San Pedro.
I have to admit, that I didn't see his departure at the hands of his development team as the way he would leave. I guess it shows more naivety about developers and their financial backers on my part.
For those folks in OUR community that backed Bob no matter what, they also must be a little less intelligent about matters like these, too.
So, let's review.
Bob pulled out of his 125 acre redevelopment of the downtown area of Baldwin Park.
Bob placed 114 condos at his City Place project in Santa Ana up for a marketing auction and they all did not sell out.
Bob's marketing firm dealing with City Place has dramatically reduced the prices on the units still sitting unsold at that site.
Bob's development team for the 31 or 32-story condominium tower adjacent to his current City Place project has requested yet another delay in having the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Ana deal with the project.
Bob's house still may be for sale inside Beverly Park North.
And to think about all those members of OUR community who were willing to follow Bob along his paths, no matter what.
Sometimes, it makes one feel a little happy they followed the correct direction concerning a project.
_____________________________________________
If you think or feel that all is now fine and everything is just peachy, WRONGO BUCKO!
In fact, now that we do not know where this will all be going, WE now have to take the reins and attempt to control what could be built on the site.
We need to create comments, write letters to the editors, call government leaders and officials, and continue to belong to groups that have great interests in what could be built on the site.
The guidelines set forth by the Planning Department for what they feel should be built on the site are still of more than great concern to many of us.
Ms. Hahn's apparent support for those guidelines is troubling to many of us and we need to impart to Ms. Hahn that she should not support any guidelines without proper and critical consideration.
We need to use our own minds to create project proposals that can go out to the widest readership that can help insure that whatever is built on the site, is truly the best for OUR community.
We cannot just let 1,200 be a number that receives credible consideration by anyone. It is too arbitrary and is could be a total number of units that is very wrong for northwest San Pedro and the rest of OUR community.
Do we support or do we not support having low-income housing at Ponte Vista. As someone from left of center, I have to suggest that some of that type of housing may be necessary to create a neighborhood that reflects all of us and not just some of us.
What types and numbers of types of dwelling units do we think can be built successfully on the site.
Is R1 more of a wish than a reality?
What mitigation must be provided, no matter what is built on the site?
It should and must be up to members of OUR community who dictate what can be built on the site.
We have witnessed what a developer can do with plans and the failures that have occurred have meant that more years will go by before the site is redeveloped.
Now that Measure Q has become law and L.A.U.S.D. MAY reconsider SRHS 14, how might that impact the site and OUR community?
Nothing is over and nothing will be easy as we move forward. For many of us, the work will continue and probably grow even more as we move along.
WE must control OUR community and that takes work, discipline, interest, and above all, the love we have for OUR community and our willingness to protect it.
Now it seems we can witness the bridge of the ship carrying Bob and all of his supporters sinking quickly into the blue Pacific. However, as the ship continued to sink, Bob was hauled off the bridge, leaving only supporters stranded.
If we can imagine Bob and his supporters trying to hold on to scaffolding that is falling faster than the economy, that is also appropriate, it seems.
If we view Bob and his supporters dangling from a crane that is lowering them to the bottom of the shaft of credibility, that too, is also something we can view in our mind's eye.
It took the real threat that Credit Suisse would lose it precious funds over what is truly best for OUR community to haul Bob out of here. But whatever it took, I am glad it finally happened.
It is also becoming apparent that Bob was not willing to listen to his financial backers during the last few weeks and months. The dramatic step of completely removing Bob from the development team seems to be telling all that Credit Suisse was no longer interested in listening to what Bob was continuing to attempt to do.
Perhaps Bob had told Credit Suisse that he was still wanting to go to the Planning Commission with the application and other documents already proven to be items that would never find approval?
Perhaps Bob's ego continued to get the best of him while folks with more vision and intelligence were trying to get Bob off his 'high horse' and really consider compromising using more reasonable counts for units at the project.
We have all seen evidence that Bob was not that willing to listen to genuine efforts to get him to come to the table to create something responsible at Ponte Vista.
We have all continued to witness some blind support for Bob's continuing plans, without true regard for OUR community.
Now that Bob is gone, he has left behind a number of individuals and groups that supported him and whatever plans he wanted. I wonder if they will continue to defend their positions like at least one supporter seemingly continues to do?
Defending a team member who got himself thrown off the team is pretty tough, I bet.
Defending plans by that team member that have been judged as being bad by others AND other members of the same team, must be worse.
I guess during that first meeting between Bob and Councilwoman Janice Hahn when she told Bob that 2,300-units was too many units that she could support, should have been a sign to at least some of his supporters that they were following something they should have thought more about.
I feel there will continue to be some of Bob's supporters whose egos will not allow them to have contrition over their support for plans that were so bad, the team had to be taken over by more reasonable folks.
Yes, I still want some senior housing at the Ponte Vista site. It is one of the best ways to place population stability on that land and keep folks from being so transient. It also can benefit some seniors in OUR community that really want that type of housing there and can afford to move there. It would also be nice if some of the senior units were for lower income residents, but I bet others who want senior housing at Ponte Vista do not wish to have lower income residents living near them.
We have known for some time that Bob would eventually leave. Either he was going to take his entitlements and leave the area without actually building anything, or he would find another way to get away from San Pedro.
I have to admit, that I didn't see his departure at the hands of his development team as the way he would leave. I guess it shows more naivety about developers and their financial backers on my part.
For those folks in OUR community that backed Bob no matter what, they also must be a little less intelligent about matters like these, too.
So, let's review.
Bob pulled out of his 125 acre redevelopment of the downtown area of Baldwin Park.
Bob placed 114 condos at his City Place project in Santa Ana up for a marketing auction and they all did not sell out.
Bob's marketing firm dealing with City Place has dramatically reduced the prices on the units still sitting unsold at that site.
Bob's development team for the 31 or 32-story condominium tower adjacent to his current City Place project has requested yet another delay in having the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Ana deal with the project.
Bob's house still may be for sale inside Beverly Park North.
And to think about all those members of OUR community who were willing to follow Bob along his paths, no matter what.
Sometimes, it makes one feel a little happy they followed the correct direction concerning a project.
_____________________________________________
If you think or feel that all is now fine and everything is just peachy, WRONGO BUCKO!
In fact, now that we do not know where this will all be going, WE now have to take the reins and attempt to control what could be built on the site.
We need to create comments, write letters to the editors, call government leaders and officials, and continue to belong to groups that have great interests in what could be built on the site.
The guidelines set forth by the Planning Department for what they feel should be built on the site are still of more than great concern to many of us.
Ms. Hahn's apparent support for those guidelines is troubling to many of us and we need to impart to Ms. Hahn that she should not support any guidelines without proper and critical consideration.
We need to use our own minds to create project proposals that can go out to the widest readership that can help insure that whatever is built on the site, is truly the best for OUR community.
We cannot just let 1,200 be a number that receives credible consideration by anyone. It is too arbitrary and is could be a total number of units that is very wrong for northwest San Pedro and the rest of OUR community.
Do we support or do we not support having low-income housing at Ponte Vista. As someone from left of center, I have to suggest that some of that type of housing may be necessary to create a neighborhood that reflects all of us and not just some of us.
What types and numbers of types of dwelling units do we think can be built successfully on the site.
Is R1 more of a wish than a reality?
What mitigation must be provided, no matter what is built on the site?
It should and must be up to members of OUR community who dictate what can be built on the site.
We have witnessed what a developer can do with plans and the failures that have occurred have meant that more years will go by before the site is redeveloped.
Now that Measure Q has become law and L.A.U.S.D. MAY reconsider SRHS 14, how might that impact the site and OUR community?
Nothing is over and nothing will be easy as we move forward. For many of us, the work will continue and probably grow even more as we move along.
WE must control OUR community and that takes work, discipline, interest, and above all, the love we have for OUR community and our willingness to protect it.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Here is an article that appeared in the Sunday edition of The Daily Breeze.
Threesixty project will remain vacant
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 10:23:49 PM PST
More than a year after construction was halted on a high-end housing development on Hawthorne's west side, a black fence still surrounds the site and a sign informs visitors that the homes aren't for sale.
Threesixty at South Bay opened last year near Aviation and El Segundo boulevards with expectations that the development would attract young professionals and bring a nice chunk of property taxes to a city partially run down by thousands of cheap apartments.
But the houses didn't sell.
"There were essentially no sales when we had our grand opening in October of 2007," states a written proposal from the developer, William Lyon Homes. "The opening of the project last year was simply bad timing and market conditions continue to decline."
Representatives from William Lyon Homes did not return calls for comment.
Last week, the developer withdrew a plan it had submitted to the city's Planning Commission to lease the apartments in the face of opposition from homeowners groups and City Council members.
Dennis Wild, president of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors take pride in having a community of single-family homes.
"When people ask me where I'm from, I always say Hawthorne - even though a lot of people say Holly Glen," Wild said. "I've always said one of the reasons why it's a nice area is because we don't have any apartments."
Mary Franklin, a longtime resident and member of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said leasing the units could cause the neighborhood to deteriorate dramatically.
"Recently, we have seen people selling homes in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach to live in Hawthorne," Franklin wrote in an e-mail. "Rentals will destroy all the past successes accomplished and will only spread the already high rates of domestic violence and crime."
Threesixty at South Bay's infrastructure and common areas - two pools, a spa, a wine room, a gym and meeting rooms - have been built, but only seven of about 80 residential buildings have been constructed.
William Lyon Homes proposed building nearly 200 of the least expensive one- and two-bedroom units, called The Flats, in the center of the property and leasing them for $2,200 to $3,200 per month. A timeline for building the remaining single-family homes and multiunit buildings was not set.
The Flats housing units were advertised last year as being cheaper than the other model units, while still offering private garages, access to the pools, a gym and other amenities, as well as design features such as balconies, wood floors, granite countertops and walk-in closets.
Before they were taken off the market, The Flats model homes were listed from $500,000 to $700,000. The most expensive single-family home model was listed as nearly $1 million.
Last week, residents complained to the City Council that the leasing proposal was too vague. The developer said leasing would only be a temporary option, but did not give a timeline. Nor did the proposal say how long it would take to build the first phase of the project, or when the entire 625-unit development would be finished.
Del Aire Neighborhood Association President John Koppelman said he could support a plan to lease the homes if restrictions are imposed.
"We don't want it to stay as a ghost town forever," Koppelman said. "We recognize the way the economy and housing market is. They say they want to lease it on a temporary basis, but they don't define what temporary is."
William Lyon Homes representatives told homeowners groups that they will answer their concerns before making another proposal to lease the homes.
City Councilman Gary Parsons said the developer probably has a more difficult time selling the idea of leased units to Hawthorne residents because the city already has so many rentals. Many residents fear having a "Moneta Gardens West," he said.
Moneta Gardens is a low-income neighborhood on the east side of Hawthorne packed with high-density apartment buildings and rife with crime.
"Moneta Gardens has a transient population that doesn't vote, doesn't get involved in improving the community. We have too high a renter population already," said Parsons, who is against the developer's plan. "We'd like to balance that with more homeowners that care about the community getting better."
But Parsons acknowledged that there is a danger the developer will neglect the property and wait for the market to improve if the leasing proposal is not approved. That could mean living with a nearly 40-acre, unfinished, dusty lot for years.
"The developer has to maintain the property in good condition and keep the weeds down and provide security so we don't have vandalism," Parsons said.
El Segundo swapped the land where the development now sits in 2006 in a plan to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base from relocating to Colorado. The base was in danger of being closed because its facilities were deteriorated and seismically unsound. Both cities wanted to keep the base in the South Bay because about 50,000 jobs depend on it. The base was relocated across the street in a state-of-the-art facility, and its former lot was used for two housing developments - Threesixty and Fusion.
Councilman Danny Juarez said he wants the developer to turn the homes into housing for Air Force personnel. But that plan would not be profitable for William Lyon Homes, he said.
"I'm still convinced in my heart that the best way to deal with this is to work with the government, and maybe not put in the granite countertops. Make it a good place to live for the military," Juarez said.
On the northeast side of town near Van Ness Avenue and 120th Street, the Central Park 176-unit housing development also is stalled. Construction has begun, and homes were expected to hit the market around this time for $500,000 to $600,00, but none has been built.
A representative from Lee Homes, the Central Park developer, did not return a call for comment.
It is not clear when the housing and credit markets will return to a level that will satisfy developers, who bought when prices were high, to finish construction or sell, Koppelman said.
"I believe they should have some definition of what constitutes a better market for selling," Koppelman said. "They say they want to lease this until the market gets back. What does the market getting better mean? Is there a magic number?"
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article brought a fear the folks like me have if up to 1,196 units of non-age restricted condominiums are constructed at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
If any number of units at the Ponte Vista site become rentals, leases, or have rented out rooms, that would create a potentially extremely bad situation of just about everyone.
If folks are going to spend One Million Dollars or more on a multi-bedroom condominium unit at Ponte Vista and then be in an area where units are rented out and the population becomes more transitory, I don't know if any of those folks who really want a large luxurious condo in northwest San Pedro would pay to live in a project similar to what could be at Ponte Vista.
During the time the U.S. Navy had members and their families living at the site, Dodson Junior High School, as it was known at that time, was the most transitory school in the entire LAUSD system. More students moved into and out of its area over a year's time that at any other school in the District.
Having rental units and leased units available at Ponte Vista would mean that Dodson Middle School would see a much larger increase in students enrolling and then moving away than they have seen since the Navy housing was abandoned.
The number and nature of traffic patterns also changes where there are less stable neighborhoods, in terms of folks moving in and out of the area.
Even if there were as few as 775 condominium units built at the Ponte Vista site that have no age restricted units and no low income units because a density bonus was not applied, it still means too many folks would be moving in or out of the site each year.
One of the insurances that must be provided for whatever is built on the 61.53 acre site is to find ways to discourage having rental units within the project's site.
One way of doing that is to include some senior housing, I believe. First, I do still believe there are some seniors in this area who would like to live in senior housing at Ponte Vista.
I think a senior housing section would also provide better population diversity and stability.
I think the population density of the entire site could be better impacted by having some senior units that would naturally have fewer people living in individual units rather than a project completely devoid of any restricted-age housing.
I watched the Hawthorne site transform for being the L.A. Air Force Station/Base, to starting to have residential structures built on the site. I picked up my work van very close to the site.
Now when folks drive by the area, it looks starkly vacant and there are just several buildings a ways away from El Segundo Blvd that have cropped up on the site.
If there is such a demand for housing in the greater L.A. area as Mayor V. and too many others repeatedly state, then (not withstanding the current market and economic conditions) are more housing units being provided?
Maybe the 'need' simply has vanished?
Actually, there still may be a real need for more low-income housing in the greater L.A. area, but the developer/speculators for the Threesixty and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro projects never indicated they were willing to accept that need and provide housing in their speculative projects that would feel even some of that need.
It was also interesting to note in the article that the Developer of Threesixty was also wanting to build some single-family houses on the mixed-type project.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Now let's think about a related issue.
Just suppose the Developer of Threesixty worked much more closely with the U.S. Air Force to start work back up on building units at that site to provide housing for Air Force personnel and their families so much closer to the Air Force Base than in San Pedro?
Construction workers would be provided with jobs. There would be a lessening of traffic between El Segundo and San Pedro.
The Air Force would be able to get rid of its housing properties along 25th Street and more housing to members of the public would become available, in San Pedro.
Air pollution would be helped because fewer cars and bus trips between San Pedro and El Segundo would be necessary.
Time would be saved by many people.
I'm still looking for a down side regarding this idea.
Threesixty project will remain vacant
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 10:23:49 PM PST
More than a year after construction was halted on a high-end housing development on Hawthorne's west side, a black fence still surrounds the site and a sign informs visitors that the homes aren't for sale.
Threesixty at South Bay opened last year near Aviation and El Segundo boulevards with expectations that the development would attract young professionals and bring a nice chunk of property taxes to a city partially run down by thousands of cheap apartments.
But the houses didn't sell.
"There were essentially no sales when we had our grand opening in October of 2007," states a written proposal from the developer, William Lyon Homes. "The opening of the project last year was simply bad timing and market conditions continue to decline."
Representatives from William Lyon Homes did not return calls for comment.
Last week, the developer withdrew a plan it had submitted to the city's Planning Commission to lease the apartments in the face of opposition from homeowners groups and City Council members.
Dennis Wild, president of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors take pride in having a community of single-family homes.
"When people ask me where I'm from, I always say Hawthorne - even though a lot of people say Holly Glen," Wild said. "I've always said one of the reasons why it's a nice area is because we don't have any apartments."
Mary Franklin, a longtime resident and member of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said leasing the units could cause the neighborhood to deteriorate dramatically.
"Recently, we have seen people selling homes in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach to live in Hawthorne," Franklin wrote in an e-mail. "Rentals will destroy all the past successes accomplished and will only spread the already high rates of domestic violence and crime."
Threesixty at South Bay's infrastructure and common areas - two pools, a spa, a wine room, a gym and meeting rooms - have been built, but only seven of about 80 residential buildings have been constructed.
William Lyon Homes proposed building nearly 200 of the least expensive one- and two-bedroom units, called The Flats, in the center of the property and leasing them for $2,200 to $3,200 per month. A timeline for building the remaining single-family homes and multiunit buildings was not set.
The Flats housing units were advertised last year as being cheaper than the other model units, while still offering private garages, access to the pools, a gym and other amenities, as well as design features such as balconies, wood floors, granite countertops and walk-in closets.
Before they were taken off the market, The Flats model homes were listed from $500,000 to $700,000. The most expensive single-family home model was listed as nearly $1 million.
Last week, residents complained to the City Council that the leasing proposal was too vague. The developer said leasing would only be a temporary option, but did not give a timeline. Nor did the proposal say how long it would take to build the first phase of the project, or when the entire 625-unit development would be finished.
Del Aire Neighborhood Association President John Koppelman said he could support a plan to lease the homes if restrictions are imposed.
"We don't want it to stay as a ghost town forever," Koppelman said. "We recognize the way the economy and housing market is. They say they want to lease it on a temporary basis, but they don't define what temporary is."
William Lyon Homes representatives told homeowners groups that they will answer their concerns before making another proposal to lease the homes.
City Councilman Gary Parsons said the developer probably has a more difficult time selling the idea of leased units to Hawthorne residents because the city already has so many rentals. Many residents fear having a "Moneta Gardens West," he said.
Moneta Gardens is a low-income neighborhood on the east side of Hawthorne packed with high-density apartment buildings and rife with crime.
"Moneta Gardens has a transient population that doesn't vote, doesn't get involved in improving the community. We have too high a renter population already," said Parsons, who is against the developer's plan. "We'd like to balance that with more homeowners that care about the community getting better."
But Parsons acknowledged that there is a danger the developer will neglect the property and wait for the market to improve if the leasing proposal is not approved. That could mean living with a nearly 40-acre, unfinished, dusty lot for years.
"The developer has to maintain the property in good condition and keep the weeds down and provide security so we don't have vandalism," Parsons said.
El Segundo swapped the land where the development now sits in 2006 in a plan to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base from relocating to Colorado. The base was in danger of being closed because its facilities were deteriorated and seismically unsound. Both cities wanted to keep the base in the South Bay because about 50,000 jobs depend on it. The base was relocated across the street in a state-of-the-art facility, and its former lot was used for two housing developments - Threesixty and Fusion.
Councilman Danny Juarez said he wants the developer to turn the homes into housing for Air Force personnel. But that plan would not be profitable for William Lyon Homes, he said.
"I'm still convinced in my heart that the best way to deal with this is to work with the government, and maybe not put in the granite countertops. Make it a good place to live for the military," Juarez said.
On the northeast side of town near Van Ness Avenue and 120th Street, the Central Park 176-unit housing development also is stalled. Construction has begun, and homes were expected to hit the market around this time for $500,000 to $600,00, but none has been built.
A representative from Lee Homes, the Central Park developer, did not return a call for comment.
It is not clear when the housing and credit markets will return to a level that will satisfy developers, who bought when prices were high, to finish construction or sell, Koppelman said.
"I believe they should have some definition of what constitutes a better market for selling," Koppelman said. "They say they want to lease this until the market gets back. What does the market getting better mean? Is there a magic number?"
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article brought a fear the folks like me have if up to 1,196 units of non-age restricted condominiums are constructed at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
If any number of units at the Ponte Vista site become rentals, leases, or have rented out rooms, that would create a potentially extremely bad situation of just about everyone.
If folks are going to spend One Million Dollars or more on a multi-bedroom condominium unit at Ponte Vista and then be in an area where units are rented out and the population becomes more transitory, I don't know if any of those folks who really want a large luxurious condo in northwest San Pedro would pay to live in a project similar to what could be at Ponte Vista.
During the time the U.S. Navy had members and their families living at the site, Dodson Junior High School, as it was known at that time, was the most transitory school in the entire LAUSD system. More students moved into and out of its area over a year's time that at any other school in the District.
Having rental units and leased units available at Ponte Vista would mean that Dodson Middle School would see a much larger increase in students enrolling and then moving away than they have seen since the Navy housing was abandoned.
The number and nature of traffic patterns also changes where there are less stable neighborhoods, in terms of folks moving in and out of the area.
Even if there were as few as 775 condominium units built at the Ponte Vista site that have no age restricted units and no low income units because a density bonus was not applied, it still means too many folks would be moving in or out of the site each year.
One of the insurances that must be provided for whatever is built on the 61.53 acre site is to find ways to discourage having rental units within the project's site.
One way of doing that is to include some senior housing, I believe. First, I do still believe there are some seniors in this area who would like to live in senior housing at Ponte Vista.
I think a senior housing section would also provide better population diversity and stability.
I think the population density of the entire site could be better impacted by having some senior units that would naturally have fewer people living in individual units rather than a project completely devoid of any restricted-age housing.
I watched the Hawthorne site transform for being the L.A. Air Force Station/Base, to starting to have residential structures built on the site. I picked up my work van very close to the site.
Now when folks drive by the area, it looks starkly vacant and there are just several buildings a ways away from El Segundo Blvd that have cropped up on the site.
If there is such a demand for housing in the greater L.A. area as Mayor V. and too many others repeatedly state, then (not withstanding the current market and economic conditions) are more housing units being provided?
Maybe the 'need' simply has vanished?
Actually, there still may be a real need for more low-income housing in the greater L.A. area, but the developer/speculators for the Threesixty and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro projects never indicated they were willing to accept that need and provide housing in their speculative projects that would feel even some of that need.
It was also interesting to note in the article that the Developer of Threesixty was also wanting to build some single-family houses on the mixed-type project.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Now let's think about a related issue.
Just suppose the Developer of Threesixty worked much more closely with the U.S. Air Force to start work back up on building units at that site to provide housing for Air Force personnel and their families so much closer to the Air Force Base than in San Pedro?
Construction workers would be provided with jobs. There would be a lessening of traffic between El Segundo and San Pedro.
The Air Force would be able to get rid of its housing properties along 25th Street and more housing to members of the public would become available, in San Pedro.
Air pollution would be helped because fewer cars and bus trips between San Pedro and El Segundo would be necessary.
Time would be saved by many people.
I'm still looking for a down side regarding this idea.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
A Post From Ron Kaye's Blog
Here is a post from Ron Kaye's Blog: http://ronkayela.com/
City Planners Say "No" to Home Depot -- Full environmental study required
By Ron Kaye
Score another victory for community activists: The City Planning Department has rejected Home Depot's request for an exemption from conducting a full environmental assessment about the impact of converting a closed K-Mart store in Sunland-Tujunga into another giant home improvement center.
Here's the ruling issued today homedepoteir.pdf What city planners decided is that an exemption from the environmental study process is not appropriate because quite simply the store conversion is not "negligible'' as Home Depot -- a decision that will require a lengthy study and public debate.
The company has spent millions of dollars and used all its clout and gotten a lot of help from some city officials to ram this down the community's throat.
It has sued the city and the City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program has lost its credibility trying to run roughshod over opposition.
Yet, all that's happened is that Sunland-Tujunga has become a model of what residents can achieve when they organize.
Hundreds of people have gotten involved, taken action and raised their consciousness about the issues they face throughout the Sunland-Tujunga area. They have won battles to protect the historical nature of some neighborhoods and gotten special protections against mansionization among other victories.
But none is sweeter than than the long fight to make Home Depot comply with the law.
Home Depot got a building permit with no questions being asked three years ago, with no input from the community. A long and often vicious campaign followed as the community mobilized, set up When local residents found a websute and created enough political pressure to force the City Council to call the Planning Department to review the situation.
Home Depot sued and then put it on hold while the city's mediators trying to get around opponents and the planner went about the process of analyzing the company's claims that the store conversion was just a simple remodel with new signs and security lights.
The "No Home Depot" campaign focused on traffic impacts, toxic chemicals near schools, local businesses that would be harmed and many other issues. What they really wanted was a general merchandise store and a community center that would meet their needs.
Home Depot's response was to accuse the community of being racist and opposing day laborers hanging around the store as they do at most of the company's home improvement centsrs.
City Planners Say "No" to Home Depot -- Full environmental study required
By Ron Kaye
Score another victory for community activists: The City Planning Department has rejected Home Depot's request for an exemption from conducting a full environmental assessment about the impact of converting a closed K-Mart store in Sunland-Tujunga into another giant home improvement center.
Here's the ruling issued today homedepoteir.pdf What city planners decided is that an exemption from the environmental study process is not appropriate because quite simply the store conversion is not "negligible'' as Home Depot -- a decision that will require a lengthy study and public debate.
The company has spent millions of dollars and used all its clout and gotten a lot of help from some city officials to ram this down the community's throat.
It has sued the city and the City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program has lost its credibility trying to run roughshod over opposition.
Yet, all that's happened is that Sunland-Tujunga has become a model of what residents can achieve when they organize.
Hundreds of people have gotten involved, taken action and raised their consciousness about the issues they face throughout the Sunland-Tujunga area. They have won battles to protect the historical nature of some neighborhoods and gotten special protections against mansionization among other victories.
But none is sweeter than than the long fight to make Home Depot comply with the law.
Home Depot got a building permit with no questions being asked three years ago, with no input from the community. A long and often vicious campaign followed as the community mobilized, set up When local residents found a websute and created enough political pressure to force the City Council to call the Planning Department to review the situation.
Home Depot sued and then put it on hold while the city's mediators trying to get around opponents and the planner went about the process of analyzing the company's claims that the store conversion was just a simple remodel with new signs and security lights.
The "No Home Depot" campaign focused on traffic impacts, toxic chemicals near schools, local businesses that would be harmed and many other issues. What they really wanted was a general merchandise store and a community center that would meet their needs.
Home Depot's response was to accuse the community of being racist and opposing day laborers hanging around the store as they do at most of the company's home improvement centsrs.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Guidelines, The Planning Department, and Ms. Hahn
The Guidelines.
When the Planning Department issued its Report, with recommendations concerning the applicant's plans and guidelines that the Planning Department feels could provide for construction at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it brought forth some things that were very good and some things that were very bad.
This post will not be concerned with the recommendations. You can find those recommendations in other posts and on other sites.
The Guidelines set forth in the Report deal with what the Planning Department seems to feel would be acceptable levels of construction and types of construction on the 61.53 acre site.
The Guidelines suggest that up to 886-condominium units can be built on the site, without a density bonus being applied. With a density bonus, the number of units suggested move to up to 1,196 units could be built.
The Guidelines also include fifteen points suggesting amenities and other things for the site.
Significant questions have been raised about the Guidelines, whether they should have been included in the Report, how they were created, where did the data for those guidelines really come from, and what are the ramifications going to be, now that they have been published?
Already we have seen and heard from individuals who have offered their support for the Guidelines without much vetting of those Guidelines in public forums and with local groups.
Did members of the Planning Department work alongside local government officials and community groups before publishing the Guidelines?
Did the Planning Department offer to more prominent members of OUR community the opportunity to learn about the Guidelines and provide comments to the Planning Department before the Guidelines became public?
Is there a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?
Can the Guidelines be found legitimate to the majority of the members of OUR community?
If not, then what?
During the Area Planning Commission hearing, I listened intently to comments made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
I believe I heard he state her support for the Guidelines established by the Planning Department in its Report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Do members of OUR community support Ms. Hahn's advocacy of the Guidelines?
Does that really matter?
Can OUR community work together, using the Guidelines now apparently supported by Ms. Hahn to create a Ponte Vista site that is the best for OUR community?
Can and should members of OUR community work with other to make changes to those guidelines and ask for Councilwoman Hahn's support in that endeavor?
Personally I am not happy at all with the prospect of having 1,196 non-age restricted condos along Western Avenue. That number is still too many for that type of housing on that particular site. (Density bonus included)
The prospect that too many of those units would become rentals, leases, or have rooms rented out, is something I will continue to fight against.
886 units of non-age restricted condos, without the density, bonus would probably create a condo development that would not look very good in the area and would probably be built to lower standards to maximize profits for the builders and developer.
I do not think members of OUR community want to see a type of condo project that looks too similar to Miraleste Canyon Estates. That site was originally all apartments but today it is not very much to look at.
It was also with sadness that I heard the President of the Harbor Area Planning Commission claim no support for keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site with its current zoning.
I was dismayed that this server to the public would not reveal his opinion as to why he doesn't want R1 at the site. I think even though he is a volunteer, his position as a public representative means he should provide to that public, his reasoning for support or opposition. This is more true when it also is the fact that Mr. Ponce's recommendation is the only one of the HAPC members' that the City Planning Commission may hear.
I hold no hope that Ms. Hahn will continue to support keeping the current zoning at the site if an application comes forward that looks like the Guidelines set by the Planning Department.
I have always recognized, even when I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee, that Ms. Hahn could be persuades to support zoning other than R1 if a development came along that she could put her support behind.
Keeping the site with its current zoning will always be an uphill struggle and one that not that many folks in OUR community seem to truly support.
In March, 2007, when the petitions were brought to Ms. Hahn, I finally believed that the current zoning would remain on the site as long as Bob continued with his ridiculous plans.
Those plans are now gone and we can only wait to see if he or someone else comes up with plans that fit in with the Guidelines. If that does happen and Ms. Hahn continues her support for those Guidelines, then I think R1 will become history, too.
So maybe we need to work on getting the Guidelines changed and changing the minds of Ms. Hahn and others.
When the Planning Department issued its Report, with recommendations concerning the applicant's plans and guidelines that the Planning Department feels could provide for construction at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it brought forth some things that were very good and some things that were very bad.
This post will not be concerned with the recommendations. You can find those recommendations in other posts and on other sites.
The Guidelines set forth in the Report deal with what the Planning Department seems to feel would be acceptable levels of construction and types of construction on the 61.53 acre site.
The Guidelines suggest that up to 886-condominium units can be built on the site, without a density bonus being applied. With a density bonus, the number of units suggested move to up to 1,196 units could be built.
The Guidelines also include fifteen points suggesting amenities and other things for the site.
Significant questions have been raised about the Guidelines, whether they should have been included in the Report, how they were created, where did the data for those guidelines really come from, and what are the ramifications going to be, now that they have been published?
Already we have seen and heard from individuals who have offered their support for the Guidelines without much vetting of those Guidelines in public forums and with local groups.
Did members of the Planning Department work alongside local government officials and community groups before publishing the Guidelines?
Did the Planning Department offer to more prominent members of OUR community the opportunity to learn about the Guidelines and provide comments to the Planning Department before the Guidelines became public?
Is there a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?
Can the Guidelines be found legitimate to the majority of the members of OUR community?
If not, then what?
During the Area Planning Commission hearing, I listened intently to comments made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
I believe I heard he state her support for the Guidelines established by the Planning Department in its Report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Do members of OUR community support Ms. Hahn's advocacy of the Guidelines?
Does that really matter?
Can OUR community work together, using the Guidelines now apparently supported by Ms. Hahn to create a Ponte Vista site that is the best for OUR community?
Can and should members of OUR community work with other to make changes to those guidelines and ask for Councilwoman Hahn's support in that endeavor?
Personally I am not happy at all with the prospect of having 1,196 non-age restricted condos along Western Avenue. That number is still too many for that type of housing on that particular site. (Density bonus included)
The prospect that too many of those units would become rentals, leases, or have rooms rented out, is something I will continue to fight against.
886 units of non-age restricted condos, without the density, bonus would probably create a condo development that would not look very good in the area and would probably be built to lower standards to maximize profits for the builders and developer.
I do not think members of OUR community want to see a type of condo project that looks too similar to Miraleste Canyon Estates. That site was originally all apartments but today it is not very much to look at.
It was also with sadness that I heard the President of the Harbor Area Planning Commission claim no support for keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site with its current zoning.
I was dismayed that this server to the public would not reveal his opinion as to why he doesn't want R1 at the site. I think even though he is a volunteer, his position as a public representative means he should provide to that public, his reasoning for support or opposition. This is more true when it also is the fact that Mr. Ponce's recommendation is the only one of the HAPC members' that the City Planning Commission may hear.
I hold no hope that Ms. Hahn will continue to support keeping the current zoning at the site if an application comes forward that looks like the Guidelines set by the Planning Department.
I have always recognized, even when I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee, that Ms. Hahn could be persuades to support zoning other than R1 if a development came along that she could put her support behind.
Keeping the site with its current zoning will always be an uphill struggle and one that not that many folks in OUR community seem to truly support.
In March, 2007, when the petitions were brought to Ms. Hahn, I finally believed that the current zoning would remain on the site as long as Bob continued with his ridiculous plans.
Those plans are now gone and we can only wait to see if he or someone else comes up with plans that fit in with the Guidelines. If that does happen and Ms. Hahn continues her support for those Guidelines, then I think R1 will become history, too.
So maybe we need to work on getting the Guidelines changed and changing the minds of Ms. Hahn and others.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Continuation of the Ponte Vista Matter Has Been Confirmed!
The applicant for Ponte Vista at San Pedro has requested a 45-day continuance on holding the City Planning Commission meeting concerning the project.
I can now confirm as of 3:44 PM on Monday December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department has agreed to the continuance.
According to a senior spokesperson for the development, the applicant had asked for the continuance in order to study more "options" concerning the project.
The December 2, Harbor Area Planning Commission is still scheduled and it can go on even without a quorum because there will be nothing decided during that meeting and comments from the public will be taken.
The December 2 meeting is important to those who oppose Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I have been given to believe that the Outreach Team is not planning on having a large semi-organized group of supporters attending that meeting.
Stay 'tuned' to this blog for further information to be posted as I learn it.I will try to update this blog as soon as I learn more because as Katy Morgan said so well, "It's my job."
No new date for the City Planning Commission to hear from the applicant has been set.
I can now confirm as of 3:44 PM on Monday December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department has agreed to the continuance.
According to a senior spokesperson for the development, the applicant had asked for the continuance in order to study more "options" concerning the project.
The December 2, Harbor Area Planning Commission is still scheduled and it can go on even without a quorum because there will be nothing decided during that meeting and comments from the public will be taken.
The December 2 meeting is important to those who oppose Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I have been given to believe that the Outreach Team is not planning on having a large semi-organized group of supporters attending that meeting.
Stay 'tuned' to this blog for further information to be posted as I learn it.I will try to update this blog as soon as I learn more because as Katy Morgan said so well, "It's my job."
No new date for the City Planning Commission to hear from the applicant has been set.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
City Place Santa Ana Prices Tumble
Here is an advertisement for City Place Santa Ana, probably the one project of Bob's that has found actual buyers, recently. Perhaps only some buyers, but buyers they are.
At the beginning of the month a marketing firmed used and auction tool to try and sell 114 units at City Place.
I still don't know how many of those units sold, but I have posted information about the minimum bid prices for those units.
It looks like the marketing company is now using some of the auction information to try and sell off more units, without the auction type of sales.
Please click over image to enlarge.
I can't say what profits might be generated if units sell at the listed prices, but look at the prices the units were originally offered at.
Home # 122 has been reduced by $239,990. What might the profit be after a 34% reduction in price?
What would the profit have been if the unit sold for the asking price of $704,990.
At the beginning of the month a marketing firmed used and auction tool to try and sell 114 units at City Place.
I still don't know how many of those units sold, but I have posted information about the minimum bid prices for those units.
It looks like the marketing company is now using some of the auction information to try and sell off more units, without the auction type of sales.
Please click over image to enlarge.I can't say what profits might be generated if units sell at the listed prices, but look at the prices the units were originally offered at.
Home # 122 has been reduced by $239,990. What might the profit be after a 34% reduction in price?
What would the profit have been if the unit sold for the asking price of $704,990.
Monday, November 24, 2008
And More News Keeps Coming In
Mr. Art Pedroza is the publisher of the Orange Juice Blog at: www.orangejuiceblog.com
It continues to appear that Bob Bisno is not have the greatest of the last few months of 2008.
Here is Mr. Pedroza's post from Sunday November 23, 2008....that would be yesterday!
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Developer Robert Bisno trying to sell his house for over $29 million
Developer Robert Bisno, who recently pulled out of an attempt to reshape the City of Baldwin Park’s downtown area via eminent domain, has now put his Beverly Hills home up for sale, according to the Celebrity Big Time Listings blog:
“In a Big Time Listings exclusive, we can report on the listing of the five-bedroom mansion, which was built in 2002 and which sits on a 5.133-acre parcel at 66 Beverly Park. The mansion just came on the market yesterday. Its owner, developer Robert Bisno, has been well-documented for his battles over foreclosure of this estate, as well as pending litigation with the North Beverly Park homeowners association regarding their having installed gates on the property, a dinosaur topiary and a rather colorful, eight-foot abstract sculpture (of what some say is a woman on her back with her legs in the air!) in their motor court. Take a look at this 2006 New York Times article for more on the Bisnos’ conflicts with their neighbors.”
To add insult to injury, Bisno has been having to use human signs to advertise auctions of the overpriced luxury condos he built at the City Place in Santa Ana. His proposed 31 story luxury condo tower was also not approved at the last Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting. They put it off until their next meeting.
Bisno has given thousands of dollars to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and his crooked Council team. Perhaps he should have spent that money elsewhere? I’m sure he would love to have it back right about now…"
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are all free to speculate why Mr. Bisno is attempting to unload his personal home while he is attempting to have others buy homes at City Place Santa Ana.
It continues to appear that Bob Bisno is not have the greatest of the last few months of 2008.
Here is Mr. Pedroza's post from Sunday November 23, 2008....that would be yesterday!
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Developer Robert Bisno trying to sell his house for over $29 million
Developer Robert Bisno, who recently pulled out of an attempt to reshape the City of Baldwin Park’s downtown area via eminent domain, has now put his Beverly Hills home up for sale, according to the Celebrity Big Time Listings blog:
“In a Big Time Listings exclusive, we can report on the listing of the five-bedroom mansion, which was built in 2002 and which sits on a 5.133-acre parcel at 66 Beverly Park. The mansion just came on the market yesterday. Its owner, developer Robert Bisno, has been well-documented for his battles over foreclosure of this estate, as well as pending litigation with the North Beverly Park homeowners association regarding their having installed gates on the property, a dinosaur topiary and a rather colorful, eight-foot abstract sculpture (of what some say is a woman on her back with her legs in the air!) in their motor court. Take a look at this 2006 New York Times article for more on the Bisnos’ conflicts with their neighbors.”
To add insult to injury, Bisno has been having to use human signs to advertise auctions of the overpriced luxury condos he built at the City Place in Santa Ana. His proposed 31 story luxury condo tower was also not approved at the last Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting. They put it off until their next meeting.
Bisno has given thousands of dollars to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and his crooked Council team. Perhaps he should have spent that money elsewhere? I’m sure he would love to have it back right about now…"
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are all free to speculate why Mr. Bisno is attempting to unload his personal home while he is attempting to have others buy homes at City Place Santa Ana.
The Party Is Over For Now
I hope everyone who seeks to keep the Ponte Vista site with its current zoning and only have R1, single-family, detached houses on lots of not less than 5,00 square feet knows, that the weekend of premature celebration is OVER and now it is time to face some real realities.
It is time for people who have criticized and condemned members of OUR community who continue to fight for R1, to stop all of that stuff and understand several things.
The report released last Friday did not suggest or recommend that the current zoning necessarily remain at the Ponte Vista site. The guidelines established in the report were not created by anyone belonging to R Neighborhoods Are 1!
We did absolutely nothing wrong in objecting to Bob's plans and we carry no responsibility for what was written in the report.
It is not our fault that the report repudiated just about every element of Bob's plans and we share no blame or guilt for what was published.
In fact, the report also created a need for 'our' side to work even harder to attempt to maintain the current zoning at the site, now that more obstacles have been placed in the way.
Yes, some of us were happy with the news that was more bad for Bob and his supporters than it was for us. But there was some poor news in the report for our side as well.
The report contained information that proves there is no reason to believe that our side was wrong to fight Bob's plans for such a giant development. In truth, the report suggests 'our' side actually helped save OUR community from a project that surely was too large and which was established as such by the city Planning Department.
So for anyone to continue to make foul, improper, and ignorant statements about R Neighborhoods Are 1 or anyone who favors keeping the current zoning at the Ponte Vista site, it is now time for them to back off, silence themselves, and.......GET OVER IT!
Now folks, the report did place many of us in a pickle, unfortunately.
The report's fifteen points that make up the guidelines for what the Planning Department suggests could be built at the site does create problems that need to be overcome.
Starting today and continuing on as long as necessary, it is time to redouble our efforts if we truly want to keep the site in northwest San Pedro with its current zoning.
Our cause continues and I do not believe there is any reason to slow down one bit. I hope everyone visits http://www.rneighborhoodsare1.org/ and looks for the pages where you can help donate to the group's defense fund. We are going to need your help now, even more than before.
As easy or tough as it has been to fight against Bob's plans, we are now going to be up against the Planning Department and possibly some elected officials in the coming weeks and months.
It is unclear whether Councilwoman Hahn will want to look favorably towards the guidelines now established by the Planning Department, at some point. She is up for re-election, but she doesn't appear to have any real opposition.
If saving the current zoning means the group has to go up against the Planning Department, then that may become part of the future of the group.
Now that we all know the guidelines established for the Ponte Vista site by the Planning Department, we need to continue to fight for what the group wants.
We need to remain ready, steadfast to our goals, firm in our convictions for the group, able to provide the best results for OUR community, and be willing to continue the fights that will certainly come.
Even after Bob finally has his day with the Los Angeles City Council, R Neighborhoods Are 1 will still be here and the group will need your continued support with your words, you actions, and your monetary contributions.
I am still here to make buttons. This blog will remain to help fight the good fight. We still need to remain together.
Please continue to visit both of my blogs concerning Ponte Vista long after Bob has had his day and his you-know-what handed to him by the City Council, on a silver platter.
There will be other times to celebrate for a short period of time in the coming months, but long term, we've only just begun.
It is time for people who have criticized and condemned members of OUR community who continue to fight for R1, to stop all of that stuff and understand several things.
The report released last Friday did not suggest or recommend that the current zoning necessarily remain at the Ponte Vista site. The guidelines established in the report were not created by anyone belonging to R Neighborhoods Are 1!
We did absolutely nothing wrong in objecting to Bob's plans and we carry no responsibility for what was written in the report.
It is not our fault that the report repudiated just about every element of Bob's plans and we share no blame or guilt for what was published.
In fact, the report also created a need for 'our' side to work even harder to attempt to maintain the current zoning at the site, now that more obstacles have been placed in the way.
Yes, some of us were happy with the news that was more bad for Bob and his supporters than it was for us. But there was some poor news in the report for our side as well.
The report contained information that proves there is no reason to believe that our side was wrong to fight Bob's plans for such a giant development. In truth, the report suggests 'our' side actually helped save OUR community from a project that surely was too large and which was established as such by the city Planning Department.
So for anyone to continue to make foul, improper, and ignorant statements about R Neighborhoods Are 1 or anyone who favors keeping the current zoning at the Ponte Vista site, it is now time for them to back off, silence themselves, and.......GET OVER IT!
Now folks, the report did place many of us in a pickle, unfortunately.
The report's fifteen points that make up the guidelines for what the Planning Department suggests could be built at the site does create problems that need to be overcome.
Starting today and continuing on as long as necessary, it is time to redouble our efforts if we truly want to keep the site in northwest San Pedro with its current zoning.
Our cause continues and I do not believe there is any reason to slow down one bit. I hope everyone visits http://www.rneighborhoodsare1.org/ and looks for the pages where you can help donate to the group's defense fund. We are going to need your help now, even more than before.
As easy or tough as it has been to fight against Bob's plans, we are now going to be up against the Planning Department and possibly some elected officials in the coming weeks and months.
It is unclear whether Councilwoman Hahn will want to look favorably towards the guidelines now established by the Planning Department, at some point. She is up for re-election, but she doesn't appear to have any real opposition.
If saving the current zoning means the group has to go up against the Planning Department, then that may become part of the future of the group.
Now that we all know the guidelines established for the Ponte Vista site by the Planning Department, we need to continue to fight for what the group wants.
We need to remain ready, steadfast to our goals, firm in our convictions for the group, able to provide the best results for OUR community, and be willing to continue the fights that will certainly come.
Even after Bob finally has his day with the Los Angeles City Council, R Neighborhoods Are 1 will still be here and the group will need your continued support with your words, you actions, and your monetary contributions.
I am still here to make buttons. This blog will remain to help fight the good fight. We still need to remain together.
Please continue to visit both of my blogs concerning Ponte Vista long after Bob has had his day and his you-know-what handed to him by the City Council, on a silver platter.
There will be other times to celebrate for a short period of time in the coming months, but long term, we've only just begun.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Humor In The Middle Of The Weekend
Time out for humor.
What are the magic words a mortician uses when he practices magic as a hobby?
"Abra Cadaver"
What are the magic words a mortician uses when he practices magic as a hobby?
"Abra Cadaver"
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The Morning After
This blog receives far fewer readers than www.pontevista.blogspot.com and that now seems even better for me.
I can use this blog to impart information about R Neighborhoods Are 1, just like I still do on the other blog.
I feel more comfortable venting and offering more outside opinions on this blog, too.
It is with that reasoning that I am creating this post.
Terri appeared much more excited that I appeared all last night after the news broke and the Report was published.
Terri was so pleased, she bought me Ice Cream, something I should not have.
She also had some trouble sleeping because she was thinking about all that we have gone through with everything associated with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I finally got to sleep after I created a page of alternate sayings as to what has and may happen to Bob since the publication of the Report.
One of the cleanest and least offensive creations was: His wall-mounted time reporting device was cleared of accumulated debris. This was offered as an opinion of what the planners wrote about his plans for Ponte Vista.
I saved all the creations and only sent it to one person who I knew would get a chuckle. That fellow also has a wicked sense of humor.
This morning broke with the article in The Daily Breeze which I read online shortly after Ms. Littlejohn posted it.
I am sadly mystified that Mr. Dominguez still seems to be so supportive of Bob's current plans.
What is it going to take for too many of Bob's supporters to realize that Bob's plans can never happen at the site?
How sad it is that some of our most prominent members of OUR community still seem to cling to the impossible?
I have stated time and time again that I do support some senior housing at the site, but for the life of me, I cannot help but wonder why so many people can't see the light of day and understand that following Bob is following a lost cause.
Earlier today I authored a currently 6-page article on my plan for the Ponte Vista site.
There is nothing in my plan that calls for the maintenance of the current zoning at the site and it still includes all three types of housing Bob wanted to build.
I feel my plan fits quite well into the guidelines for a revised plan for Ponte Vista, yet I am going to need some help from both supporters and opponents to get passed the opposition by the Planning Department for senior housing on the site.
Isn't it time for us to come together rather than remaining apart? What more evidence do supporters want or need to illustrate to them that Bob's current plans should be only a memory this morning.
Why continue to fight a hopeless cause? Why not work on something that includes some of what Bob wants and what the Planning Department thinks is workable?
I completely consider Bob's current plans to have passed away yesterday. It may be informal, but it should be considered that all things considered, there is really no chance that his application can be approved. This is my opinion, but I believe it is realistic, reasonable, and even respectful to everyone.
I have given myself the opportunity to change my mind several times concerning the Ponte Vista project.
With the first learning about the project during a dinner with a special couple, I was immediately excited and had positive thoughts concerning what I was learning.
From that time in 2005 or 2005 and until May 29, 2007, I remained open minded to may concepts and compromises.
Late in the evening of May 29, 2007 I finally had to come to grips that Bob's plans back then were for a project that was simply too large and because of his consistent unwillingness to really deal with compromise proposals, I had to state that as long as Bob would not compromise enough, the site had to remain, R1 NO COMPROMISE!
That statement still remains valid, to this day. But I do understand that members of OUR community, including elected officials consider that something will be built at the site.
Therefore, I began to consider ideas that do not fit with either Bob's current plans or strictly R1 zoning.
The number of units in my plan considers the ability to create a great development that would not be too overcrowded and put too many obstructions and obstacles into OUR community.
To find out that my plan actually can fit within the guidelines is something I feel should be thought of as serious and workable by more members of OUR community.
I have had complaints from people who state correctly that I am not an urban planner or an architect. I submit to all of you that my plan is much closer to what real urban planners and architects consider for Ponte Vista than those who follow Bob and his group.
For those of you who continue to back Bob's plans and ridicule me or my plans, perhaps it is time for you to look in the mirror and view who the real persons are that have helped doom Bob's plans.
You should also look to the leader of your groups and Bob's intransigence concerning real compromise.
Perhaps you followed Bob too far over the cliff and now you are beyond the branches that you could have grabbed on to.
There is a place for some of what Bob wanted and it can be built at the Ponte Vista site. It may be built by other developers, but there are some elements that should be provided in OUR community.
If my plans fly in the face of my fellow members of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee, well then, "T.S.!" (You could conclude that this is 'tough situation' or you can conclude what I really mean.)
As nobody should be bound to follow Bob lock-step like some seem to continue to do, nobody should be bound to follow everything R Neighborhoods Are 1 suggests.
It is true that the Steering Committee and myself included should follow the will of the more than 11,000 people who signed the R1 petition, and make sure Bob does not receive approval of his application to change the current zoning.
But that is probably already growing colder on a hard slab and only confined to bad memories.
Fight on I must and fight on we must to ensure that Bob's application and everything else he currently requests is voted down, ultimately by the Los Angeles City Council.
It would help if more supporters of Bob's would look into themselves and question why they continue to support an impossibility and not work toward the possible and realistic.
Who knows though, the weekend has just begun.
I can use this blog to impart information about R Neighborhoods Are 1, just like I still do on the other blog.
I feel more comfortable venting and offering more outside opinions on this blog, too.
It is with that reasoning that I am creating this post.
Terri appeared much more excited that I appeared all last night after the news broke and the Report was published.
Terri was so pleased, she bought me Ice Cream, something I should not have.
She also had some trouble sleeping because she was thinking about all that we have gone through with everything associated with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I finally got to sleep after I created a page of alternate sayings as to what has and may happen to Bob since the publication of the Report.
One of the cleanest and least offensive creations was: His wall-mounted time reporting device was cleared of accumulated debris. This was offered as an opinion of what the planners wrote about his plans for Ponte Vista.
I saved all the creations and only sent it to one person who I knew would get a chuckle. That fellow also has a wicked sense of humor.
This morning broke with the article in The Daily Breeze which I read online shortly after Ms. Littlejohn posted it.
I am sadly mystified that Mr. Dominguez still seems to be so supportive of Bob's current plans.
What is it going to take for too many of Bob's supporters to realize that Bob's plans can never happen at the site?
How sad it is that some of our most prominent members of OUR community still seem to cling to the impossible?
I have stated time and time again that I do support some senior housing at the site, but for the life of me, I cannot help but wonder why so many people can't see the light of day and understand that following Bob is following a lost cause.
Earlier today I authored a currently 6-page article on my plan for the Ponte Vista site.
There is nothing in my plan that calls for the maintenance of the current zoning at the site and it still includes all three types of housing Bob wanted to build.
I feel my plan fits quite well into the guidelines for a revised plan for Ponte Vista, yet I am going to need some help from both supporters and opponents to get passed the opposition by the Planning Department for senior housing on the site.
Isn't it time for us to come together rather than remaining apart? What more evidence do supporters want or need to illustrate to them that Bob's current plans should be only a memory this morning.
Why continue to fight a hopeless cause? Why not work on something that includes some of what Bob wants and what the Planning Department thinks is workable?
I completely consider Bob's current plans to have passed away yesterday. It may be informal, but it should be considered that all things considered, there is really no chance that his application can be approved. This is my opinion, but I believe it is realistic, reasonable, and even respectful to everyone.
I have given myself the opportunity to change my mind several times concerning the Ponte Vista project.
With the first learning about the project during a dinner with a special couple, I was immediately excited and had positive thoughts concerning what I was learning.
From that time in 2005 or 2005 and until May 29, 2007, I remained open minded to may concepts and compromises.
Late in the evening of May 29, 2007 I finally had to come to grips that Bob's plans back then were for a project that was simply too large and because of his consistent unwillingness to really deal with compromise proposals, I had to state that as long as Bob would not compromise enough, the site had to remain, R1 NO COMPROMISE!
That statement still remains valid, to this day. But I do understand that members of OUR community, including elected officials consider that something will be built at the site.
Therefore, I began to consider ideas that do not fit with either Bob's current plans or strictly R1 zoning.
The number of units in my plan considers the ability to create a great development that would not be too overcrowded and put too many obstructions and obstacles into OUR community.
To find out that my plan actually can fit within the guidelines is something I feel should be thought of as serious and workable by more members of OUR community.
I have had complaints from people who state correctly that I am not an urban planner or an architect. I submit to all of you that my plan is much closer to what real urban planners and architects consider for Ponte Vista than those who follow Bob and his group.
For those of you who continue to back Bob's plans and ridicule me or my plans, perhaps it is time for you to look in the mirror and view who the real persons are that have helped doom Bob's plans.
You should also look to the leader of your groups and Bob's intransigence concerning real compromise.
Perhaps you followed Bob too far over the cliff and now you are beyond the branches that you could have grabbed on to.
There is a place for some of what Bob wanted and it can be built at the Ponte Vista site. It may be built by other developers, but there are some elements that should be provided in OUR community.
If my plans fly in the face of my fellow members of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee, well then, "T.S.!" (You could conclude that this is 'tough situation' or you can conclude what I really mean.)
As nobody should be bound to follow Bob lock-step like some seem to continue to do, nobody should be bound to follow everything R Neighborhoods Are 1 suggests.
It is true that the Steering Committee and myself included should follow the will of the more than 11,000 people who signed the R1 petition, and make sure Bob does not receive approval of his application to change the current zoning.
But that is probably already growing colder on a hard slab and only confined to bad memories.
Fight on I must and fight on we must to ensure that Bob's application and everything else he currently requests is voted down, ultimately by the Los Angeles City Council.
It would help if more supporters of Bob's would look into themselves and question why they continue to support an impossibility and not work toward the possible and realistic.
Who knows though, the weekend has just begun.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Response From the Ponte Vista Outreach Team
I consider it only fair that I post the response to the Report by the Department of City Planning, by the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Outreach Team.
It was published on their blog a little earlier this evening.
This post will not opine on the following statement:
Ponte Vista Specific Plan Denied — Our Response
We are deeply disappointed to inform you that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department has issued a staff recommendation that denies the proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan.
The staff report did not recommend a single family home development; however, it also did not recommend a unit count high enough to achieve many of the community benefits planned for Ponte Vista. The staff report recommends a unit count in the range of up to 1,200 units with a state approved density bonus.
The Planning Department has had the proposed Ponte Vista specific plan for over two years and has not commented or provided staff input on the plan.
We find it sad that the department put the community through two years of discussion without mentioning the concerns listed in the recommendation. Ponte Vista paid for a full time city planner to work on the details of specific plan with the development team and the community and that obviously did not happen.
We look forward to bringing our project to the City Planning Commission on Thursday, December 11. We will be in front of appointed leaders who put good land use ahead of politics as we pursue our vision of a truly mixed income neighborhood that will provide the maximum benefit to the community.
Please contact me if you have any questions at (310) 241 – 0699.
I want to personally thank you for your continued support.
Elise Swanson
It was published on their blog a little earlier this evening.
This post will not opine on the following statement:
Ponte Vista Specific Plan Denied — Our Response
We are deeply disappointed to inform you that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department has issued a staff recommendation that denies the proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan.
The staff report did not recommend a single family home development; however, it also did not recommend a unit count high enough to achieve many of the community benefits planned for Ponte Vista. The staff report recommends a unit count in the range of up to 1,200 units with a state approved density bonus.
The Planning Department has had the proposed Ponte Vista specific plan for over two years and has not commented or provided staff input on the plan.
We find it sad that the department put the community through two years of discussion without mentioning the concerns listed in the recommendation. Ponte Vista paid for a full time city planner to work on the details of specific plan with the development team and the community and that obviously did not happen.
We look forward to bringing our project to the City Planning Commission on Thursday, December 11. We will be in front of appointed leaders who put good land use ahead of politics as we pursue our vision of a truly mixed income neighborhood that will provide the maximum benefit to the community.
Please contact me if you have any questions at (310) 241 – 0699.
I want to personally thank you for your continued support.
Elise Swanson
Recommendations From the Planning Department
With the release of the recommendations by the Planning Department I feel it is important that we all learn some lessons from the real urban planners, architects, staff, and managers of planning as to what they feel could be built at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Below are the four pages of the 37 Page report that deals with what planners suggest could be built at Ponte Vista.
I will post more comments below.
Please click over images to enlarge.
Below are the four pages of the 37 Page report that deals with what planners suggest could be built at Ponte Vista.
I will post more comments below.
Please click over images to enlarge.
As I read the pages I can understand that R1 is not necessarily the type of zoning planners suggest should remain on the site.
Because I have had a 'dream' or 'wish' that does not include any R1 zoning remaining on the land, I was pleased that my feelings seemed to be confirmed by city planners.
I am still quite surprised that the number of units recommended by planners is somewhat smaller than my 'dream' of 1,080 total units was. But seeing that my total number of units in my 'wish' falls well within the density bonus concept, is also comforting.
Of course, as always, and forever, as long as Bob is not willing to change his current plans, if he still has any, and until plans are brought for a real compromise, then the site must remain R1, NO COMPROMISE!
Bob has had more than plenty of time to work with others to create a reasonable compromise.
Don't Gloat!
Folks, this is not the time to gloat, boast, or celebrate too loudly.
There is still much to do and it is our responsibility to attempt to bring OUR community back together after Bob ends his bid for his current plans.
In reality, Bob either has to immediately learn from the recommendations created by the Planning Department and create a new application that is more in line with those recommendations, or simply put an end to his current plans and either sits on the land for a few years, or tries to sell off the land that is now probably worth about half of what he paid for it.
I charge that Bob has done some real damage to OUR community and the vast differences between his scheme and what the City Planners suggest could be built, demonstrate that he seemed to be more about clearing more profit than he was about helping out many in OUR community.
There are some very good San Pedrans that probably will have some egg on their faces, but I am still a bit hard-pressed to let many of them off that easily.
I have continually called for community members, with Bob and other, to come up with compromise proposals that are reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful to all members of OUR community. Yet, my phone remained silent and my inbox remained empty from those who both support Bob's plans, whatever they may be, and consider themselves 'community leaders.'
It is long passed time that these 'community leaders' realize that they may have been had by supporting a project that the developer should have known could never be approved.
But as much as I may have some anger with these 'community leaders' we all need to understand that they also may have been misled by Bob and his Outreach Team.
That is still not enough, though. It is the responsibility of all the members of OUR community who have been apart on the issues surrounding Ponte Vista to come back together and actually work for a project that does reflect what the community really wants and needs and also can find approval from the agencies and government citizens pay for.
There is a whole list of good people living in OUR community that need to find closure with their support for Bob and his concepts for Ponte Vista.
One of the most disturbing parts of the Report deals with senior housing. This type of housing was seemingly supported by a great number of people. The sad truth is that the plans supplied by Bob were so completely obliterated by the City Planning Department, it makes many folks feel they may have been misled, including me.
I do and did wish for some senior housing at Ponte Vista. I wanted it to be placed on the most southern end of the site because that is closest to the stores. This was something Bob completely repudiated. It now appears Bob was wrong and I wasn't.
There is a unknown number of seniors who wish for more options in San Pedro. The options provided by Bob have been deemed completely unworkable, and more than a few reasons have been given.
These senior citizens may have provided the backbone for the most vocal and active types of support for Bob's plans.
I feel OUR community must not ignore these good people and work with them for some kind of resolution.
I don't see how any supporters of Bob's plans can defend those plans when those plans are up against what was released by the Planning Department.
It is also thought that there will be some opponents of Bob's plans who will not necessarily be as 'nice' as they should be. I hope they are very few and quite apart from the rest of us.
However, I may write some fairly foul things in the future. I have been particularly attacked in many forms for my views which I still consider much nicer than the views of many others.
I have endured quite a lot of foul-fingered writers who supported Bob's plans. I continue to be somewhat attacked for my views, but I respect the fellow doing the attacking and he has many contributions to OUR community. He and I happen to disagree about many things regarding Ponte Vista but we both considered senior housing to be important, at the site.
There is still much to do and it is our responsibility to attempt to bring OUR community back together after Bob ends his bid for his current plans.
In reality, Bob either has to immediately learn from the recommendations created by the Planning Department and create a new application that is more in line with those recommendations, or simply put an end to his current plans and either sits on the land for a few years, or tries to sell off the land that is now probably worth about half of what he paid for it.
I charge that Bob has done some real damage to OUR community and the vast differences between his scheme and what the City Planners suggest could be built, demonstrate that he seemed to be more about clearing more profit than he was about helping out many in OUR community.
There are some very good San Pedrans that probably will have some egg on their faces, but I am still a bit hard-pressed to let many of them off that easily.
I have continually called for community members, with Bob and other, to come up with compromise proposals that are reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful to all members of OUR community. Yet, my phone remained silent and my inbox remained empty from those who both support Bob's plans, whatever they may be, and consider themselves 'community leaders.'
It is long passed time that these 'community leaders' realize that they may have been had by supporting a project that the developer should have known could never be approved.
But as much as I may have some anger with these 'community leaders' we all need to understand that they also may have been misled by Bob and his Outreach Team.
That is still not enough, though. It is the responsibility of all the members of OUR community who have been apart on the issues surrounding Ponte Vista to come back together and actually work for a project that does reflect what the community really wants and needs and also can find approval from the agencies and government citizens pay for.
There is a whole list of good people living in OUR community that need to find closure with their support for Bob and his concepts for Ponte Vista.
One of the most disturbing parts of the Report deals with senior housing. This type of housing was seemingly supported by a great number of people. The sad truth is that the plans supplied by Bob were so completely obliterated by the City Planning Department, it makes many folks feel they may have been misled, including me.
I do and did wish for some senior housing at Ponte Vista. I wanted it to be placed on the most southern end of the site because that is closest to the stores. This was something Bob completely repudiated. It now appears Bob was wrong and I wasn't.
There is a unknown number of seniors who wish for more options in San Pedro. The options provided by Bob have been deemed completely unworkable, and more than a few reasons have been given.
These senior citizens may have provided the backbone for the most vocal and active types of support for Bob's plans.
I feel OUR community must not ignore these good people and work with them for some kind of resolution.
I don't see how any supporters of Bob's plans can defend those plans when those plans are up against what was released by the Planning Department.
It is also thought that there will be some opponents of Bob's plans who will not necessarily be as 'nice' as they should be. I hope they are very few and quite apart from the rest of us.
However, I may write some fairly foul things in the future. I have been particularly attacked in many forms for my views which I still consider much nicer than the views of many others.
I have endured quite a lot of foul-fingered writers who supported Bob's plans. I continue to be somewhat attacked for my views, but I respect the fellow doing the attacking and he has many contributions to OUR community. He and I happen to disagree about many things regarding Ponte Vista but we both considered senior housing to be important, at the site.
Baldwin Park Saved From Bob Bisno!
Team Bisno’s eminent domain plans in Baldwin Park fail
By Art Pedroza, http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/:
“City officials say Bisno Development Co. is pulling out of a contentious, multimillion-dollar plan to revitalize more than 100 acres of downtown Baldwin Park, citing the economic downturn,” according to the Whittier Daily News.
Our readers may recall that this project included abusive use of eminent domain to take over businesses that the Baldwin Park City Council wanted to oust out of their downtown area. That plan totally backfired! “The contentious project spurred the formation of a citizens’ action group in Baldwin Park and is in part the grounds of a recall campaign targeting three City Council members.”
Make no mistake - the failure of this Bisno project is a kick to the face of Bisno and his heartless team and to the lame Baldwin Park City Council. I have a feeling those folks ARE going to be recalled.
I wrote a recent article about how a Bisno representative allegedly destroyed a resident’s video camera at a public meeting, which you may read by clicking here. And this article explains exactly how much opposition Bisno was facing in Baldwin Park.
These are dark times for Team Bisno! They had big plans for Baldwin Park, but that is just the tip of their iceberg of suffering. Their vaunted City Place development in Santa Ana is a joke.
They have had to resort to the use of human signs to publicize their auctions of overpriced condos that are now selling for a lot less than they were asking. I am also hearing rumors that they are leasing some of these units. And the Santa Ana Planning Commission delayed approval of their ridiculous 31 story luxury condo tower, which is supposed to ruin the skyline in north Santa Ana.
Of couse I am most happy to see Team Bisno going down the drain…perhaps they should play less politics and concentrate on their business?
____________________________________________
Our readers may recall that this project included abusive use of eminent domain to take over businesses that the Baldwin Park City Council wanted to oust out of their downtown area. That plan totally backfired! “The contentious project spurred the formation of a citizens’ action group in Baldwin Park and is in part the grounds of a recall campaign targeting three City Council members.”
Make no mistake - the failure of this Bisno project is a kick to the face of Bisno and his heartless team and to the lame Baldwin Park City Council. I have a feeling those folks ARE going to be recalled.
I wrote a recent article about how a Bisno representative allegedly destroyed a resident’s video camera at a public meeting, which you may read by clicking here. And this article explains exactly how much opposition Bisno was facing in Baldwin Park.
These are dark times for Team Bisno! They had big plans for Baldwin Park, but that is just the tip of their iceberg of suffering. Their vaunted City Place development in Santa Ana is a joke.
They have had to resort to the use of human signs to publicize their auctions of overpriced condos that are now selling for a lot less than they were asking. I am also hearing rumors that they are leasing some of these units. And the Santa Ana Planning Commission delayed approval of their ridiculous 31 story luxury condo tower, which is supposed to ruin the skyline in north Santa Ana.
Of couse I am most happy to see Team Bisno going down the drain…perhaps they should play less politics and concentrate on their business?
____________________________________________
Bisno representative accused of assault at neighborhood meeting
By Art Pedroza, www.orangejuice.blogspot.com
By Art Pedroza, www.orangejuice.blogspot.com
A Bisno Development representative is being accused of ripping a video camera out of the hands of a resident in Baldwin Park and damaging the camera, while also scratching the resident, according to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
Of course the Bisno people are saying this did not happen, but the camera IS broken and there were many witnesses to the alleged assault.
The Bisno rep who attacked the lady in question said that some people at the meeting were “uncomfortable” about the taping of the neighborhood meeting, which was organized to discuss the massive eminent domain abuse that Bisno and the Baldwin Park City Council are trying to conduct in their downtown area.
Recently allies of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, who has received thousands of dollars in contributions from Bisno, refused to let a candidates forum in south Santa Ana be taped for similar stupid reasons. The Council challengers, including myself, boycotted the poorly attended meeting of the South Santa Ana Merchants Association. Several of their board members flipped out but I was not assaulted.
Obviously the Bisno company, by opposing the taping of the meetings they are involved in, don’t understand freedom of speech. Nor do Pulido’s allies here in Santa Ana.
Locally, Bisno’s “City Place” development has tanked and they have had to auction their over-priced condos for about half what they were initially asking for them. The news is all bad for Bisno here in Santa Ana and north of us in Baldwin Park.
____________________________________________
Of course the Bisno people are saying this did not happen, but the camera IS broken and there were many witnesses to the alleged assault.
The Bisno rep who attacked the lady in question said that some people at the meeting were “uncomfortable” about the taping of the neighborhood meeting, which was organized to discuss the massive eminent domain abuse that Bisno and the Baldwin Park City Council are trying to conduct in their downtown area.
Recently allies of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, who has received thousands of dollars in contributions from Bisno, refused to let a candidates forum in south Santa Ana be taped for similar stupid reasons. The Council challengers, including myself, boycotted the poorly attended meeting of the South Santa Ana Merchants Association. Several of their board members flipped out but I was not assaulted.
Obviously the Bisno company, by opposing the taping of the meetings they are involved in, don’t understand freedom of speech. Nor do Pulido’s allies here in Santa Ana.
Locally, Bisno’s “City Place” development has tanked and they have had to auction their over-priced condos for about half what they were initially asking for them. The news is all bad for Bisno here in Santa Ana and north of us in Baldwin Park.
____________________________________________
Thursday, November 20, 2008
New Meeting Date!
The Harbor Area Planning Commission has rescheduled its meeting concerning the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.
The new meeting date is Tuesday December 2, 2008. The meeting time is 4:00 PM
A new location for the meeting has been found. It is the Port of L.A. Boys and Girls Club. The add address of the Club is: 100 W. 5th Street, San Pedro, California.
The phone number to the Club is: 310-831-5232.
This information has been confirmed on November 19, 2008 With at least one representative of local government.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a letter to the editor that appeared in last Friday's Daily Breeze. The signature the paper used was from Mr. Bruce Horton. He was just one member of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee who signed the letter. His signature was not the only signature on the original letter.
"Here we go again. Yet another Ponte Vista hearing.This one is important. It is at the Warner Grand at 4:30 PM on Tuesday, November 18th, before the Harbor Area Planning Commission.
The trouble is, three of the five members of the Commission have already made up their minds. While all are fine persons, they are not impartial on this project and should recuse themselves..
Commissioners Camilla Townsend and Joeann Valle are the CEOs of two local Chambers of Commerce. Both Chambers have endorsed the project. In addition, the Chair of the San Pedro Chamber, John Ek [Townsend’s boss], is a paid lobbyist for Ponte Vista.
Ms. Townsend has personally drummed up support for the project from local groups as part of her paid work. Ms. Valle has also been actively supporting the project. In fact, she is a member of Ponte Vista’s Advisory Board.
The third Commissioner, Gloria Lockhart, is the President and CEO of a local nonprofit organization in San Pedro that has received major contributions from Ponte Vista. Ms. Lockhart has appeared at previous hearings, complete with big “Ponte Vista Supporter” sticker, and spoken in favor of the project.
We deserve better. We deserve an impartial Commission. Los Angeles ethics rules say that a Commissioner should step down where the public might be reasonably concerned about their impartiality.
By now, these three commissioners should have recused themselves or the Mayor should have instructed them not to participate. Because this hasn’t happened, the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council and several board members of the Northwest San Pedro, Central San Pedro, and Harbor City councils have asked the City Attorney to rule on the matter.
We are still waiting for a ruling. We haven’t heard from the Mayor either.
The three Commissioners should do the right thing and not participate in the hearing on (November 18th.)" December 2, 2008.
Bruce Horton
San Pedro, California
______________________________________________
It is no secret that Bob Bisno needs to find a way to get some more support for his massive project.
He and his Outreach Team are trying their best to get some kind of recommendation from even three members of the Harbor Area Planning Commission, if it supports his plans.
The Harbor Area Planning Commission voted unanimously, earlier this year, to take up the Ponte Vista issue, receive comments about it, and then offer a recommendation to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.
Since that vote was taken, it was learned that the Harbor Area Planning Commission is not authorized to take on votes concerning large developments, including Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Whether a recommendation from a majority of three members of the Commission is going to happen is still up in the air.
Of course, it is not certain that the December 2 meeting will even take place. The Harbor Area Planning Commissions record of actually meeting on a regular basis is not good at all, with many canceled meetings already in their more recent history.
It is strongly suggested though, that all parties on any side of the Ponte Vista issue be prepared and willing to attend the scheduled meeting and speak on the topic.
Naturally, thousands of us would prefer that the majority of speakers oppose Bob's current plans, but I know that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team will be doing the paid work required to get as many supporters to show up at the meeting as possible.
It is also true that the Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 will be doing the all-volunteer work at having the majority of speakers talk in opposition to Bob's current plans.
Whether Union members will come to support Bob's current plans is still up in the air.In an earlier Daily Breeze article, an attorney representing Mr. Bisno suggested that the number of units in a new plan from Bob Bisno might only have "1700" units. Whether the agreements between Bob and some Unions were written to allow for unionized construction work at Ponte Vista on a number fewer than 1,950 is unknown.
I must comment here that I do know a total number of units Bob earlier suggested he could build and still be willing to use unionized labor, and still provide all the 'amenities' he has promised. That total number is less than "1700" units.
Whether you wish to attend the December 2 meeting or not, many of us feel certain that the most important of the two meetings coming up regarding Ponte Vista at San Pedro is the Los Angeles City Planning Commission meeting on December 11, 2008.
At that meeting, a recommendation could be provided to the Los Angeles City Council as to what the Commissioners feel should be allowed for at the 61.53 acre site in northwest San Pedro.
The City Planning Commission meeting will commence in the morning and the meeting site is in downtown Los Angeles. I know that this site and meeting time may be a struggle for many people, but it is absolutely vital for as many opponents of Bob's current plans to show up at that meeting as possible.
Please 'stay tuned' to this site, look for Emails, and keep your eyes and ears open as we move much more quickly towards real decisions regarding Ponte Vista.
The release of the Staff Report from the Planning Department is still somewhat expected on November 21, but do not bet the farm or even a chicken coop on that.
The new meeting date is Tuesday December 2, 2008. The meeting time is 4:00 PM
A new location for the meeting has been found. It is the Port of L.A. Boys and Girls Club. The add address of the Club is: 100 W. 5th Street, San Pedro, California.
The phone number to the Club is: 310-831-5232.
This information has been confirmed on November 19, 2008 With at least one representative of local government.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a letter to the editor that appeared in last Friday's Daily Breeze. The signature the paper used was from Mr. Bruce Horton. He was just one member of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee who signed the letter. His signature was not the only signature on the original letter.
"Here we go again. Yet another Ponte Vista hearing.This one is important. It is at the Warner Grand at 4:30 PM on Tuesday, November 18th, before the Harbor Area Planning Commission.
The trouble is, three of the five members of the Commission have already made up their minds. While all are fine persons, they are not impartial on this project and should recuse themselves..
Commissioners Camilla Townsend and Joeann Valle are the CEOs of two local Chambers of Commerce. Both Chambers have endorsed the project. In addition, the Chair of the San Pedro Chamber, John Ek [Townsend’s boss], is a paid lobbyist for Ponte Vista.
Ms. Townsend has personally drummed up support for the project from local groups as part of her paid work. Ms. Valle has also been actively supporting the project. In fact, she is a member of Ponte Vista’s Advisory Board.
The third Commissioner, Gloria Lockhart, is the President and CEO of a local nonprofit organization in San Pedro that has received major contributions from Ponte Vista. Ms. Lockhart has appeared at previous hearings, complete with big “Ponte Vista Supporter” sticker, and spoken in favor of the project.
We deserve better. We deserve an impartial Commission. Los Angeles ethics rules say that a Commissioner should step down where the public might be reasonably concerned about their impartiality.
By now, these three commissioners should have recused themselves or the Mayor should have instructed them not to participate. Because this hasn’t happened, the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council and several board members of the Northwest San Pedro, Central San Pedro, and Harbor City councils have asked the City Attorney to rule on the matter.
We are still waiting for a ruling. We haven’t heard from the Mayor either.
The three Commissioners should do the right thing and not participate in the hearing on (November 18th.)" December 2, 2008.
Bruce Horton
San Pedro, California
______________________________________________
It is no secret that Bob Bisno needs to find a way to get some more support for his massive project.
He and his Outreach Team are trying their best to get some kind of recommendation from even three members of the Harbor Area Planning Commission, if it supports his plans.
The Harbor Area Planning Commission voted unanimously, earlier this year, to take up the Ponte Vista issue, receive comments about it, and then offer a recommendation to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.
Since that vote was taken, it was learned that the Harbor Area Planning Commission is not authorized to take on votes concerning large developments, including Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Whether a recommendation from a majority of three members of the Commission is going to happen is still up in the air.
Of course, it is not certain that the December 2 meeting will even take place. The Harbor Area Planning Commissions record of actually meeting on a regular basis is not good at all, with many canceled meetings already in their more recent history.
It is strongly suggested though, that all parties on any side of the Ponte Vista issue be prepared and willing to attend the scheduled meeting and speak on the topic.
Naturally, thousands of us would prefer that the majority of speakers oppose Bob's current plans, but I know that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team will be doing the paid work required to get as many supporters to show up at the meeting as possible.
It is also true that the Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 will be doing the all-volunteer work at having the majority of speakers talk in opposition to Bob's current plans.
Whether Union members will come to support Bob's current plans is still up in the air.In an earlier Daily Breeze article, an attorney representing Mr. Bisno suggested that the number of units in a new plan from Bob Bisno might only have "1700" units. Whether the agreements between Bob and some Unions were written to allow for unionized construction work at Ponte Vista on a number fewer than 1,950 is unknown.
I must comment here that I do know a total number of units Bob earlier suggested he could build and still be willing to use unionized labor, and still provide all the 'amenities' he has promised. That total number is less than "1700" units.
Whether you wish to attend the December 2 meeting or not, many of us feel certain that the most important of the two meetings coming up regarding Ponte Vista at San Pedro is the Los Angeles City Planning Commission meeting on December 11, 2008.
At that meeting, a recommendation could be provided to the Los Angeles City Council as to what the Commissioners feel should be allowed for at the 61.53 acre site in northwest San Pedro.
The City Planning Commission meeting will commence in the morning and the meeting site is in downtown Los Angeles. I know that this site and meeting time may be a struggle for many people, but it is absolutely vital for as many opponents of Bob's current plans to show up at that meeting as possible.
Please 'stay tuned' to this site, look for Emails, and keep your eyes and ears open as we move much more quickly towards real decisions regarding Ponte Vista.
The release of the Staff Report from the Planning Department is still somewhat expected on November 21, but do not bet the farm or even a chicken coop on that.
Friday, November 14, 2008
MEETING CANCELED!
Click over image to enlargeThe Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday November 18 at the Warner Grand Theater will NOT be held on that date!
The latest information I have received from a staff member in the Planning Commission offices is that a December 2, 2008 date for the meeting is currently being considered.
It is VERY important that you advise everyone you know who was planning on attending the November 18 meeting, that there will NOT be a meeting held on that date, at the planned location.
Earlier today quite a bit of information began swirling around about the cancellation of the meeting and it is necessary that we all keep up to the minute on whether, when, and where the meeting may take place in the future.
It certainly may come to pass that the meeting is cancelled altogether, with no new Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting on the issue being held. The reason for this is because the Ponte Vista at San Pedro matter is still scheduled to go before the full City Planning Commission on December 11.
The Harbor Area Planning Commission would have to meet PRIOR to the City Planning Commission's meeting concerning Ponte Vista, and the date of December 2, 2008 is still being considered as the date for the Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting, IF is occurs.
In my conversations with the staff member of the Planning Commission, it is now my greater understanding that the Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting would be held ONLY to take and make comments and that NO recommendation by that body would be passed forward to the City Planning Commission.
If you have already made plans to be in downtown San Pedro on Tuesday afternoon, please enjoy the many restaurant choices and businesses in the downtown area. They need your support and if you have already set aside the time, there is still much to do in downtown San Pedro.
The latest information I have received from a staff member in the Planning Commission offices is that a December 2, 2008 date for the meeting is currently being considered.
It is VERY important that you advise everyone you know who was planning on attending the November 18 meeting, that there will NOT be a meeting held on that date, at the planned location.
Earlier today quite a bit of information began swirling around about the cancellation of the meeting and it is necessary that we all keep up to the minute on whether, when, and where the meeting may take place in the future.
It certainly may come to pass that the meeting is cancelled altogether, with no new Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting on the issue being held. The reason for this is because the Ponte Vista at San Pedro matter is still scheduled to go before the full City Planning Commission on December 11.
The Harbor Area Planning Commission would have to meet PRIOR to the City Planning Commission's meeting concerning Ponte Vista, and the date of December 2, 2008 is still being considered as the date for the Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting, IF is occurs.
In my conversations with the staff member of the Planning Commission, it is now my greater understanding that the Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting would be held ONLY to take and make comments and that NO recommendation by that body would be passed forward to the City Planning Commission.
If you have already made plans to be in downtown San Pedro on Tuesday afternoon, please enjoy the many restaurant choices and businesses in the downtown area. They need your support and if you have already set aside the time, there is still much to do in downtown San Pedro.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
More News From the Steering Committee
I know that I have been not keeping this blog up recently and I apologize.
Much of the news about Ponte Vista at San Pedro I publish on: www.pontevista.blogspot.com but you all probably knew that already.
The former 'Rudderless Steering Committee' of R Neighborhoods Are 1 has gone away for the past several months. In its place is a new Steering Committee that is focused, well organized, growing in membership, and ready to take any and all over developers who stray into OUR community.
The Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 is now organized with specialists in many areas to deal with whatever needs to be done, regarding both Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the other area we have dealt with, the former site of McCowan's Market.
The Steering Committee is now working very hard with the developments that are happening concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The Harbor Area Planning Commission has scheduled a meeting to take comments and review concerns concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday November 18, 2008 and the new location for the meeting is the historic Warner Grand Theater, in San Pedro.
Two other sites have listed the start time for the meeting as being 4:00 PM or 4:30 PM, so you may wish to come early.
There will be red and white "R1" buttons to counter Ponte Vista's yellow sticker tags their supporters wear at meetings.
You should arrive early so you have plenty of time to fill out speaker's cards and I hope you oppose Bob Bisno's plans for building 1,950-condominiums on just over 61.5 acres of land.
Folks, this is a fifteen round fight and I think R Neighborhoods Are 1 needs to win all fifteen rounds.
Sure the group claims a 'victory' with the latest news that the Ponte Vista Vesting Tract Map has been disapproved. It is more an emotional victory than and there is much more that need to be done.
It seems more often than not, someone at the Ponte Vista Outreach Team is creating another post on another one of their sites that states things that can be so very easily contradicted.
The latest item for their site is that Ponte Vista would only have about 3,500 residents.
The facts are that during the Initial Study process, it was established that approximately 7,343 residents might live at Ponte Vista if they lived in a 2,300-unit project.
Even the Draft Environmental Impact Report stated that the approximate residential population at Ponte Vista would be 4,313.
I still do not know where the 3,030 people who represent the difference between the Initial Study and the Environmental Report vanished to.
Getting back to the Steering Committee, I think you should know that the members of that Committee are strong, informed, committed to keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning, and willing to continue the fight for as long as necessary.
Of course, every member of the Steering Committee would like you do contribute to the defense fund set up to pay the lawyer that is handling legal issues that are large and require the expertise from someone who knows what they are doing.
Please visit www.rneighborhoodsare1.org and find out how you can contribute.
The Steering Committee wants all of you opposed to Bob's current plans to come and speak you mind and heart at the upcoming Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting. You are encouraged to share your concerns about having such a massive housing project on one of the few routes in and out of San Pedro and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.
How will you deal with thousands of more cars on Western Avenue?
Will you need to make shopping changes or need to steer clear of northwest San Pedro if it becomes too over crowded?
How does the fact that an out of town developer believes he knows better than you what is best for San Pedro?
Many members of our community have discovered, except for a number of greedy business owners, that having such a massive development on the edge of San Pedro, directly along an evacuation route, where infrastructure demand may surpass availability, that OUR community simply cannot afford a housing project so large.
The Steering Committee continues to be a group of volunteers who use their time and money to help protect OUR community and they continue to seek your support and encouragement.
Please look at your spam Email sometimes and see if an Email from R Neighborhoods Are 1 is lurking there. Please read that Email for important information.
The Steering Committee is doing its best to try and keep everyone informed whether it is on this blog, my other blogs, and the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Web site, mentioned above.
I will try to be more diligent in updating this blog in the future because there are several events coming up that will ultimately determine what might get built at Ponte Vista or whether Bob Bisno will stick around to actually build something.
Much of the news about Ponte Vista at San Pedro I publish on: www.pontevista.blogspot.com but you all probably knew that already.
The former 'Rudderless Steering Committee' of R Neighborhoods Are 1 has gone away for the past several months. In its place is a new Steering Committee that is focused, well organized, growing in membership, and ready to take any and all over developers who stray into OUR community.
The Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 is now organized with specialists in many areas to deal with whatever needs to be done, regarding both Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the other area we have dealt with, the former site of McCowan's Market.
The Steering Committee is now working very hard with the developments that are happening concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The Harbor Area Planning Commission has scheduled a meeting to take comments and review concerns concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday November 18, 2008 and the new location for the meeting is the historic Warner Grand Theater, in San Pedro.
Two other sites have listed the start time for the meeting as being 4:00 PM or 4:30 PM, so you may wish to come early.
There will be red and white "R1" buttons to counter Ponte Vista's yellow sticker tags their supporters wear at meetings.
You should arrive early so you have plenty of time to fill out speaker's cards and I hope you oppose Bob Bisno's plans for building 1,950-condominiums on just over 61.5 acres of land.
Folks, this is a fifteen round fight and I think R Neighborhoods Are 1 needs to win all fifteen rounds.
Sure the group claims a 'victory' with the latest news that the Ponte Vista Vesting Tract Map has been disapproved. It is more an emotional victory than and there is much more that need to be done.
It seems more often than not, someone at the Ponte Vista Outreach Team is creating another post on another one of their sites that states things that can be so very easily contradicted.
The latest item for their site is that Ponte Vista would only have about 3,500 residents.
The facts are that during the Initial Study process, it was established that approximately 7,343 residents might live at Ponte Vista if they lived in a 2,300-unit project.
Even the Draft Environmental Impact Report stated that the approximate residential population at Ponte Vista would be 4,313.
I still do not know where the 3,030 people who represent the difference between the Initial Study and the Environmental Report vanished to.
Getting back to the Steering Committee, I think you should know that the members of that Committee are strong, informed, committed to keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning, and willing to continue the fight for as long as necessary.
Of course, every member of the Steering Committee would like you do contribute to the defense fund set up to pay the lawyer that is handling legal issues that are large and require the expertise from someone who knows what they are doing.
Please visit www.rneighborhoodsare1.org and find out how you can contribute.
The Steering Committee wants all of you opposed to Bob's current plans to come and speak you mind and heart at the upcoming Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting. You are encouraged to share your concerns about having such a massive housing project on one of the few routes in and out of San Pedro and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.
How will you deal with thousands of more cars on Western Avenue?
Will you need to make shopping changes or need to steer clear of northwest San Pedro if it becomes too over crowded?
How does the fact that an out of town developer believes he knows better than you what is best for San Pedro?
Many members of our community have discovered, except for a number of greedy business owners, that having such a massive development on the edge of San Pedro, directly along an evacuation route, where infrastructure demand may surpass availability, that OUR community simply cannot afford a housing project so large.
The Steering Committee continues to be a group of volunteers who use their time and money to help protect OUR community and they continue to seek your support and encouragement.
Please look at your spam Email sometimes and see if an Email from R Neighborhoods Are 1 is lurking there. Please read that Email for important information.
The Steering Committee is doing its best to try and keep everyone informed whether it is on this blog, my other blogs, and the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Web site, mentioned above.
I will try to be more diligent in updating this blog in the future because there are several events coming up that will ultimately determine what might get built at Ponte Vista or whether Bob Bisno will stick around to actually build something.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A Political Endorsement Specifically Relating to Ponte Vista
On ballots within the specific area, there is a race for a member of Division 2 or the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.
The two candidates are Robert E. (Rob) Katherman, listed as "Director, Water Replenishment Dist. of Southern California" and Pete Manghera, listed as "Teacher/Athletic Director".
Water and the ability to supply water to more developments is of great concern. The ability to allow large developments to be constructed in our particular area when there is already not enough water to go around is of great concern to many people.
Pete Manghera opposes the construction of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, using Bob Bisno's current plans because he believes there is not enough evidence to suggest that a project of that size can be built and not have a detrimental effect on water resources for all of us.
There is some evidence to suggest that Robert Katherman worked as a lobbyist trying to get water to at least one project he supported, but it is not Ponte Vista.
Pete Manghera has been officially endorsed for a seat on the Board of Directors of Division 2 of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California by the Southern California Chapter of the Democratic Party.
Pete strongly believes we must protect our dwindling water resources by not allowing large developments being constructed in areas where water is becoming more precious.
Pete Manghera strongly opposes the placement of the Outfall System access for the Sanitation District's new tunnel in a residential area. He feels the access must be constructed on Terminal Island.
Pete considers saving water for current residents and businesses is more important than having Ponte Vista built as Bob Bisno wants it built.
To be honest, I have known Pete for over 35 years, have appeared on his television show, "Pete's Place" (Bob Bisno has been on it, too.), and talk with him from time to time at various events all around OUR community.
Pete is a Social Studies teacher at San Pedro High School, coaches the J.V. Football team there, and works with the recreation program at the high school on Sundays.
I endorse Pete Manghera for a seat on the Board of Directors, Division 2, of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.
The office is non-partisan and I do not know or care about the political parties either of the candidates belong to because it should not matter in this particular race.
Pete is very dedicated to the causes and issues he supports and he has volunteered to help youth sports for over a generation.
Please vote for Mr. Pete Manghera and allow him to help deal with the water issues facing Southern California.
The two candidates are Robert E. (Rob) Katherman, listed as "Director, Water Replenishment Dist. of Southern California" and Pete Manghera, listed as "Teacher/Athletic Director".
Water and the ability to supply water to more developments is of great concern. The ability to allow large developments to be constructed in our particular area when there is already not enough water to go around is of great concern to many people.
Pete Manghera opposes the construction of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, using Bob Bisno's current plans because he believes there is not enough evidence to suggest that a project of that size can be built and not have a detrimental effect on water resources for all of us.
There is some evidence to suggest that Robert Katherman worked as a lobbyist trying to get water to at least one project he supported, but it is not Ponte Vista.
Pete Manghera has been officially endorsed for a seat on the Board of Directors of Division 2 of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California by the Southern California Chapter of the Democratic Party.
Pete strongly believes we must protect our dwindling water resources by not allowing large developments being constructed in areas where water is becoming more precious.
Pete Manghera strongly opposes the placement of the Outfall System access for the Sanitation District's new tunnel in a residential area. He feels the access must be constructed on Terminal Island.
Pete considers saving water for current residents and businesses is more important than having Ponte Vista built as Bob Bisno wants it built.
To be honest, I have known Pete for over 35 years, have appeared on his television show, "Pete's Place" (Bob Bisno has been on it, too.), and talk with him from time to time at various events all around OUR community.
Pete is a Social Studies teacher at San Pedro High School, coaches the J.V. Football team there, and works with the recreation program at the high school on Sundays.
I endorse Pete Manghera for a seat on the Board of Directors, Division 2, of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.
The office is non-partisan and I do not know or care about the political parties either of the candidates belong to because it should not matter in this particular race.
Pete is very dedicated to the causes and issues he supports and he has volunteered to help youth sports for over a generation.
Please vote for Mr. Pete Manghera and allow him to help deal with the water issues facing Southern California.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
A News Release
For Immediate Release September 17, 2008
Broad Coalition of Neighborhood Groups From Across Los Angeles Sue the City For Violating Mandatory Duties Regarding Development and City Infrastructure.
Nine Groups Request the Court Halt Major Development Projects Until the Case is Decided. Los Angeles, CA:
Community groups and Neighborhood Councils across Los Angeles filed a lawsuit today demanding that the City of Los Angeles cease and desist from approving anymore upzoning ordinances, specific plan or general plan amendments, or development agreements until City planning officials take a hard look at the adequacy of existing infrastructure needed to support the major development projects.
At least nine community groups representing over 30,000 residents have joined in a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles to stop the City Council from approving developments until required annual reports regarding growth and infrastructure are produced.
The amended complaint (Saunders et al., v. City of Los Angeles, case number BS115435) was filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court and includes the following groups from across the City:
La Brea-Willoughby Coalition
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Assn.
San Pedro Pennisula Homeowners Coalition
San Pedro Pennisula Homeowners United, Inc.
La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood Granada Hills
Alliance for Smart Growth Old Granada Hills Residents’ Group
Comite de La Esparza Hollywood Heritage, Inc.
R Neighborhoods Are 1
ReACT (Residents Against Cut-thru Traffic) Mar Vista
The groups say the City of Los Angeles is not complying with mandatory duties set forth in the City’s own General Plan (its “constitution” which guides land use planning within the City), and is therefore in violation of law.
These mandatory duties include preparing an annual report regarding the status of the City’s infrastructure to support development projects, so that City planning officials can make informed land-use decisions. Despite the fact these reports are required on an annual basis, the City has not produced such a report for over 10 years. Thus, the groups say, the City cannot possibly know whether development is outpacing infrastructure capacity.
Although neighborhood councils (NCs) are prohibited from signing on to lawsuits against the City, several NCs, including the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANNC), the Mar Vista Community Council, and the Venice Neighborhood Council have also drafted or passed resolutions echoing the requests of the plaintiffs.
The suit is not seeking a monetary settlement with the City. It merely seeks obedience to the law.
Pat Nave, Chair Executive of one of the suing groups, R Neighbors Are 1 ( represents over 500 property owners and over 2,000 residents between the Santa Monica and Culver City boundaries.in the Mar Vista area) says: "Without an updated infrastructure database, the City is driving our planning bus blindfolded and relying on developers to describe the road.”
Today, infrastructure capacity studies, when they are done at all (which is rarely) are put together by developers who do them to justify their projects and the densities they want to build. “All we are asking for is responsible, sustainable development,” says Lucille Saunders who is the lead petitioner in the case.
Bill Pope, Chair Executive of ReACT (a group of 200 property owners presenting about 2,000 residents) says that the traffic concerns around the City are well known.
“Development on the Westside without regard to transportation infrastructure has resulted in heavy congestion on roadways from Santa Monica to Culver City, leaving the Westside paralyzed.”
CONTACTS: Lucille Saunders Lead Petitioner/Plaintiff (323) 939-2754 labreacoalition@gmail.com"
Sabrina Venskus Law Offices of Sabrina Venskus (213) 482-4200 or (310) 985-3168 cell http://.www.lawsv.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Make of this news release what you will.
If the city of Los Angeles cannot manage itself, then something must be done and many somebodies must step in.
We need a 'bailout' from developers who have overdeveloped the greater L.A. area without existing regulations and laws having been enforced for far too long.
As the nation undertakes a turn around in its attempts to deal with the financial crisis, it is high time our area undertakes a turn around in attempts to deal with runaway over development and the misery it causes everyone.
If the government is compelled to step in where people have faltered with the economy, it should be people who step in where the government has faltered with development issues.
When one third of the groups bringing the lawsuit are concerned especially with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project, it focuses more on Bob Bisno and his attempts to build a project that is simply too many units for the area.
Broad Coalition of Neighborhood Groups From Across Los Angeles Sue the City For Violating Mandatory Duties Regarding Development and City Infrastructure.
Nine Groups Request the Court Halt Major Development Projects Until the Case is Decided. Los Angeles, CA:
Community groups and Neighborhood Councils across Los Angeles filed a lawsuit today demanding that the City of Los Angeles cease and desist from approving anymore upzoning ordinances, specific plan or general plan amendments, or development agreements until City planning officials take a hard look at the adequacy of existing infrastructure needed to support the major development projects.
At least nine community groups representing over 30,000 residents have joined in a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles to stop the City Council from approving developments until required annual reports regarding growth and infrastructure are produced.
The amended complaint (Saunders et al., v. City of Los Angeles, case number BS115435) was filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court and includes the following groups from across the City:
La Brea-Willoughby Coalition
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Assn.
San Pedro Pennisula Homeowners Coalition
San Pedro Pennisula Homeowners United, Inc.
La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood Granada Hills
Alliance for Smart Growth Old Granada Hills Residents’ Group
Comite de La Esparza Hollywood Heritage, Inc.
R Neighborhoods Are 1
ReACT (Residents Against Cut-thru Traffic) Mar Vista
The groups say the City of Los Angeles is not complying with mandatory duties set forth in the City’s own General Plan (its “constitution” which guides land use planning within the City), and is therefore in violation of law.
These mandatory duties include preparing an annual report regarding the status of the City’s infrastructure to support development projects, so that City planning officials can make informed land-use decisions. Despite the fact these reports are required on an annual basis, the City has not produced such a report for over 10 years. Thus, the groups say, the City cannot possibly know whether development is outpacing infrastructure capacity.
Although neighborhood councils (NCs) are prohibited from signing on to lawsuits against the City, several NCs, including the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANNC), the Mar Vista Community Council, and the Venice Neighborhood Council have also drafted or passed resolutions echoing the requests of the plaintiffs.
The suit is not seeking a monetary settlement with the City. It merely seeks obedience to the law.
Pat Nave, Chair Executive of one of the suing groups, R Neighbors Are 1 ( represents over 500 property owners and over 2,000 residents between the Santa Monica and Culver City boundaries.in the Mar Vista area) says: "Without an updated infrastructure database, the City is driving our planning bus blindfolded and relying on developers to describe the road.”
Today, infrastructure capacity studies, when they are done at all (which is rarely) are put together by developers who do them to justify their projects and the densities they want to build. “All we are asking for is responsible, sustainable development,” says Lucille Saunders who is the lead petitioner in the case.
Bill Pope, Chair Executive of ReACT (a group of 200 property owners presenting about 2,000 residents) says that the traffic concerns around the City are well known.
“Development on the Westside without regard to transportation infrastructure has resulted in heavy congestion on roadways from Santa Monica to Culver City, leaving the Westside paralyzed.”
CONTACTS: Lucille Saunders Lead Petitioner/Plaintiff (323) 939-2754 labreacoalition@gmail.com"
Sabrina Venskus Law Offices of Sabrina Venskus (213) 482-4200 or (310) 985-3168 cell http://.www.lawsv.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Make of this news release what you will.
If the city of Los Angeles cannot manage itself, then something must be done and many somebodies must step in.
We need a 'bailout' from developers who have overdeveloped the greater L.A. area without existing regulations and laws having been enforced for far too long.
As the nation undertakes a turn around in its attempts to deal with the financial crisis, it is high time our area undertakes a turn around in attempts to deal with runaway over development and the misery it causes everyone.
If the government is compelled to step in where people have faltered with the economy, it should be people who step in where the government has faltered with development issues.
When one third of the groups bringing the lawsuit are concerned especially with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project, it focuses more on Bob Bisno and his attempts to build a project that is simply too many units for the area.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Pondering a New Blog Concerning a Proposed Public School
The Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 has not endorsed or created a statement of opposition concerning the following information
http://blog.noisesanpedro.org/ is up and running and it deals with the proposed South Region High School No. 15 (SRHS 15) which members of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) want to build on the Upper reservation of Fort MacArthur on land now more commonly referred to as "Angel's Gate".
The site contains pages of information and should become the major source of information for those opposed to building a new 810-seat high school campus on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.
I hope everyone bookmarks the new site and visits it regularly.The site was published to the web shortly before a very important meeting by LAUSD to provide more information, take questions, and receive comment on the proposed school's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).Information about the meeting can be found on the post directly below this post.
Whether you support the building of SRHS 15 on its preferred site or not, learning as much as you can and want to about the project, is not a bad thing.
http://blog.noisesanpedro.org/ is up and running and it deals with the proposed South Region High School No. 15 (SRHS 15) which members of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) want to build on the Upper reservation of Fort MacArthur on land now more commonly referred to as "Angel's Gate".
The site contains pages of information and should become the major source of information for those opposed to building a new 810-seat high school campus on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.
I hope everyone bookmarks the new site and visits it regularly.The site was published to the web shortly before a very important meeting by LAUSD to provide more information, take questions, and receive comment on the proposed school's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).Information about the meeting can be found on the post directly below this post.
Whether you support the building of SRHS 15 on its preferred site or not, learning as much as you can and want to about the project, is not a bad thing.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Latest Rudderless Steering Committee Meeting.
At the latest Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 I can reveal some things.
The desserts were wonderful and all donated.
There were many good laughs had by participants.
The meal was pot luck.
We are all still waiting for something to come out of the Planning Department.
We scheduled our next meeting.
I am not going to post what was discussed, please don't ask.
I will post more when the time is appropriate.
The membership of the RSC is growing and is very deep with some remarkable folks.
I am still a member of the RSC.
Meeting attendees learned that I can create a whistle that sounds like a teacher's whistle and a few of the attendees were amazed.
I was late arriving at the meeting and I only ate dessert.
That is all.
The desserts were wonderful and all donated.
There were many good laughs had by participants.
The meal was pot luck.
We are all still waiting for something to come out of the Planning Department.
We scheduled our next meeting.
I am not going to post what was discussed, please don't ask.
I will post more when the time is appropriate.
The membership of the RSC is growing and is very deep with some remarkable folks.
I am still a member of the RSC.
Meeting attendees learned that I can create a whistle that sounds like a teacher's whistle and a few of the attendees were amazed.
I was late arriving at the meeting and I only ate dessert.
That is all.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council's Upcoming Election
If "R Neighborhoods Are 1" Then all of San Pedro's neighborhoods should be one with creating the three best Neighborhood Councils for OUR community.
Northwest San Pedro and Coastal San Pedro Neighborhoods Councils are great groups! Their Boards work for their neighborhoods very well and both organizations are run by good members of the Boards who can work together, even with differing views, to be at their best for their stakeholders.
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council has a chance to become more like Northwest and Coastal because of their upcoming election on September 9, 2008.
The balloting for five "at-large" spots on Central's Board begins at the Port of Los Angeles High School on Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM.
The voting will last until 7:30 that evening.
Just about anyone who does business in downtown San Pedro, lives within Central's borders, works in their area, does volunteer work in that area, or has a special interest in the Central San Pedro area is eligible to vote.
This election will probably determine whether Central remains as a viable, trustworthy, ethical, and growing organization, to support the downtown area. Or it will become more mired in the troubles it has had for too long, even with an election last year, of some really good folks.
The current officers other than the treasurer, have not AS YET been placed on the ballot, even as a write-in candidate.
Perhaps Mr. Joe Gatlin, the current President, Ms. Mayra Perez, the current Vice President, or other officers may try to have themselves as write-in candidates.
If these folks try for another term, I suggest we allow then the opportunity to become FORMER officers or FORMER members of the Board at Central.
If the Secretary, Ms. Pamela Foster is on the ballot, then that would be a good thing, I feel.
Of the five seats being contested, I have my opinions on who I will vote for, and why.
First and foremost, of course Mr. Art Almeida needs to be voted onto the Board.
This wonderful gentleman is one of the greatest San Pedrans ever and he compares very favorably to Mr. John Olguin.
As John is to the beach, Art is to the wharf, pier, and dock.
Ms. Jilonda Johnson may be new to San Pedro, but she comes to OUR community with vim, vigor, grace, and the great will to serve.
'Jill' is the current President of the S.P.H.S. Lady Boosters. She is heading the 'Big Give' Campaign to support teachers and programs at S.P.H.S. and she seems to have boundless energy and even more will and inspiration to serve not only the students, staff and parents at S.P.H.S., but also help everyone else.
Mr. Phill Trigas is not on the Board YET, but that doesn't mean he is not interested in working with Central.
Mr. Trigas is on at least several committees, he spoke at the candidates' forum with passion for Central and projects he is concerned with and he demonstrates what is great about San Pedro, I feel.
Mr. Max Pierce (sp?) is someone OUR community needs to keep us in the know about a very important project.
Mr. Max works for the City of L.A. currently, specializing in treatment plants.
Mr. Max is an architect who, when he retires from the city, will open up his offices more in the Brown Bros. Building.
I think we all need Mr. Max as we deal with the Clearwater Program and try our best to make sure it get its access shaft dug on Terminal Island and not in any neighborhood in OUR community.
I feel Central and the rest of OUR community can call on Mr. Max's knowledge to help us in a very important program for years to come, along with his interest in the revitalization of downtown San Pedro.
My last pick is a write-in candidate.
Mr. Ray Buffer is the manager/leader/guru of The Relevant Stage theater company.
Mr. Buffer has an office in downtown San Pedro where he works for his theater company and also is becoming more involved with downtown issues.
I cannot wait until Mr. Buffer lets me help announce the next season of The Relevant Stage.
OUR community will be very impressed and we will have another great venue of arts and entertainment in downtown San Pedro.
Mr. Buffer is also now to the neighborhood, but he strikes me as someone who is not afraid to get involved and work with others to look at issues, become more involved, and work for the betterment of Central's area.
There are two others on the ballot that deserve mention, I feel.
Mr. Frank Anderson is very involved with port issues and youth sports.
Mr. Anderson's involvement with port issues means he deals with issues that are important to Central S.P.N.C. because so much of their area involves the port.
It seems Mr. Anderson wants to see the waterfront redevelopment go forward and he seems willing to roll up his sleeves and work with others to move that monster closer to final completion.
With Mr. Anderson's interest in youth sports, he can be involved with bring more youth activities to Central's area, which doesn't have the park spaces, the other two N.C.s have.
The other individual I need to mention is Central's current treasurer, Mr. Aphram Khalhourji.
I feel we should all offer Mr. Khalhourji a 'hale and hearty' thank you for his service and allow him to become a FORMER treasurer and FORMER Board member at Central.
According to so many folks who know more about Central's issues/problems for the past several years, it has been too many of the officers of the Council who have been involved in those issues/problems.
I feel it is time for an 'almost' clean sweep of all of the officers at Central.
Ms. Pam Foster is the exception and it would be a great loss if she is not re-elected to be the Secretary, IF she has to be voted on this September.
With the election of five new Board members, none of whom are re-elected, it means that Central's Board will be completely changed from what is was for most of 2007 and for years before that.
There are so many issues to ponder, regarding just about everywhere in San Pedro and OUR community.
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council's area is just what it describes; central to many of those issues.
The old guard, especially with what was witnessed on August 12, 2008, has demonstrated that it cannot remain on board if Central is going to become a real player in the issues and really supportive of the revitalization of downtown San Pedro, I think.
It has been too long for a change at Central. The time is right to help create a unified, strong, and respected group of three Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro.
Northwest San Pedro and Coastal San Pedro Neighborhoods Councils are great groups! Their Boards work for their neighborhoods very well and both organizations are run by good members of the Boards who can work together, even with differing views, to be at their best for their stakeholders.
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council has a chance to become more like Northwest and Coastal because of their upcoming election on September 9, 2008.
The balloting for five "at-large" spots on Central's Board begins at the Port of Los Angeles High School on Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM.
The voting will last until 7:30 that evening.
Just about anyone who does business in downtown San Pedro, lives within Central's borders, works in their area, does volunteer work in that area, or has a special interest in the Central San Pedro area is eligible to vote.
This election will probably determine whether Central remains as a viable, trustworthy, ethical, and growing organization, to support the downtown area. Or it will become more mired in the troubles it has had for too long, even with an election last year, of some really good folks.
The current officers other than the treasurer, have not AS YET been placed on the ballot, even as a write-in candidate.
Perhaps Mr. Joe Gatlin, the current President, Ms. Mayra Perez, the current Vice President, or other officers may try to have themselves as write-in candidates.
If these folks try for another term, I suggest we allow then the opportunity to become FORMER officers or FORMER members of the Board at Central.
If the Secretary, Ms. Pamela Foster is on the ballot, then that would be a good thing, I feel.
Of the five seats being contested, I have my opinions on who I will vote for, and why.
First and foremost, of course Mr. Art Almeida needs to be voted onto the Board.
This wonderful gentleman is one of the greatest San Pedrans ever and he compares very favorably to Mr. John Olguin.
As John is to the beach, Art is to the wharf, pier, and dock.
Ms. Jilonda Johnson may be new to San Pedro, but she comes to OUR community with vim, vigor, grace, and the great will to serve.
'Jill' is the current President of the S.P.H.S. Lady Boosters. She is heading the 'Big Give' Campaign to support teachers and programs at S.P.H.S. and she seems to have boundless energy and even more will and inspiration to serve not only the students, staff and parents at S.P.H.S., but also help everyone else.
Mr. Phill Trigas is not on the Board YET, but that doesn't mean he is not interested in working with Central.
Mr. Trigas is on at least several committees, he spoke at the candidates' forum with passion for Central and projects he is concerned with and he demonstrates what is great about San Pedro, I feel.
Mr. Max Pierce (sp?) is someone OUR community needs to keep us in the know about a very important project.
Mr. Max works for the City of L.A. currently, specializing in treatment plants.
Mr. Max is an architect who, when he retires from the city, will open up his offices more in the Brown Bros. Building.
I think we all need Mr. Max as we deal with the Clearwater Program and try our best to make sure it get its access shaft dug on Terminal Island and not in any neighborhood in OUR community.
I feel Central and the rest of OUR community can call on Mr. Max's knowledge to help us in a very important program for years to come, along with his interest in the revitalization of downtown San Pedro.
My last pick is a write-in candidate.
Mr. Ray Buffer is the manager/leader/guru of The Relevant Stage theater company.
Mr. Buffer has an office in downtown San Pedro where he works for his theater company and also is becoming more involved with downtown issues.
I cannot wait until Mr. Buffer lets me help announce the next season of The Relevant Stage.
OUR community will be very impressed and we will have another great venue of arts and entertainment in downtown San Pedro.
Mr. Buffer is also now to the neighborhood, but he strikes me as someone who is not afraid to get involved and work with others to look at issues, become more involved, and work for the betterment of Central's area.
There are two others on the ballot that deserve mention, I feel.
Mr. Frank Anderson is very involved with port issues and youth sports.
Mr. Anderson's involvement with port issues means he deals with issues that are important to Central S.P.N.C. because so much of their area involves the port.
It seems Mr. Anderson wants to see the waterfront redevelopment go forward and he seems willing to roll up his sleeves and work with others to move that monster closer to final completion.
With Mr. Anderson's interest in youth sports, he can be involved with bring more youth activities to Central's area, which doesn't have the park spaces, the other two N.C.s have.
The other individual I need to mention is Central's current treasurer, Mr. Aphram Khalhourji.
I feel we should all offer Mr. Khalhourji a 'hale and hearty' thank you for his service and allow him to become a FORMER treasurer and FORMER Board member at Central.
According to so many folks who know more about Central's issues/problems for the past several years, it has been too many of the officers of the Council who have been involved in those issues/problems.
I feel it is time for an 'almost' clean sweep of all of the officers at Central.
Ms. Pam Foster is the exception and it would be a great loss if she is not re-elected to be the Secretary, IF she has to be voted on this September.
With the election of five new Board members, none of whom are re-elected, it means that Central's Board will be completely changed from what is was for most of 2007 and for years before that.
There are so many issues to ponder, regarding just about everywhere in San Pedro and OUR community.
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council's area is just what it describes; central to many of those issues.
The old guard, especially with what was witnessed on August 12, 2008, has demonstrated that it cannot remain on board if Central is going to become a real player in the issues and really supportive of the revitalization of downtown San Pedro, I think.
It has been too long for a change at Central. The time is right to help create a unified, strong, and respected group of three Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
