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