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.