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.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
