Janice's Magic Appearance - Griego's Disappearance

Just as I predicted, Tom Griego never came back to the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council. As you will remember, Mr. Griego is an Assistant City Attorney working with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Last month he publically rebuked members of the Coastal council/R-1 gang for violating numerous municipal codes.

During the course of last month's meeting it was determined that specific questions would be generated for Mr. Griego to answer at this month's public meeting. As you will recall, I specifically warned people to be careful of the R-1 thugs trying to keep their misdeeds out of the public view. My exact words were, "Watch for their attempt to take these proceedings private into some sort of closed-door "executive" meeting in order to avoid public scrutiny."

My concerns were met with assurances by a CSPNC Board member that such a thing would never happen. I quote:
"... But finally, I have to agree completely with you on one thing: we, too, encourage everyone to come to our next monthly stakeholder meeting on 17 December! I can assure you that we won't be doing a "...closed-door 'executive' meeting to avoid public scrutiny." Not only would that be illegal and unethical, but it would miss the whole point of why the Neighborhood Council exists: to publicly discuss issues of public interest..."
– Dean Pentcheff (CSPNC Board Member) –

I really don't mean to gloat, but in this case can you blame me? Did I call it, or what? There was absolutely no doubt in my mind regarding the lengths these R-1 hooligans would go to in order to cover up the ways in which they broke the law. You can be certain there were a lot more things which occurred than were brought up at last month's meeting.

Nevertheless, just as I wrote in my previous post, this saga is far from over. The fat lady has yet to sing and there are an abundance of ways to bring their actions into the light of day. The ways they attempted to pass off their fraud onto the citizens of San Pedro and Janice Hahn, their elected Councilwoman, will be revealed.

The thing about the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council which probably bothers me the most is the fact they preach the gospel of "transparency" and "accountability" but they really have no intention of honoring either concept. Their goal is secrecy and advancing their own agenda. Anything they can do to accomplish this without the "bother" of public input, they do without as much as batting an eyelash.

You only have to look at a couple things to confirm this. First, and the most visible, is the way they have tried to restrict the definition of "stakeholder" for their district. I could write volumes, but the short version is they want as few people as possible to have any rights when it comes to their group. And even though Mark Wells attempted to turn the phrase into something else, "ranting elitist" is not a compliment. It accurately and succinctly describes the attitude of the Coastal council.

The second manifestation of the Coastal/R-1 gang's attempt to restrict input is to ignore the rules for setting the Agenda of their stakeholder meetings. This goes hand-in-hand with the sorry excuse for records they call "minutes". (Which I have commented on before.) They pick out a few items they feel are innocuous and place them on the Agenda. Everything else is left off. Despite important issues being known about, planned and scheduled. (Lord knows they don't want any of Bisno's crowd showing up to refute any of Coastal's ludicrous assertations.) Instead, they lump everything together under "Public comment on non-agenda items."

What a crock... Perhaps DONE will have something to say about this in the future.

Last night we had the pleasure of our ever gracious Councilwoman, Janice Hahn, attending the monthly stakeholder meeting. Now is it just me, or is it pretty much an accepted reality that her time is limited? Therefore it would stand to reason that her appearance was planned and scheduled. Especially as she had 3 of her staff with her and at least 6 pages of pre-printed, typewritten notes. Even Dan Dixon and John Mavar from the Northwest Council were there. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but wouldn't this indicate some pre-meditation? So why wasn't it on the Agenda?

Councilwoman Hahn addressed the assembly and took questions for about 2 hours. This is not a small amount of time for her in the normal scheme of things, much less just a few days before Christmas. She addressed every subject of interest to residents of San Pedro including TraPac, the police situation, Angels' Gate, Kaiser Point, Ponte Vista, the telephone tax, and many, many more. A very comprehensive overview. A rare insight into the guts of many important issues. So why wasn't it on the Agenda?

It is always a special occasion when we get to hear from our Councilwoman, but especially when we get to ask about any subject we decide we want to get information about. And we get to hear her replies, opinions and positions live and in real-time. I know dozens of people who would have loved to come and hear what she had to say, as was well their right as stakeholders and residents of the 15th Council District. There would have been standing-room-only. So why was it such a secret? So why wasn't it on the Agenda?

The answer is deceptively simple. The Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council does not want community involvement. Despite their disingenuous lies about supporting transparency, in reality they want to fly under-the-radar. They have their own private club led by people from Point Fermin and Palisades and they don't much care what anyone else has to say. They have proven they care not a whit about the law, diverting public monies, subverting their official positions for private gain, conflicts of interest, and who knows what else.

These people are so arrogant and in-your-face they figure they won't/can't get caught. And even if they do, it'll be only a wrist slap (if anything). As I wrote before, these people are so slimy, they could give any professional politician in Sacramento or Washington a run for their money. The more I see, the more I realize how true it is.

Core Issues

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. It has been a few days since I wrote and there are several items which need to be addressed. I promise though, you won't be bored.

Before we get into the meat of this post, I would ask whomever is reading to pause for a moment of silence in sympathy for Mark Wells. It seems poor Mark is having "only limited fun" since he feels:

Sunday, December 2, 2007
"It's only limited fun I am having, being attacked by a nobody.

The person has not enough honor in them to identify himself/herself, so no matter what they write, there is no reason to believe him or her. That makes it only limited fun."

My heart goes out to him. He feels we should ignore the inescapable reality that he writes garbage in his blog without bothering to check the most basic facts, which in normal circumstances should open anyone up to being corrected. But in an even greater stretch of imagination, because somehow he feels my identity is not a certainty, therefore it should invalidate anything I write. This is analogous to saying that the writings of Mark Twain or A.M. Barnard should be ignored since they did not publish under their given names of Samuel Clemens and Louisa May Alcott. I hope everyone can see the patently ridiculous nature of this assumption eliminates the need to comment any further.

However, back to addressing the CORE issues.

¤ In the absence of more rebuttal and denials regarding the ATSAC situation it seems someone finally checked with LADOT and Caltrans and realized the ATSAC situation as I described is accurate. Funny how research usually uncovers the truth. Of course Mark Wells has to fall back on his old routine... and there he goes again... more outrageous statements with no basis in fact. I never said anything about supporting the developer's last proposal of 1,950 units. What I did say was that I supported a unified, coordinated traffic mitigation system. Read it for yourself as it is in the immediately preceding post. What reasonable resident of San Pedro and the neighboring communities wouldn't want that? Is there anyone who doesn't want better traffic flow? But Mark continues to obfuscate the central issues by stating unsubstantiated, incorrect positions.

¤ On the issue with the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council and the R-1 Neighborhoods Are 1 thugs; despite debate to the contrary and being told I had not heard things correctly, a quick check of the Coastal website shows all the R-1 propaganda has been removed. As has the recording on their answering machine. It seems my hearing, and conclusions, are not as faulty as some people would have wanted everyone to believe. If my ascertations were not correct, why would everything have been removed from the site? I guess "rebuke" was an accurate description after all. The actions taken by certain board members of the Coastal council were real, egregious and in contravention of law. Nonetheless, the fat lady has yet to sing and this saga is far from over.

Let me expound.

Mark Wells has written he agreed there should be an investigation of the activities of the Coastal council, although he misstates what an "investigation" would be. Laura Chick conducts financial audits only. Her results could be turned over to the City Attorney, or State's Attorney for prosecution, but any "investigation" into activities other than financial would be conducted by the City Attorney. In addition, Mark Wells calls for an investigation of the Ponte Vista telephone surveys and also my role in writing a blog which purpose is to merely disseminate accurate information. What he fails to comprehend is there is a vast chasm of difference between the various activities. Publishing a blog is certainly not any type of illegal offense. Neither is conducting a telephone survey. A telephone survey simply seeks community reaction to aspects of a project. They do not sell anything, they do not ask for money. I'm certain after receiving a survey call, there is not anyone who ran out and said, "Wow, that was great. I think I'm going to buy at Ponte Vista." It is a completely legitimate and legal activity.

However, subverting public money to a private organization IS in contravention of municipal code and a potentially illegal, criminal activity. It is conceivable this could lead to criminal charges being filed. This could happen not only against the people who actually diverted the money, but also against the people who were beneficiaries of the potentially criminal activity. They would have to prove they had absolutely no knowledge of the source of the funds. You can see the obvious problem here.

However, it is not as simple as this. The R-1 thugs did a lot more than just take public money. Specifically, Ponte Vista had to submit all their support petitions for verification. When petitions are submitted, they are submitted UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. This means that everyone on the list has been certified as being qualified to sign. Doesn't it occur to anyone else that it is more than a little strange the R-1 petitions were kept "secret". No information was disclosed about the signors. Any copies distributed were didacted to remove addresses, phone numbers, etc. In short, there was no way to verify who the signors were, or if they were qualified as residents of the 15th City Council District to sign at all. I happen to know from personal knowledge that there are people on the R-1 petitions from Torrance, Lomita, Carson, 14-year olds, etc., etc.. That would certainly open these petitions up to questions regarding their validity. Why hasn't anyone questioned this or demanded an audit? Why hasn't Janice's staff reviewed the R-1 petitions and informed her of irregularities? If there are going to be investigations, this should be one of the first places to start. I'll bet my bottom dollar there is nowhere near the number of qualified signatures the R-1 thugs have claimed. Doesn't anyone else care that people from outside our community are influencing what happens here?

¤ Moving on to the continuous complaints regarding the growth of brush on the Ponte Vista property. It's been that way for 10 years even during the years the Navy owned it. Why all the fuss now? Any cable-splicer telephone repairman can copy pages and pages from the municipal code. It means nothing since he doesn't understand any of it. He is merely throwing more garbage in the mix to muddy the waters. But the City has plenty of lawyers and city administrators who do understand the regulations and their enforcement. The developer has a surplus of supervision by the City and is made to comply with all relevant codes. Which is more than I can say about residents of Northwest and the Eastview area of RPV. Take a walk around their neighborhoods and see how many don't even care enough to carry pooper-scoopers to clean up after their dogs. How can someone complain about some brush when you can't even walk down your own street without having to watch out for "land mines" strewn about because of all the people who don't even care enough about the areas around their own homes to clean up after their own dogs?

¤ As far as the "unsecured structures" on the property; if Mark Wells had bothered to check with anyone, he would know that the structures which are not boarded up are because Ponte Vista has contracts with police and fire departments for training. The emergency responders need access to structures in order to make their training experience as realistic as possible. Of all people, Mark should appreciate this more than most. With the recent surgery he writes he underwent, what would happen if he would trip and fall in his home? Well because of their training, the police and fire departments would be able to better respond and get him the care he needed faster. And be able to get him out of his home and to a medical facility. How is this a bad thing? Why in the world would anyone complain about a training facility for emergency personnel for which they could reap a personal benefit? The answer is because that is just the tactic he has chosen. Complain about everything. Very, very sad.

¤ However I'm sorry to say it is even sadder than that. Mark Wells has been sowing seeds of bigotry and racism in order to further his personal agenda. I don't need to make this up. He writes in his own words:

Saturday, May 19, 2007
Hmmm... So what can they think of next? Oh, I know, all these brand new units will turn into rentals. It will turn the neighborhood into a "slum like Scottsdale Estates up in Carson".

Saturday, November 17, 2007
Wait a minute! I think I finally know. It's not "the project", it's "the projects". That must be it! Perhaps we just can't hear the "s" when it is spoken and it must be left out of the writings, these folks create.

The only problem is that Bob has absolutely no intention of building any housing that lower income folks can afford, so I guess when you leave the "s" off the word, it means that it is going to be the "projects" for the rich folks.

Ah, that felt good. I had been wondering what "the project" meant when it is used by Bob's supporters. Now I know and it makes much more sense. It must also mean when you keep the "s" off the end of "project", you keep the (s)h*it folks out of your glamour condos.

This type of unmitigated prejudice is an embarrassment to everyone who lives in San Pedro. It clearly demonstrates the attitude of the R-1 thugs and the depths to which they will stoop. There is no place in San Pedro for this mindset. Mark Wells should keep himself and his mean-spirited outlook over in RPV.


Again - my apologies for the lengthiness of this post. But I'm almost finished! Keep going!

¤ Yet another complaint which has been raised loudly and often is that Bob Bisno "stole" the property from the people of San Pedro. "...it should have gone to us..." is the common refrain. I guess everyone forgets that the City WAS offered the land and they turned it down. I would really like to know who the "us" is that the property was "stolen" from, how they would have acquired the property, and what they would have done with it (not to mention the financing for whatever their plans turned out to be). Personally, I think it's just sour grapes from the same R-1 gang.

¤ Ancillary to the acquisition question is that there are people who think Bisno is somehow OBLIGATED to provide access roads to Mary Star high school and also Fitness Center Drive. How in the world do people come up with this? Has everyone forgotten the concept of private property rights? Ponte Vista has no obligation to provide any of this. The deal between Mary Star and the City was struck long before Ponte Vista ever existed. And why anyone thinks Bisno is required to bail out Fitness Center Drive is a complete mystery. Bisno has every right to negotiate conditions for giving up land which he bought and paid for. Instead of being appreciative that he even considers doing either one, some people just feel a sense of entitlement. Get over it! Ponte Vista did not create the traffic problems of either Mary Star nor Fitness Center Drive. The fact Ponte Vista is willing to help craft a solution demonstrates they are part of the community and plan to be here for the long run.

¤ NOTE TO JANICE HAHN, the R-1 gang is like a bunch of Hare Krishnas, loud and visible. If you allow yourself to get sucked into a dialogue with them, they can almost make sense. But the truth is they are a fringe group and there are very, very few of them. Just like the R-1 gang. They are not your constituency. The population of your district is growing and it is disproportionately skewed toward people who need entry-level and workforce housing. NOT people who already own their homes. Look to the future. These are the people who are going to elect you to your next term in office.

Mike Molina & Gordon Teuber, get off your high-horses and get over your personal biases in favor of R-1. Stop giving your boss bad advice. You are not doing her any favors, you are embarrassing her, and are hurting her public image.


¤ In closing (finally):

The thing that we must keep in mind is that there is going to be something built at Ponte Vista. The developer has made efforts to reach out and get community input. We can either be part of the process, or we (at least some of us) can sit, cover our eyes and ears and chant "R-1, R-1, R-1...". In which case they will be forever unhappy since single-family homes are no longer a feasible solution for a metropolitan area. At the end of the day, we have to live with our neighbors; let's start acting like it.

ATSAC for Dummies

Well there he goes again... In the spirit of a true zealot, our blogging R-1 Thug reverts to reiterating erroneous statements as if repeating the falsehoods enough times will somehow make them come true. Sorry Mark, but those aren't ruby slippers... no matter how many times you click them together and wish, it won't make it so. And you ain't no Dorothy either.

Nonetheless I guess the only way to clear this up is to get down to as basic a level as I can. Hopefully with the correct information laid out simply enough, anyone can understand it. Even those who are not "...in the know..." to quote Mark. This information is publically available to anyone who wants to bother checking the FACTS before they start putting tripe into print.

It doesn't get more basic than the name - ATSAC (Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control). ATSAC is a proprietary traffic control system owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles. It is arguably one of the most complete and sophisticated systems available. But the operative word here is "proprietary". It belongs to the City of Los Angeles. Not the County. Not Caltrans.

The County of Los Angeles and Caltrans use a different system named ATCS (Adaptive Traffic Control System). It also is a system based on real-time demand. When properly and completely installed, it works just fine. However, there are two major drawbacks. First, the ATSAC and ATCS don't "talk" to each other. One speaks Spanish and the other answers in Portugese. Secondly, even though ATCS could work just fine, it doesn't on the 12 traffic signals between Summerland and PCH. Why not?, you ask. Well, that is because the system has not been properly and completely installed.

That's right. Despite the press release from a County supervisor's office, the system is not working. It seems the only equipment installed were sensor loops under the pavement at the intersections. The light cycles were lengthened to 90 seconds, but the control of the signals IS STILL NOT dynamic. The control cables have a break in them "somewhere" and Caltrans has been running in circles trying to find the gap. So the system is "installed" but not working. You would think they would have tested it before putting out a press release. I suppose that would be too logical.

But it gets even better (or worse, depending on how perverse your sense of humor is). There have been no CCTV cameras installed either. How can you have a demand-based, interactive, real-time system with no cameras? The answer - you can't. No cameras, no working sensors, translates to not really an adaptive traffic control system at all.

Oh, they plan to install the cameras. Only it will be "later". When exactly will "later" be? Perhaps it is my distrust of government, but if it took them this long to act on the suggestions of the Western Avenue Task Force and implement a change as small as lengthening the timing of the signal cycles, PLUS, this work was done ONLY because of special state and federal money being allocated; how much longer do you think it will take Caltrans to complete the job if they have to write the check themselves?

Is everyone confused yet? I know I am, and I've got notes to keep me on track.

Unfortunately this is like a bad dream that won't quit, because it gets more complicated. We have to remember that the entire area borders several different jurisdictions with the County, the City, Caltrans, Lomita, and Rancho Palos Verdes each holding various and sundry ownership and/or control of the assorted roads. The problem is more complex than can be answered by merely installing a dynamic traffic control system along a tiny section of one thoroughfare. What happens when you get 1 block off Western? Or let's say you turn south onto PV Drive headed into 5-points? Or north onto PV Drive and immediately hit a section of Lomita with its traffic signals maintained by the County? Or just continue west toward 25th Street. Without the multiple systems being coordinated, you can drive up and down a 2-mile strip of Western all you want. Just don't try to go anywhere else!

At this juncture, it should be rather obvious that the Ponte Vista benefit is a tangible and credible bonus for San Pedro traffic. I don't think anyone has any illusions about the City of Los Angeles paying to install CCTV cameras on sections of road owned by the County and controlled by Caltrans. Or vice versa. And don't forget about Lomita and Rancho Palos Verdes. Does anyone think any of these municipal entities will pay for the coordinating of systems and the installation of all the necessary equipment? Not in this lifetime...

The irrefutable truth is even without Ponte Vista, traffic in San Pedro traffic is going to increase substantially. The growing Port activities will ensure that all by itself. The only way to give the roads a fighting chance is to tie traffic flow together under one system. The only way that is going to happen is if you have Bisno Development write the check. I would rather have a single, consolidated, coordinated system than a mish-mash of jerry-rigged, patchwork solutions.

So Mr. R-1 Thug blogger, shuck and jive all you want about what you supposedly wrote. The truth is you were just throwing out more unsubstantiated, inflammatory posts merely to give yourself another platform for yet another shrill, meaningless protest.

And perhaps you should refer to a dictionary for the definition of the word "research".

The Privileged and Disgruntled Few

Back in May, a small group of homeowners association members upset over a development project began a recall effort against Jack Weiss the 5th District Councilman. The movement never gained any support outside of neighborhoods of the founding five members. The recall was a complete failure.

What was never publicized was the motivation of the main instigator. It seems this person was to be a major beneficiary of the project because of land rights which would have to be purchased by the developer. However, they were not getting quite the profit they felt they were entitled to. This person appealed to Mr. Weiss for assistance. Mr. Weiss wisely refused to get involved. The landowner was enraged. So what actions do you they took to set things right (in their mind)? They relied on being loud and on demonizing anyone who did not agree with them. In this case Councilman Weiss. His neutrality was evil and disagreement with their particular view was a punishable offense. And the recall was born.

Funny how we have not heard much about the failure of the recall. Nor has anyone described exactly where and how the money raised for the effort was spent. It sort of just flittered away.

Golly, that situation sounds familiar. Money flittering away. Kind of like the money which the Coastal council spent for the benefit of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Committee without the proper accounting, not to mention in contravention of state law. For that matter, the R-1 gang seem as if they borrowed the entire playbook. Unfounded accusations against Bisno; personal, vindictive attacks against employees; vicious retribution against Ponte Vista supporters.

Only difference is, we do it "the Pedro way" That means we have a president of a neighborhood council justifying the skewed membership in the councils. He thinks it is just fine that "They're older, whiter, wealthier and dominated by homeowners..." And does not support the 912 Commission's recommendation for incorporating demographics. We have Mark Wells writing in his blog that Ponte Vista is going to become "projects" with an obvious slap at the Hispanic and black communities in our town. We have folks trashing years-long friendships over differing opinions about an inescapable reality. Yes, OUR lunatic fringe is much better than any other around the entire city. We don't just start a recall, in OUR community we get down-and-dirty. What is breaking a few laws as long as we keep out the Beverley Hills developer? It's not important that we deceive our friends and neighbors. The important thing is that we continue to artificially limit housing opportunities for anyone who wants to live here, but wasn't born here.

All so some privileged and disgruntled few can keep up their property values, and keep San Pedro an economic and cultural backwater.

Clarification

Before I move forward with another post, I think this would be a good time to clarify the targets of criticism in the last post. The easiest would be starting with those people who ARE NOT targets. This would include all the newly-elected members of the Coastal council. They had no idea what they were walking into. They could not have known of the malfeasance which had occurred before they arrived. And there are some members of the board who have been there this last year who were also surprised by Mr. Griego's declarations.

No, the targets are the board members who are concurrently active, card-carrying members of the Rudderless Steering Committee of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Committee. I'm not naming names, yet. But if anyone takes a look, they've gone through extraordinary steps over the last year to keep their identities secret. Why would they do that? Yet their actions single them out. These are the people who abused their positions on the Coastal Council, and the Northwest Council, for the gain of the R-1 thugs. These are the people who need to be winnowed out.

Coastal council rebuked by City Attorney

Tom Griego, Deputy City Attorney with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, cited the council for its questionable activities involving the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Committee.

On Monday, during the regular monthly stakeholder meeting for the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council, Mr. Griego admonished the council that: recruiting people for a group; using public money to fund supplying banners, signs, and petitions; or supplying labor for lobbying or petition-gathering, was in contravention of state law.

Mr. Griego very clearly defined that "...a Neighborhood Council could only explain the factors they considered and relate their conclusion and no more..." In keeping with this definition, the inclusion of certain articles in the council newsletter over the last year which attempted to recruit members and solicit money is a clear and ongoing violation.

There were many angry and obtuse questions directed at Mr. Griego who did his best to keep things focused and civil. Further debate had Mr. Griego clarifying that no member of a Neighborhood Council could act in, or allude to, their official capacity while participating in any outside group. There could be no reference to the Neighborhood Council and no use of official letterheads, seals or logos.

Were this to be enforced, then quite a few members of the Coastal council, and some members of other councils, could face potential sanctions for speaking at R-1 meetings, gathering petitions and participating in protests, in their official capacities. Nothing prevents anyone from acting as an individual. But that is the problem. Evidently all these actions were taken while loudly trumpeting their official standings and offices.

Taking it to its logical conclusion, this also includes the use of web-hosting. After all, the City pays for the Neighborhood Council web site. Giving the R-1 gang free advertising and free space on the Coastal site, promoting their position and their petition, is using public money for lobbying. Which is forbidden. Sounds like something Laura Chick should be auditing.

But it doesn't end there! Since late March 2006 when you call the contact number for the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council (310-290-0049) you get an answering machine which says, "Hello and thank you for calling the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council and the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Committee..."

No, it's not a simple oversight. The contact page on the R-1 gang's website lists guess who's phone number? Yep, the Coastal Neighborhood Council. Yes! They are that blatant about it! Is it any wonder they have finally been busted?

The questions would not stop and they ran out of time. It was decided that additional questions would be forwarded to Soledad Garcia. Once she had them compiled and organized she would submit them to Mr. Griego who will return for the next monthly stakeholder meeting on December 17, 2007. I encourage everyone to take a little time and attend. It should be a real extravaganza. Watch for their attempt to take these proceedings private into some sort of closed-door "executive" meeting in order to avoid public scrutiny.

It is rather ironic that at the beginning of the meeting, these very same board members were griping about having to take the Ethics/Conflict of Interest training. Sounds like too little, too late to me. For all the finger-pointing they've done, and given the egregious nature and numerous ways they attempted to circumvent the rules, these people could give any slimy professional politician in Sacramento or Washington a run for their money.

ATSAC still pending in City of Los Angeles

In yet another stunning example of brilliantly inept "reporting of facts", it has been incorrectly reported that the ATSAC (Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control) system had been completed.

The truth is that there are still 57 intersections to be completed in San Pedro by LADOT. Expected completion is February 29, 2009. The press release cited in that other blog deals with LA County controlled intersections. There are NO County controlled intersections along Western Avenue. Those intersections are controlled by Caltrans and still part of the Ponte Vista project.

Anyone with half a brain could have discovered this public information. However, rather than talk about the facts, Mark Wells again uses his blog as a springboard to rail against Ponte Vista. He can bleat all he wants. Just use the facts please.

The facts are that the deal to fund $1 million for ATSAC is still pending Ponte Vista project approval. The City still needs the money. In fact more so since their budget crunch is looming and they are facing reduced tax revenue. Just because a street is listed in a press release, doesn't make it fact. The entire tirade in that other blog is just a lot of hot air. But, of course, he won't issue a retraction. That's okay. It is obvious where the credibility sits.

I am not a crook!

When I read "I am not a thug.", I can't help but think of these famous words. Does anyone else remember?

It would be possible to write for many pages dissecting all the different examples which illustrate that, in fact, the author of these words is the quintessential example of the person the letter-to-the-editor is talking about. But I won't. That is his style (the thug's). Not mine. The truths of the letter are obvious and innumerable. Bravo to the letter-writer for being able to elucidate the matter.

And how does the "T" respond? In a manner in which only a thug could. With implied curses and convenient "typos". All accompanied by a disingenuous "apology". Too late, though. His true colors have already been shown.

A main technique used by the "T" in fomenting his consequences upon anyone who dares to form a dissenting opinion is to parse their statements and deconstruct them. He then strings together the definitions of single words to demonstrate how "illogical" the position is. He forgets that communication is not merely about accuracy of individual words. "Context" takes into consideration the meter and cadence of a statement. It takes fine nuances, color and timbre into account. Using a pure definition-driven approach, any piece of great literature could be reduced to gibberish. Analyzing a work by Herman Melville for plot, sub-plot and leit motif is useless when it is all reduced to strung-together definitions. Therefore anything written by any lessor author would stand no chance of being understood. Which is, of course, his intention. Since he cannot debate the facts, he is content to obfuscate the issues.

Of course while criticizing everyone else, his own grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. are so full of errors as to be equivalent to that of a high school student. (Apologies to the good students out there.)

There is no need for parsing and deconstruction when the "T" can merely state fallacies, untruths and misquoted details as if they were fact. It is his blog so no one can argue with him. No dissenting opinions are posted (that is, without being subjected to deconstruction).

All he does his continually bleat the same old protests. And the commenters on his blog continue to fill the space with venom. I used to see your rage-filled faces in Vietnam protest rallies. Protesting so hard against everything, you had no clue about the basic facts over which you were protesting. I guess some things never change.

He doesn't even get it when the publisher of a local paper calls it the "Mark Wells faction". He is so full of himself he automatically assumes it means a faction he founded or controls. So off he goes and we are treated to yet another tear about a hypothetical situation. Seems he enjoys talking about hypothetical situations. Probably because reality does not lend itself to his perception of how things should be. He cannot conceive the concept that it is merely a shorthand label. He, his unswerving allegiance to an illogical goal, his rabid chanting of slogans and his vociferous support for a completely untenable position, make him the perfect label. On this blog he has been referred to as the "lunatic fringe". This is what James Allen was saying. But the "T" does not get it. Of course not. That is part of the definition of being the lunatic fringe. So listen up. It was not a compliment.

Nonetheless, after reading the unending, unadulterated garbage spewing forth in his blog, another quote comes to mind. It was recently made by King Juan Carlos of Spain to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela:

"Por que no te callas?" - or "Why don't you shut up?"

HaHaHaHa! "Above the Fold" HaHaHaHa!

I don't know where he gets these nutball ideas. Is there a school or something where they teach weird conspiracy theory crap like this?

Well, it's always worth a good laugh at least!

Tom Field

Editorial Privilege

By-the-way, I should remind everyone that since this is my blog, I get to decide what gets published. It has obviously been of no use to try moderating comments as the R-1 thugs are just too rabid and keep commenting with insults. Actually I feel sorry for the poor single-minded buggers. Nevertheless, I can tell what they really mean to say in their heart-of-hearts. Therefore I reserve the right to edit all comments to reflect what I know the commenter really means.

Tom Field

Brief Hiatus

Well Moms and Dads, Boys and Girls, Kids of allll ages.... I'm going to take a brief hiatus.

With the apparent demise of the plans to build at Ponte Vista, there is not that much to talk about. In addition, there are so many of you on summer holidays, there is not much of a readership anyway.

So I thought this would be a good time to re-think the direction I want this blog to take. I'm tired of being taken to task for rebutting the baseless rumors and allegations of Mark Wells just because I specifically name him. Yet no one bothers to look that every time I write anyting, he jumps on it instantly, ripping it to shreds with his twisted logic. He parses my posts looking for things to criticize. Then he goes through it word by word, taking things out of context and "proving" them to be false. It should make people wonder why he feels so threatened that he has to do this. It makes me feel a bit sorry for him.

Despite repeated attempts in asking him to go his own way and leave me alone, and I would do the same; he cannot seem to control himself. He just has had to quash and belittle anyone who expressed even the slightest support for more housing in San Pedro.

It seems to me that twisted logic trumps facts. But that is the nature of fanaticism. And there can be no doubt that the R-1 thugs have proven themselves to be fanatics. They've proven they can shout louder and with more violence than anyone else. They've proven they can bully Councilwoman Hahn. One can only wonder what/whom they will turn their sights on next.

There seems to be no end to the arrogance of Mr. Wells. He write posts like "When Bob and I Are Wrong". My god, what type of arrogance is this? Or now that there is supposedly a new owner for one of the projects in downtown San Pedro, he is inserting himself into that as well. It was bad enough the this person who does not even live in San Pedro, and could not stick out his tenure on the CAC, butted in on Ponte Vista which was a subject to which he had no right to comment at all. Now he is going all the way across town to give his opinion about this other project.

Which brings up another point. He is such an "expert" that after all this time he can't even get the name of people involved in the project correct. He spells and has more typos worse than I do (and I am really bad). One would think if a person spent so much time reading through the DEIR, they could at least get names correct. But perhaps, I'm being too logical. If he is anything more than the cable-splicer that he claims he is, it is no wonder our phone system is so screwed up. "...working with data flow and computers..." requires precision and accuracy. Mr. Well's blog has demonstrated he has absolutely no understanding of either concept.

Furthermore, who the hell is Mark Wells that his opinion counts for anything more than using to clean up his dog's mess? But I guess if you say enough outrageous things, people will believe them. Next thing you will see is Mark Wells running for an RPV city council seat. He might be whacked, but at least he's got a healthy ego.

I'll be back. But first I have to decide which way this blog is going.

Tom Field

p.s. RE. his comment about my 15 minutes of fame being over; that's fine because they never really started. It was never my intention to have 15 minutes of fame, so it's no big thing for me.

Never a Dull Moment In San Pedro

• My apologies for taking so long to get this post created. I just had to let things come together in a meaningful way. You know man, I just had to sit and groove with it for a while. I'm sorry it is late, but it will also make some points which could not have been made in a meaningful way if they had been thrown out there with all the other items being published.

• As I start this post, I will say up front I am sending it over to my friend who writes the RNeighborhoodsAre1.org blog. This is just too good to ignore. (In my opinion at least, and he will publish me as a guest columnist.)

• Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the CAC meeting last night on July 24. However from all the writing done about it, it must have been quite an event. I researched everything I could find, pro and con. As one would expect, there were numerous opinions about what happened.

• My purpose here is to write my opinion, only my opinion. No one else's. I really have come to not care what others to think about Ponte Vista. It has done me no good and I suspect not changed a single other person's position. Nevertheless, I still get to express my First Amendment rights to free speech. While concurrently managing to piss people off on both sides of the issue.

• Reading through the proceedings, it is patently obvious that Councilwoman Hahn's Community Advisory Committee completely abdicated the task with which they were charged. The entire proceedings were a sham and many people lost months of work for an outcome which effectively resolves nothing.

• As I recall, the CAC was charged with coming up with recommendations for a Specific Plan for Ponte Vista. Those plans would be used by Councilwoman Hahn when she forwarded the application up to the Los Angeles Planning Department. Instead, according to Jerry Gaines, "What it tells me is we don't have a project sitting before us other than the project we've just rejected. I do not have a project I can react to in front of me." Huh??... Isn't that what the committee was supposed to do? Form a Specific Plan? But perhaps even the most brilliant minds can't take that little leap of creativity.

• Yet once more, John Greenwood also had something to say which surprised me. "We're saying until we see some reason to change, we're going back to the existing zoning. We do not have consensus on any one plan. We're so far away from that, we're not even close." While I don't agree with much of his vision for San Pedro, I must applaud the fact he was willing to roll-up-his-sleeves, and got in there and worked. Originally I had him pegged as one of the R-1 goons. Instead, he worked hard and come up with a very well thought-out plan. Great job, Mr. Greenwood. Thank you. I only wish your work could have been reconciled with one of the other plans and something more concrete could have come out of the melding of them.

Nevertheless, in the end, it boiled down to a couple sentences I was told were muttered by Dan Dixon. "We could have done this in 10 minutes. Instead we wasted 10 months."

• Exactly, Mr. Dixon! Hours and months of people's time and effort were wasted because a few people could not, or would not, move off their pre-decided positions. They held their breathe and turned blue long enough that the other's on the CAC finally had to throw up their hands and vote along with a completely unexpected non-sequiter.

• And Councilwoman Janice Hahn sat there eating it all up with a big spoon and a big grin. After all, what does she have to worry about? Prop R has been upheld, so she has six more years to figure out what to do next.

Janice, don't you care at all that they did not follow your instructions in the smallest iota?

It seems you are happy with the outcome now. Let's see how that works out in a few years... But don't worry your poor little blonde head now. When it comes time, I'm certain Mike Molina, or Gordon Tueber, will be around to tell you what to do next. Better keep those guys close.

• Needless to say, the Bisno staff and supporters were stunned and the R-1 people elated. That's how it goes sometimes. That last minute "Hail Mary" football pass actually gets caught for a touchdown.


• Now look for the scrambling on Bisno's part to find an exit strategy. Good luck dude. You'll need it.


I guess it's a day for the history books.

The day that:

Outmanuvered:
Tom Field

Mark Wells' Four R's

• Responsible
• Realistic
• Reasonable
• Responsive

These four words were used early on by Mark Wells in his description of how he would conduct his membership on Councilwoman Hahn's Ponte Vista CAC, his blog, and his conduct in general.


But what has REALLY happened? Lets' take a quick review.



• Responsible

¤ Mr. Wells has repeatedly made unfounded accusations against individuals, claiming that they are in fact me. While he has only hinted at it on his blog, he has circulated several names in emails and conversations. As a result, people are suffering from being cast as a Bisno "supporter", or "bought by Bisno", or some other slur and being accused of writing this blog.


Mark Wells has this fixation with my identity which is completely out of proportion to any attention it deserves. Instead of focusing on the issues, Mark Wells wants to "out" me, or anyone else who disagrees with him. He cannot see the project and how it will affect San Pedro is more important than any individual.


So, Mark Wells, let me ask you directly. If I walked up to you tomorrow and introduced myself, what difference would it make in how people form their opinions about Ponte Vista? I'll tell you my opinion. Absolutely none. You see, I am not so full of myself as to think that I make one iota of difference. All that I do is write about what I see happening.


But let me give you a friendly warning. Slander and libel are very real offenses. You are committing both. The more people you harass in trying to "out" me, the more liability you are exposing yourself to.


¤ At least every other day he accuses Bisno Development of being responsible for supposedly buying off someone for some endorsement.


¤ A spoof blog was started and someone made the mistake of using real names on spoof comments. So what does Mark Wells do? He calls the cops. Even though the mistake was corrected, he is so full of spite and bile, he's going to make certain the SOB is found. Does that sound like the actions of a "responsible" individual?


¤ With not one shred of proof, evidence, or any other reason; any blog, letter, or any other written form of opinion is automatically (according to Mark Wells) a supporter, an employee, or agent for Bisno. More of Mark Wells and his "responsible" behavior.


¤ Mr. Wells himself is guilty of encouraging others to commit crimes. Paid canvassers are protected. Encouraging people to follow them around and harass them is a crime.



• Realistic

¤ On this topic, he has been all over the map. He plays Chicken Little, crying that the sky is falling and that all the units built at Ponte Vista will turn into rentals, or that all the buildings will look like Seaport Luxury Homes. The number of examples of this behavior are too numerous to mention. All you have to do is look through his blog and you will see the stupidity for yourself.


¤ He has continually taken statistics out of context, then gone off on a snipe-hunt with them ending up with some ridiculous permutation which had no relevance to reality. For example - taking the numbers of students-per-household out to the 7th decimal place? How ridiculous is that?



• Reasonable

¤ He tried to infer that Mr. Sal Saltomayor and Mr. Jack Baric did not vote in the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of the Ponte Vista plan because they were against it. In reality, they reasonably recused themselves from the vote because of their involvement with the Ponte Vista CAC. A very classy move by these two gentlemen which demonstrated their honesty and character.


Unlike Mr. Wells who unreasonably attempts to paint their principled action as something else.


¤ On a completely different note, it was Mark Wells who was screaming like a stuck pig about his First Amendment rights when he was asked by Victor Griego to tone down his blog while he was on the CAC. Rather than do that, he resigned from Councilwoman Hahn's committee.


Now, however, Mark Wells has created numerous blogs in response to my blog and others exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech. Every time a new blog appears, Mark Wells has to create his own new blog with an almost identical name in order to confuse the situation. All in order to squelch any opinion which differs from his.

Are these the actions of a "reasonable" person?

¤ Every time a group endorses Ponte Vista and growth, Mark Wells is right there to try badgering and hounding them into rescinding their endorsement. What's the matter Mark? You can't get enough of your own endorsements for your own plan so you have to knock down the other guys'? Oh, that's right. I almost forgot. You don't have a plan. Your plan is for nothing to be built at all. THAT is really going to help San Pedro.


¤ Mark Wells has no idea of what urban planning is, and he could not even stick out his tenure on Janice Hahn's committee, yet suddenly he is an expert and everyone is supposed to listen to him. What's your training Mark? And don't give me any of your PHD (Pedro High Diploma) crap. What are your qualifications?



• Responsive

This point is just plain ludicrous. How can anyone who say "R-1 No Compromise" even write the word responsive?

So how does this all stack up? Just a couple words.

Mark Wells - get a life,

your problem is obvious.

Still Cannnot Get It Right

At the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting on Monday, Chuck Hart spoke out that it was unacceptable that the Northwest Council had not taken a formal position on Ponte Vista. He suggested that Northwest hold a Special Meeting sometime before the next Ponte Vista CAC meeting to adopt a formal position and resolution.

Jody James addressed the matter and said she had gone back through 2 years of minutes (as I have) and had been unable to find a position statement. She said there were other resolutions about other topics (which I found also), but no position statement. She then made a motion that a Special Meeting be scheduled. The motion was seconded and passed.

So sometime between now and July 24, Northwest will finally get around to considering and formally stating their position.

There are a couple points about this topic which are relevant.

First, it was last month that there was the big brouhaha over this subject after I posted up the resolution which had been passed by the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council. I was told in no uncertain terms that I did not know what I was talking about because 3 Neighborhood Councils had passed resolutions opposing Ponte Vista. These were supposedly Coastal, Northwest and Harbor City.

At this point this action begs the question: If they had already passed a resolution, why do they have to call a Special Meeting to form and pass a resolution stating their position?

Easy answer. Because it never happened in the first place.

The same goes for Harbor City. They never passed a resolution either. The only 2 Neighborhood Councils which passed resolutions stating their position have been Wilmington and Central. You've read Central's. Wilmington's said basically that they would support the recommendations which came out of Janice Hahn's Ponte Vista CAC.

And technically, Coastal's resolution was not against Ponte Vista. While I do not have the resolution in front of me, I have it from a reliable source on the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council that the resolution was to maintain R-1 zoning on the property. I have no reason to doubt this. But still, it is not a statement against Ponte Vista.

And that is my point. For months the R-1 gang has been shouting from the rooftops that the 3 Neighborhood Councils (giving the impression it was the 3 San Pedro Neighborhood Councils) had come out against Ponte Vista. In effect, it was merely a bold-faced lie. A tactic they have used all along, and Mark Wells has been perpetuating it on his blog. Say anything you want and hope no one actually goes looking for the proof.

And then these same people have the unmitigated gall to question the integrity of the developer, when they themselves are foisting lies on the public. What else did they lie about?

They tout how many signatures they obtained on their petitions. What a crock! Hell, if someone walked up to me and asked me if I would sign a petition to reduce traffic on Western, even I would sign it. I seriously doubt that very many of the petition signers were given the full story.

A couple other points. John Mavar, very astutely commented that with the changes etc., he really did not have enough data to make an informed decision either for or against Ponte Vista. I wish everyone involved was this considered and rational.

The other thing is Jody James continues to read the Central resolution incorrectly. She maintains that the resolution says the developer should maximize the number of units. In reality, it says nothing like that. It says:

1. In order that this vacant parcel be developed to best serve the people of this community, we support residential development that OPTIMIZES the number of units, the variety of household types served, and the affordability of housing.

This is a big difference. But again, this is another of the R-1 tactics. Mis-state and sensationalize the facts so they can get people upset and into supporting them.

Finally, there is still no understanding of what a Specific Plan is. If people understood it was MORE RESTRICTIVE than R-1 zoning, they would support it in a heartbeat. Instead, the R-1 gang is playing on a number and making it sound like anything other than that minimum number is going to turn Western into a parking lot. They can't win with the empirical data, so they have to turn to mis-information and lies.

So it all comes back to the title of this blog "the Truth & Common Sense".

Tom Field

Lessons From History

• Some of the points brought up recently during CAC meetings made me realize I needed to know more about Bisno the developer. So I've spent this time doing lots and lots of research. I found things which made me realize even more why we need to come together as a community and make our needs known on this project.

• Some of you R-1ers might want to get some dictionaries handy as I will be using words with more than two syllables and discussing concepts and theories which might be a little complex for you.

• Housing is demand-driven. Yeah, yeah, I can already hear the protests about speculative housing built during dramatically rising real estate markets. You know, you're right, but you're wrong at the same time. Granted there is speculative building that occurs. But guess what? How many of those houses stay vacant? Now think before you answer.... Sure, they might not sell at what the original builder thought he could get for it; or for what the "investor" thought he could flip it for. But still, they get sold or rented. And furthermore, that housing is a fraction of the housing constructed to meet demand.

• Southern California, specifically the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles-Long Beach areas, hold the 5th and 6th spot nationwide. That equates to more and more people coming here and more and more housing demand each year. Think about that for a bit while I digress into a couple lessons from history.


¤¤ Luddites

• The Luddite Movement began in 1811. They opposed technical progress and technical change. For a short time they grew popular, but they lasted only a short time and today they are remembered only in history books.

• Why weren't they successful? Mainly because they opposed an unstoppable force - modernization. A force which held the promise of the greatest good for the greatest part of the community. Kind of like the R-1 gang trying to hold back the tide of housing construction in the metropolitan Los Angeles area. Exactly the same situation - a few radicals attempting to prevent something which holds the greatest good for the greatest part of the community. Mostly for their own personal gains. What universe can their brains be in? Given the facts of a shifting, migrating and growing population, how could anyone think they are going to stop the floodwaters at the borders of San Pedro?

Unlike the Luddites however, the R-1 gang won't even be memorialized anywhere except their own ego-inflated memories.


¤¤ Lincoln Place

• Lincoln Place finished construction in 1951. Over the years it fell into disrepair. While having some nice features like real hardwood floors, it was basically a cheaply-built under-maintained disaster waiting to happen with ancient electrical, plumbing, etc.

• Bob Bisno purchased Lincoln Place in 1986. His plan was to demolish the apartments and build condos and townhomes.

• Shortly thereafter the Lincoln Place Tenant's Association was formed. THEY initiated trying every dirty trick in the book to de-rail Bisno. He was merely responding so he could go forward with his plans for his own property. Last time I checked, the United States still has as one of its basic rights the ability for people to build on their own property as long as the building is approved by local authorities. By-the-way, the speaker at the CAC who stated that seniors had been evicted onto the street should check their facts since they were given exemptions and still live there today.

• 1995 - The Los Angeles City Planning Commission approved Bisno's plans.

• Nevertheless, the Lincoln Place Tenant's Association continued and expanded their obstructionist tactics. Basically they wanted it to remain a low-cost, cheap barrio.

• In 2003, Bisno decided to take his profits and stop having to be subjected to the vindictive tactics of the Lincoln Place Tenant's Association. According to the recorded sales prices of what he bought it for and what he sold it for, he did very, very well.

• In July, 2005 following a challenge to a 1993 environmental impact report, the L.A. County Superior Court ruled that there was nothing distinctive or special to warrant official designation as a historic site, stating that Lincoln Place was "not new or unique in concept" nor "designed by a notable architect." Therefore, the owner (AIMCO) was free to proceed with the plans approved in 1995.


¤¤ Conclusions

• Bisno has not had any ownership interest in the property for over 4 years and is not responsible for any actions of AIMCO, the present owner. Accusing him of misdeeds regarding Lincoln Place is just plain slander and/or libel. Lincoln Place has no relevance to what is happening at Ponte Vista. Trying to connect the two is a desperate tactic.

• The lessons which SHOULD be taken from Lincoln Place regarding Bisno are that:

a) He has "staying power". He held his ownership interest in Lincoln Place from 1986 until 2003.
b) He knows when to take his profits and get out.

Both of these points are things to keep in the forefront of our process.


¤¤ Santa Ana

• Members of the CAC visited City Place in Santa Ana, Ca upon their own request. This one of the most intelligent things they have done. It gave them a chance to see the type of quality construction Bisno does. This is one reason he can't charge $100k for one of his condos. It's not to line his pockets, but rather because the construction costs are so much higher.

• This is the same formula which worked so well for him in Santa Monica in the Water Garden projects. People want quality places to live.

• This is one of the great chances Doug Epperhart mentioned about a project being "unique to San Pedro". It is our chance to re-define and change the face of our community for the better. Now, before plans are fixed - we have the chance to give suggestions which will make this project our own special flavor of San Pedro.

• Bisno was not the first owner of the approximately 10-acre site. There were 3 other owners before him who tried to develop the area. But the City was not ready yet, and there was not yet enough pressure on housing demand.

• But here is the kicker. Pay attention people there will be a quiz afterwards! The City of Santa Ana came to Bisno and insisted that he build the 20-storey condo tower of 350 units. It had not been in Bisno's original plan. But the City of Santa Ana thought there would be the demand.

• The total project size will be approximately 525 units. And that is on 10 acres of land, leaving plenty of space for retail.


¤¤ Relevance to Ponte Vista

• Bisno has the staying power to hold onto the old Naval property until the time is right for him to build his project, be that 3 years, or be it 10. Maybe the R1 thugs can frighten Janice Hahn into backing them, but eventually there will be a Councilperson who won't be intimidated by a loud minority.

• Perhaps Bisno realizes that he is going to be fighting a fight which is not worth it to him. Fine. He gets out. He sells to a large company like AIMCO who just doesn't care about anything. They subdivide the property and slap up a bunch of condo units which most likely exceed the original proposal without any of the amenities.

• Bisno waits it out. But by the time he gets his approvals, housing demand in the area has grown so much that City officials come to him and ask him to build a tower (or two). Remember we are in the 6th fastest-growing metropolitan area in the nation.

Then do the math. If he can manage to get 525 units on 10 acres (with retail) in Santa Ana, what could he squeeze into Ponte Vista? 62 acres divided by 10 equals 6. Take 6 and multiply times 525. Wow! 4,500 units.

And he'd get the approvals and permits with merely rubber-stamps from everyone up the line. Why? Because housing demand will have grown so great that the units are desperately needed. The Port is making certain that there is going to be the growth. Related companies and their subsidiaries will add to that. The brutal truth is, because of the Port, we are in for brutal growth.

• Folks, we can no longer hold onto the San Pedro we had before. Our best bet is to make certain we get our input into what is proposed now. Waiting is not an option. We will wind up just getting more density. Let's find a number now which will most likely be more than we want (but also less than Bisno wants), but we can agree on. After it becomes a Specific Plan we can rest easy that not one single more unit will be built on that property.

The radicals on both sides are not doing our town any favors. We have a chance for input now. Let's not blow it.

Tom Field

failed experiment

I'm sorry to say that despite my best efforts, an un-moderated forum cannot be maintained. There is that small band of fanatic lunatics who cannot prevent themselves from tagging this blog.

I know it doens't matter to most of you, but it matters to me. Most of you can merely read past the garbage and continue. Yet it matters to me. Not the tagging itself, but rather the hatred which drives it. I've seen it too often in life. Hatred against anyone or anything which is differs from the status quo. I have no intention to subject myself to them again if there is a way to avoid it.

I'm still going to have to read the hatred whilst moderating, but at least it will not contaminate this blog.

I had such hopes that, given an open forum, people could set aside their predjudices, hatred and vitriol for at least a few minutes to write from their hearts. To write what they thought might make us a better town. It doesn't look as if the people of San Pedro are capable of this. What a pity. It makes me sad.

I know it is a mininscule portion of the population. That is normally the way it is. The cowardly crazies will not give us a break and this is a real pity. They even go over to Mark Wells' blog posing as me, just to stir the pot. I do not know what Mark will do to solve the problem. I hope he finds a viable, workable solution so he can continue to get his message and point-of -view out to the public. I wish him good luck.

Everyone is entititled to their opinion. He has always been courteous and allowed me to express mine, all I can do is attempt to return the courtesy.

Now, with this post I have to enter a phase where everything must be moderated. My sincerest apologies. Yet I hope my posts present enough interesting ideas for you to return and peruse their contents.

Tom Field

debunking misinformation

Wow! An entire post on Mark Wells' blog talking about me. I'm flattered. Seriously.

• But I think Mr. Wells' statement that he is flattered is disingenuous. He forgets that I started my blog after it became obvious I was a minority on his. As a courtesy I stopped commenting on his and started my blog so that serious discussions about compromise situations could be discussed without interrupting the flow of anti-Bisno venom on his blog.

But still I get criticized for not "compromising". Even though I came out squarely against the new proposal. And just because I kept my total number of units the same, but adjusted the mix to include more senior units. The number of 1,700 is a good one. Anyone with half a brain knows that when it comes out of City Planning it would not be 1,700. I don't think they have ever recommended more than an applicant has ever asked for. Can anyone else?

"Compromise" in Mr. Wells' definition is that I did not come down to 429 units. But in reality "compromise" would be somewhere between 429 and the 2,300 originally proposed. Geez, maybe I should ask a math teacher, but it seems to me 1,700 is between those two numbers. Perhaps I'm wrong and that "new math" they were teaching some years ago holds the answer.

• Regarding my "anonymity"... Given the vehemence of the vitriol directed towards Linda D'Ambrosi, Joe Donato, other Ponte Vista supporters, and comments left on my blog, can anyone honestly expect me to step up and say "Hi, I'm Tom Field"? Would you subject yourself to the stupidity which would ensue?

How does my face remaining unknown affect the truth of the empirical data?

• As far as my letter to the Daily Breeze, as I've said before, I just knew that Steve Marconi, Doug Epperhart, or Mike Carroll would be combing through the files and reveal what was supposed to be confidential information for use of the Daily Breeze only. So I took an extra step to protect my personal information. What is wrong with that? With as rabid as these R-1 thugs are, I'd wake up one morning with my house covered with their damned signs. No thanks.

• You know Mr. Wells, if you don't want to be "attacked" then don't say completely stupid shit, like:

"...if at some point in the future, many of the operations of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were moved south of our nation's border?..."

Are you serious? Did you even think about this sentence before you wrote it? It is too ridiculous to describe. Although there is a chance it could happen. That would be about the same time as we annex Baja to the rest of California.

• Slurs against Joe Donato because he won the Honorary Mayor contest, just because he is a Ponte Vista supporter. Slurs against Dr. Vladovic because accepted Bisno's endorsement. If you don't want to be the target of "attacks", then don't slander people with no proof. You reap what you sow dude.

• Posting only part of the letter from Bisno, classifying it as a "threat", and then rebutting the points taken out-of-context without letting the readers see the entire thing for themselves so they could make informed decisions.

Another example of you not bothering to think things through. If you build a 20 unit apartment building, it obviously is not going to generate enough income to justify a pool, work-out room, recreation center etc.. What makes you think a housing project like Ponte Vista is any different? You are already bitching about how high the HOA fees would be (even though you would never live there and therefore don't have any right to bitch). The maintenance for all the amenities laid out in Bisno's last plan have to be calculated prorata into the sales prices and the HOA fees. There is only so much load they can take. A smaller development would mean less amenities. It is just a reality of real estate development.

• "...KB Homes posted a second quarter loss of income, due to the inventory of units left unsold. This problem is due to the housing slump the area is in..."

Yeah, and?....... What area is that Mark? Did you know KB Homes builds in 16 states and in France? Where exactly was the unsold inventory?

Oh yeah. One more point. Did you stop to consider KB Homes builds detached single family homes? Don't you think that might be a critical detail to tell people in your post? Maybe that is why Bisno isn't building any detached SFRs but rather what people want. You are comparing apples and oranges. His people obviously did their homework. You obviously did not.

But that is your typical methodology. Anything to muddy the waters and confuse people into thinking Ponte Vista is going to be bad for San Pedro.

• Lastly. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you because your connection to reality is so tenuous; or to say "Man that shit you're smokin' must be really great. Can I get some?"

Either way, your 15 minutes are almost up.

This blog is about Ponte Vista

I have been silent for a little bit in an attempt to figure out how to publish this blog, give people the chance to voice their opinions, yet still not be subjected to off-topic insults which have nothing to do with Ponte Vista. There are some people out there who do not want to do anything except stir things up. Could someone please tell me what it accomplishes? Here are 2 comments which were deleted:

Anonymous said...
Ha ha ha ha ha... You are soooo pathetic. You've resorted to begging!!!! Even the "tom" fans don't like your moderation. They're leaving you "tom". Moderation is not the way to control the situation "tom". It makes you seem too intolerant to other peoples opinions. You have no respect and everyone sees it exposed when you go into baby mode. Waaaaaah...
P.S. - Even though others may not see this post, I know you will read my messages. Moderation doesn't bug me much.
June 29, 2007 4:58 PM

and

Anonymous said...
It's over all right. This blog will dry up in no time. I bet you'll feel quite successful!!!
June 29, 2007 5:01 PM

What is the purpose of this? If it takes moderation to keeep this cretin off my blog, then so be it.

As another reader of the blog had commented:

KM said...
Yes, I did notice the comments had dried up. How disappointing. I was hoping to get more people aware of green building and restoration as a green alternative. And I was hoping to get more people informed about the other developments in town, or at least pique some interest.
June 28, 2007 9:04 AM

Taking that thought a little further, I was hoping to actually be able to do what Councilwoman Hahn asked for when she first set up the CAC - get ideas on how to incorporate things the community wants. I guess some people are more interesting in slinging mud than they are in bettering our community.

Take Mark Wells for instance. We had a fight. It got bad. I wrote some things I probably should not have. I stand chastised by Kara McLeod for not following my own rules. I offered to delete the offending posts and he turns it down. He says he is having too much fun skewering them. We agreed to go our separate ways. I agreed not to comment on his blog, he agreed not to comment on mine. Of course we are going to read each other's blogs because they are a source of a different point-of-view.

But who gets roasted regularly on Mark's blog? That's right - me. I'm criticized for moderation, even though you can see from the examples above what it is I'm deleting. I'm criticized that my readership is not as large as his. So what? I'm not writing just to see my own words in print. I don't care if anyone ever knows who I am or how many hits I get on the blog. My ego isn't that big. I want to generate dialogue. I don't need to post every day even when there isn't anything new to say. No "Odds and Ends", no "Trivia". No babbling endlessly. No roasting Joe Donato for being the new Honorary Mayor just because Mark alleges (where's the proof Mark?) that Joe received money from Bisno. Just like he alleged Dr. Vladovic received Bisno funds.

Newsflash Mark! The latter was a political campaign and it is legal to make contributions. As for Honorary Mayor, who cares where the money came from, the charities it benefits are ahead. Give it a rest already, dude. And in case you haven't noticed, Bisno isn't "touting" anything.

IN THIS BLOG - There aren't letters taken out of context, extrapolated with faulty methods and leading readers down a rosy path to misconceptions. There are no numbers plucked from unrelated material and then held up to the standard of "Where are they in the DEIR?" Can you really be that dense? The DEIR was and is a first-draft, a starting point. Not a static, all-defining document. If you are going to try to be an urban planner, at least be consistent. Forget all these hypothetical situations where Mr. and Mrs. X sell their home .... yada...yada...yada... and all the other hypothetical situations you dream up. Stick to the facts. Even April Sandell (even though I don't agree with her position) has a ton more knowledge than I could hope to have with regard to certain parts of the project. This is the lesson. Do good research first. Then run your mouth.

If you want to start bringing in past projects and saying they should be used to judge the moral fiber of the developer, then present the entire story, not just the part which is convenient for you. (More on that later. I promise.) There are a lot of people right here in this town who have no right to be talking about "moral fiber".


Anyway - The point is:

This blog is about Ponte Vista and how we can make it better for San Pedro. It is about time we got back to the main topic.

Tom Field

When children misbehave

Unfortunately, I must enable full moderation again. The little R-1 trolls will not leave this blog in peace.

There are other places dedicated to R-1 and for those who want to read them, and whip themselves into a frenzy over it.

They have the wrong place when they come here to spew their bile. They refuse my repeated requests to keep comments on-topic and continuously try to take us off on to meaningless tangents.

Now it ends mon amis. No more running in, anonymously spraying your graffiti on this blog, then running out.

Serious comments will be posted. Those merely intending to raise trouble will never see the light of day. At least not here.

Good night all.

Give That Lady A Cupie Doll!!

Finally someone who can focus on the important issues. (hint: like Kara said, "...not just Ponte Vista but all of them...")

First of all, thank you for opening my eyes to the entire LEEDs thing. It is much more complicated than I thought at first glance. Of course you are dead-on right in that these incentives are merely incentives. The good thing about this is that they are being encouraged to do something real, versus the smoke-and-mirrors of 1970s developments with just played with "historical" benefits and other such intangibles. It was such an obvious ploy that Congress could not ignore it and in 1986 enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which killed most of the "make-believe" developments.

In contrast, a LEED certification provides a tangible benefit for our local community. Is there anyone who would argue that a reduced need to buy electricity from DWP is NOT a good thing? Or who would argue that re-cycling old building materials doesn't reduce our dependence on landfills by using the material in new and better ways?

It's going to be tough to get around the core of what developers are about. It would be akin to going to a used-car salesman and expecting him to sell you a car which really meets your needs; at a fair price; and dropping the "Have I got a car for you..." line. Probably not going to happen in my lifetime. But many times, just knowing a person's motivation can help you maximize what you can get out of the deal.

What I find intriguing about this situation, is not so much the projects we have heard about, but rather the ones we haven't. As Kara stated, this is going on all over town. But the demographics of the potential owner of a unit in the VUE is different from someone who might buy at the Bank Lofts, or someone looking at Seaport Village. Yet the LEED certification could be used for all of them. Why hasn't it? One step further, is this certification available for non-profits? Specifically I'm interested in the huge expansion Kaiser is going through in their Harbor City facility. They are a non-profit so they don't pay taxes. But couldn't rebates and bonuses be used to reduce their operating cost? And then pass that downstream to reduce patient premiums?

In any event, yes, the developer would make a profit. But we would wind up with something more ecologically-friendly. After all, I take my car down to the carwash and pay them to make it look better. Wouldn't (shouldn't) I be willing to pay someone to give me a building which was more ecologically friendly?

Thoughts?

My take on the new proposal

Please excuse the length of time this post has taken. I've tried my best to step back, look at the situation objectively and get past the strong reactions the presentation engendered. Still, I could not jump right in and evaluate the entire new proposal. What I'm going to do is start in slowly with some points brought up during the meeting and work up to how the new proposal from Bisno effects the ideas I presented back in March.

I ask your patience and forbearance because there were several things said during the meeting, and afterwards, which are difficult and commenting on them is just about impossible to do without some of it sounding a bit aggressive. While I make comments about certain people, I want everyone to understand they are not personal attacks. I must, however, comment on their stated positions since they are part-and-parcel of the CAC process.

This will also be a longer post than I normally like to do. My apologies in advance.

• I need to start with Pat Nave. Mr. Nave is an intelligent man and in certain areas, he has my respect. However, Mr. Nave is an R-1 zealot and it is my belief that, in addition, he has an extreme personal dislike for Bisno. I am not defending Bisno. He is a developer and, by nature, aggressive and abrasive. Sometimes he is not a very likable fellow. However, Pat has allowed these things to cloud his intellect and judgment.

While every other critic of traffic numbers I've heard says that Bisno and LA DOT are using the wrong ITE numbers, Pat says the ITE tables are completely invalid and should be ignored. Jerry Gaines is wrong. Mr. Kim from the LA DOT is wrong. Gordon Teuber is wrong, etc., etc.. Everyone is wrong. This is arrogance taken to its limit.

The ITE tables are accurate and reliable because of the size of their database. Anyone who understands anything about statistics knows that the larger the database, the more reliable the numbers. Mr. Nave's position is completely at odds with every professional in the field, while he IS NOT a trained or certified traffic engineer.

I know Mr. Nave is a retired Port of Los Angeles attorney. This is another reason I fault his reasoning. During Pat Nave's tenure, the Port of Los Angeles has given us a legacy of horrible traffic, fatal air quality, and unrestrained expansion. This is hardly something on which to base your qualifications, or tout as something to be proud of. In my humble opinion, Pat Nave needs to go sit in the corner with his dunce cap on.

• The next people I have to comment on I will do together. Leah Marinkovich and Lucie Thorsen sat there at the CAC meeting passing the microphone back-and-forth between them, completely disregarding any courtesy for their boss Councilwoman Hahn, other CAC members, or members of the public. All they were interested in was making their own pre-determined opinions made known. Both of them had their minds made up before the first CAC meeting in contravention of Councilwoman Hahn's wish that the CAC evaluate the project and offer their recommendations. Filibustering is no way to conduct a committee which is supposed to come up with a plan.

They should join Pat sitting in the corner.

• Chuck Hart needs to correct his racist attitude, or resign from the CAC. There is no question that his comment about "We need more million dollar homes." was aimed directly at San Pedro's Hispanic and African-American communities. Like it or not, these two communities are an integral part of San Pedro's demographics. There is no room for this type of attitude on the CAC. Mr. Hart should not sit in the corner. He should be booted out into the hallway until he adjusts his attitude.

But furthermore, it is an unfortunate fact which I have not seen anyone have the guts to talk about until this point. But I, for one, have had enough. I have heard denigrating remarks about both of these communities from several members of the R-1 gang. It is unacceptable and intolerable. I was shocked into disbelief that in this day-and-age these type of attitudes and comments could still exist in a community as diverse as San Pedro. If need be, I will meet with the Councilwoman personally to verify what has been said and who said it.

The R-1 gang has recruited Ray Patricio to their cause. I don't care how old he is, or how well-liked he is in the community. Making a comment about a "Mexican seven-course lunch" is offensive and has no place being said in the CAC meetings. Someone needs to rein him in.

• Victor Griego needs to do his job. He is supposed to be a facilitator. He should facilitate. It's no wonder Bisno fired him. It's a bigger wonder he was reinstated.

• John Greenwood puts me in a quandary. While I originally had him pegged as a completely R-1 proponent, I have been pleasantly surprised by the thought and planning he has put into offering an alternate project plan. The thing I would like Mr. Greenwood to do is to forget about LAUSD. They ARE NOT part of the Ponte Vista project and not part of what the CAC was charged to do by the Councilwoman. Councilwoman Hahn opposes a school the size of which LAUSD has proposed. She has said she would support a 500-seat academy. Bisno has said he would accommodate a school of that size. Given these facts, they should now be left out of the equation. Besides, they have disappeared. No one has heard anything from them and it is my belief they have moved on.

Early on, Bisno made it clear that if LAUSD exercised eminent domain, the DEIR would be out-the-window and he would have to start from scratch again anyway. Including them does nothing except cloud the main issues which need to be dealt with.


¤ Okay, I guess I've upset a great many people by this point. But now I will also level some criticism against a Ponte Vista supporter.

• Joe Donato is a hot-tempered guy. While I personally agree with his position, I disagree with his not yielding the floor when his time to speak was up.

I don't know. I'm on the fence with Mr. Donato. Even the Bible references "righteous anger". Joe was upset with the constant heckling during the entire meeting by members of the R-1 gang. He also voiced the opinion that the future of San Pedro should be decided by San Pedrans. Still I guess I would have to say that old trite phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I would have to point out to Mr. Donato that Councilwoman Hahn chose the CAC members from her district, not just San Pedro. This was a political decision. My opinion is that she did not need to include neighboring communities because this is the job of the Planning Department. Nevertheless, this is what she did. It is my belief she will make a decision on what type of project to support based on what is best for San Pedro and the surrounding communities. I believe her to be an intelligent, rational person, with integrity who, in the final analysis, will do what is right.

• R-1 proponents versus Ponte Vista supporters - that difference was obvious to everyone. Why R-1 supporters feel they have the right to be loud, rude, and shrill, I cannot understand. It does not make any points, or convince anyone. For the most part Ponte Vista supporters (except for Joe - sorry Joe, but it is true) were polite, stated their opinion and yielded the microphone when their time was up. The two most pertinent comments they made were that: 1) the range of housing for seniors and non-age restricted alike was one of the most important features of the project, and; 2) it was evident several members of the CAC had already decided their position which does not provide an environment for objective discussion.

¤ Now that I've pretty much upset everyone on both sides, if you are still reading, let me discuss some aspects of the project itself which I think are important.

• The first point I want to mention is the parks and open space. One of the major objections to Ponte Vista was that it would be gated. This has been eliminated. I would think people would be happy about it.

While it was not explicitly explained during the presentation, I'd like to offer a probability in answer to the question of who would be responsible for maintaining the 12+ acres of space now open to the public.

Most likely, the 6 (plus or minus) acres of park/athletic fields would most likely be titled over to Parks and Recreation. This makes sense. It is 6 contiguous acres and easily maintained by Parks & Rec. However, the other common areas within the project, and the water features would most likely remain the property of the project. Parks & Recreation is not always right on top of things and maintenance for these areas would most likely be demanded by homeowners.

• A point was brought up by a member of the CAC regarding this and who would pay for the maintenance. Given who made the point and their complete opposition to the project, I find it hard to believe they would suddenly be advocates for any prospective owners. But in the way of examples, there are many multiple-housing projects in San Pedro which are not gated and have common areas open to whomever wishes to take a stroll through. Therefore, this would not be unusual.

In case the argument is made that the owners should not have to pay fees for areas open to the public, this must be disclosed on sale and if a prospective buyer finds it that objectionable, they are free to not purchase at Ponte Vista.

• "Green" development. This is an outstanding decision. I have voiced the opinion for many months that living in a major metropolitan area, we cannot afford, environmentally, to continue building single-family homes on 5,000 square foot or larger lots. This change to the project adds icing-to-the-cake. Recycling water, using photovoltaic cells for generating electricity for common-area lighting, and shuttle-bus service makes ultimate sense.

The presentation was professional and complete. I do wish Mr. Bisno had explained what "LEED" certification was so I would not have had to look it up. I don't think I was the only one. (At least I hope not. If people start telling me they knew, I'm going to feel pretty stupid.)

The photovoltaic cells have been down-played by some other commenters about the project. I disagree. Soledad Garcia from the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council has been fighting the good fight with DWP to keep rates down. ANY electricity which can be generated internally is a boon.

Of course the cost is built into the price of the units. But if you calculate the cost into a 30-year mortgage, it is not even a couple pennies. Plus, after the project is complete and turned over to the HOA, it will be a source of lowering common area costs (which increase HOA dues) and could actually be a source of income further lowering the dues.


¤ Finally, my take on the size and composition of the project.

• I still feel 1,700 units is a good size. So does Jerry Gaines. With an increase of senior units to 850, that would lower non-age restricted units to 850. I would stick with my recommendation for 200 patio-homes leaving 650 townhomes. These numbers would reduce density, leave more open space, and, in my opinion, enhance the attractiveness of the project.

• Another disappointment for me was the presentation of 1,950 units. I understand Bisno is a developer and is always looking to maximize his profit, but it just seemed like the bare minimum he could come down and not really in keeping with "good-faith" negotiating.

• I would suggest that Bisno lose the 100 luxury attached single-family homes. I don't feel it is in keeping with the rest of the project, or the character of San Pedro.

• As has been mentioned in several places, the number of trips has still not been quantified. LA DOT said 1,837 units could be fully-mitigated. This was based upon 525 senior units and 1,312 non-age restricted units. If the project can come in even lower than that, given the increased number of senior units, that would increase the margin-of-error for traffic on Western. Anything which can be done to reduce that number SHOULD be done.

• To help reduce density, I also suggest the number of 4-bedroom units be reduced. Since that number has not yet been defined, it is a bit nebulous. However, I think 4-bedroom units fall into the same category as the luxury attached single-family homes and do not fit the character of the project.


¤ Conclusion

One of the public speakers at the CAC meeting was Doug Epperhart. The comment he made was the main reason I have taken 4 days to write this post. I have been debating with myself over it since Monday night.

That comment was words to the effect of "This project, Ponte Vista, is not San Pedro. It could be a development anywhere. There is nothing special which makes it San Pedro." Please excuse me if I do not remember it verbatim, but I think I got the main meaning of the comment.

• My question in response is "What is San Pedro? Is it the Gardens? Is it any of the many condo and apartment complexes? Is it some of the 60+ year-old ratholes that some people call houses? Is it the exclusive neighborhoods of Point Fermin and along Paseo Del Mar? What exactly is San Pedro? There is such a wide range of housing, how can you define what it is?"

Some people say we are just now recovering from the over-building of the '80s. How? By fencing off lots and growing weeds? How exactly are we "recovering"?

• My point-of-view about Ponte Vista is that we have a unique opportunity to re-define our community. We can continue to be a hodgepodge of nice homes, apartments and ratholes; OR we can set out on a new course to provide quality living at market rates. There is no holding back the tide. We cannot erect dikes around San Pedro to keep out the developers like they have dikes in New Orleans to keep out the water. (We saw how well the dikes worked there, eh?) One way or another San Pedro is going to be built up. We can either control it, or it will happen with little projects springing up like mushrooms all over town. All of them under-the-radar and suddenly we find ourselves with the same traffic problems, but no one developer we can compel to mitigate it.

I agree with Doug on the point of luxury homes not fitting with the character of the town, but that does not mean the entire project should be scrapped.

The future is upon us. Closing our eyes and pretending it isn't here will not stop it. Instead, let's take an active part in defining what we will become.