A Take on Sunday's Article in the Daily Breeze

I am going to give my take on Sunday January 27, 2008 article in The Daily Breeze concerning the redevelopment of the former site of McCowan's Market.

But first, I would apprecate other individuals providing their take on not only Sunday's article, but also the two most recent articles concerning the issue. Whether using a comment to an existing post, or by creating a new post sent to me via the Email address on the top of this blog, sharing opinions about the matters can provide all of us with more information and opinions to consider.

In the span of eight days, three articles conserning the issue of what may be built on the site of the former McCowan's Market have been found in The Daily Breeze. Ms Donna Littlejohn and Ms. Rachel Jones have provided three separate articles in the span of just over a week.

To me I think, the editors of the newspaper feel the issues are important to inform readers about and it may also show that interest in the issues is very high among the residents of OUR community.

I also feel that when two of the three articles bring up the idea of a park being provided on the site, instead of another market, single-family houses, or what could be more probably, a condominium project of between 14 and 19 units, it says something about the apparent discord with the porperties current owner by the local neighbors and OUR community.

There is serious doubt that there is a large number of supporters to having condominiums built on the three parcels of land the former market still stands of.

The idea of a park on the site may appear to have come out of left field as a way to demonstrate that the sites' current owner, Mr. Mike Rosenthal was probably overwhelmed by the resistance to having condominiums built.

Even if the proposed condominiums were priced for first-time homebuyers, resistance among neighbors who live near the sites and an ever-growing number of other neighbors in other neighborhoods is extremely high.

The last sentence of the latest article was a quote along the lines that having a park built on the three parcels in not very likely or probable.

As an opinion, I think OUR community should take pride first, with the good folks who live closest to the sites. They banded together about as quickly as they could and they took the right steps to bring their issues into view for the rest of OUR community.

Second, neighbors living in neighborhoods some distance away from the sites came forward with their support to oppose having condominiums built.

I have first hand knowledge that there have been community members who live miles away from the sites, who contacted me with their frustration about the possibility of having condos built and their willingness to help in any way they can.

I think we also should give a big shout out to Councilwoman Janice Hahn who has already publicily opposed having condominiums built on the parcels.

The study and possible implementation of a "Q Condition" on the three parcels, and the folks who have worked on that, should also be recognized.

A "Q Condition" is a zoning classification that places "restrictions on property as a result of a zone change, to ensure compatibility with surrounding property." Basically the classification would result in the developer only being allowed to build single-family homes so that the buildings would reflect the compatibility with the other single-family homes that make up the vast bulk of the type of residences found in the neighborhood.

I can even commend Mr. Rosenthal for doing the correct thing and providing three new single-family houses on the three lots he also bought, and kept their current zoning of R1 (or R1P).
Mr. Rosenthal could have opted to attempt zoning changes of the three R1 lots to allow for multi-family units. Perhaps he saw what is happening with the resistance to Ponte Vista and thought twice before he really considered zoning changes for the three-R1 lots.

The issue of having the City of Los Angeles or any other entity buying the three parcels so a park could be built, is something that will continue to be just a dream. San Pedro has lots of parkland as compared to the rest of the cities in the 15Th Council District. Residents also have an L.A. County park, a nature preserve, coastal parks, Angel's Gate, and parks in nearby communities to use. As communities go, I think we would have to find a rich benefactor to buy more property for what would be a great neighborhood park.

I think fighting against condos being built is a must. Having a positive attitude about the adoption of Q Conditions on the properties zoned as commercial should be a strong attitude.
Affording the opportunity to the current owner or developer to build a total of six-single-family houses on the three-R1 lots and the three C1 parcels, may be the best result of all efforts.

A strong message could be sent by opponents of both the massive condo development called Ponte Vista and opponents of having condos built on the former market's site, that OUR community is willing to join with other communities in the greater L.A. area to put curbs on the reckless notions that the area should tolerate massive residential growth, whether we need it or not.