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
14 comments:
Thanks for posting this, Tom! It'll be an interesting meeting, tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 18th. It must be announced at least 72 hours prior in order for us to pass ANY resolutions.
I share the sentiment of some of my fellow members that we need to continue to support the committee already formed that is weighing ALL of the possibilities before becoming another "ultimatum" group that says "do it our way or no way". This will be a sure-fire way to make sure that we are left out of the negotiations. (What point is there negotiating with a group that has given their sole position, either one way or the other?)
Personally, I think the affordable housing requirements coming from either the state or federal level are going to be a determining factor for the L.A. City Council, and unless there are other districts eager to step up and volunteer themselves for an affordable housing boom, we're going to be stuck with a housing development above R-1, and it's best for us to still be a part of the conversation. I believe the end product is going to be a project above R-1, and it'll simply be a matter of whether Bob Bisno is willing to wait out local politics again like he did last time, or finds a better opportunity to make some cash on the land.
I only wish our NC would have focused on the promise he made to Eastview Little League to build the fields. That would have been a win-win for all parties, including Bob, and would have remedied one of the other big issues in our community. But...we're all too concerned about ourselves instead of the next generation!
John S.
John S.
Thank you for the on-point comments. For what it is worth, I think your attitude in approaching the matter is very reasonable.
Councilwoman Hahn formed an entire committee to study this matter and they have had the use of resources that would never be available to other groups. How can Pat Nave think he can do better on traffic than a committee which has 3 members of the Western Avenue Task Force? And in general there is an entire wealth of experience on the committee.
Some people would fault Bisno for not "compromising" more on the number of units. I did so myself. However, it must be said, that at least he came off his original 2,300 units.
I have not seen the R-1 gang come up from their 429. Not even by a single unit. This is not a "compromise and negotiate" situation. This is a "do it our way..." group as you said.
At this point, the process is going forward. The question is whether groups, like the Northwest Council, will include themselves in the process and have their input heard, or marginalize themselves.
Since you guys are my Neighborhood Council, I really hope you choose a path which allows you to contribute ideas and be heard.
Tom Field
I asked the same question on Mark's blog but how do you feel the Chamber of Commerce's official endorsement of Ponte Vista will impact the CAC and Hahn's position?
Post a Comment