A Contribution from Tom, Imbg, and aNOnymous

Tom, Imbg, and aNOnymous are regular commentors to this blog.

Tom has asked that some of the comments he has exchanged with me be posted as a regular post. This is what I call elavating comments to post status.

Tom likes my use of a fictional character I have created named "Gus". I think both Tom and I feel that "Gus" can help demonstrate how someone might answer two specific questions that we think everyone has the right to be heard and read about.

The two questions that we hope everyone answers in their own opinion are:

What should be built at Ponte Vista?

Why do you believe what it should be built, in your opinion?

Imbg also comments on this blog and "Life on the Edge." In fact just today, Imbg very clearly answered my challenge to state what he/she feels should be at Ponte Vista, and why.
I am seizing the opportunity to snatch Imbg's comments off of Life on the Edge and posting them further down this post.

aNOymous has also contributed his opinions and reasonings in a different format than "Gus" and imbg chose to use. I appreciate being able to elevate imbg and aNOnymous' comments to post status. I will do the same for others who wish their opinions and reasonings be posted using this manner.

Tom and I hope this will encourage others to let every reader share their opinion on this issue.

The comments below include suggestions made to me by Tom. This post is essentially his creation with a little thievery on my part.
*******************************************************

For this comment, I will call myself "Gus" for the hypothetical purpose of letting everyone know what "Gus" thinks.

"Gus" would like you to know that he doesn't believe that most persons
employed in "service-related" jobs could afford homes priced in the range Mr. Bisno seeks to build them for. It has been mentioned that the income level needed to by the median priced home at Ponte Vista (probably a 3-bedroom unit) would be about $140,000.00 per year. I am in a "service-related" job and "Gus" would have to work at least 10 hours per day for about 24 days a month, each year to make that gross income. "Gus" chooses to not work for so many hours per year.

I think for most of the readers' sake, and for ease of other contributors, it might be best for anyone wishing to, to state their opinions of what they feel should be built at Ponte Vista, and why.

"Gus" is finding, by his reading, that many folks who are "Anonymous" and others (imbg for one) are not presenting their cases in format that is conducive to easier understanding by many of the readers to this blog and these comments who choose not to respond.

"Gus" wants to read, in very simple terms, what someone feels should be built at Ponte Vista, and why the contributor feels that way.

"Gus" is now going to give his (not Mark's or M's) thoughts on what should be built at Ponte Vista and why as an example that many readers should be able to easliy understand and make comments based on his writing.

"Gus" believes that Mr. Bisno should get approval for up to 1,200 homes at Ponte Vista, with 60% senior housing and 40% non-age restricted housing.

He believes a convienence store, complete with a pharmacy should be on the property, and that the streets and park areas within the non-age restricted part, be open to public access.

"Gus" also feels that Mr. Bisno should work with L.A.U.S.D. on voluntarily welcoming an 800-student academy onto Ponte Vista, or accept the 2,025-seat senior high school on the southern protion of Ponte Vista, and not where he wants his senior housing to go.

Now this is why "Gus" believes what he believes.

1,200 homes, with 60% senior housing, would meet Mr. Bisno's public thoughts about expanding the current number of senior units. Gus feels that the total number of homes and amount of senior housing would be have similar traffic counts as single-family homes, without actually building any single-family detached homes at the project.

"Gus" thinks if public access to the non-age restricted streets and amenities is allowed, it would foster a better community relationship with the entire area.

"Gus" likes the idea of a convienence store, including a pharmacy, would lessen the number of car trips because, for small items and medicines, residents will have the opportunity of walking to the nearest small store and pharmacy.

"Gus" understands the need for another high school in the area. He thinks an 800-seat academy could be built at Ponte Vista, but he doesn't understand much about what amenities would students lack with such a small campus. Would there be sports fields, gym, arts, and shop classes on the site?

"Gus" can't rule out the need for the big high school, but he thinks that it should be situated in the southern portion of Ponte Vista as a courtesy to Mr. Bisno's wishes to put his senior housing where he plans to build it.

"Gus" knows that the property won't have single-family detached homes unless they are Patio Homes because: a) the area really needs a lot more housing, and b) those types of homes would price most folks out of buying at Ponte Vista.

"Gus" worked at a McDonald's for over 35 years. He still sees "KISS" in his dreams. "Keep it simple, stupid" is his mantra.

Do "Gus'" comments help folks?
MW
7:08 AM
tom said...
Mark,

"Gus" seems to have a down-to-earth viewpoint of this issue that many of us might inadvertently lose while in pursuit of items which pique our personal interests.

The only question I have for Gus is whether he is the sole wage-earner in his household. I can readily understand his reluctance to put in 10-hour days, 24 days a month. I didn't like it when I was a young man, and I certainly have less of an appetite for it now. I'd much rather be out on the golf course. Actually, his reasoning is very straightforward.

I must confess when you said he still dreams of KISS I thought you meant the band.

As for some of his points.

I think there is an allocation for retail in the development, but if memory serves me right (and please give me a break here and remember my Alzheimer's!) it is only 10,00 sq.ft. I don't know if that is enough to fit what would be required to reduce off-site car trips. This might be one suggestion for Bisno.

Gus's point about the school and the smaller academy lacking the amenities of a larger school is pretty spot-on. However Janice Hahn is dead set against a big school, so I do not know what Bisno could do about that.

Regarding the school in general, does anyone remember when Rod Hamilton got pinned down by Betsy Weismann at one of the fir Committee meetings? It seems that even though in their public presentations they offer up a "site" where they want to put their school, officially in writing they have not yet done so. They are still classifying the entire 62 acres as their "designated site". As Mark pointed out in his comment about being compensated if a movie company used his property to shoot a film, he would expect to be compensated; wouldn't it stand to reason that you would also have them specify which part of your home they would be using? Wouldn't you refuse them if they didn't? Isn't Bisno entitled to the same rights? I know I would want to be. I really think this is the sticking point. They won't tell Bisno, or at least negotiate in good faith, over where the school would go. My answer (and I suspect yours and most others) would be the same as Bisno's and tell them to take a flying leap...

But back to Gus. His ability to see the need for housing that is affordable is the key. The ultimate numbers can be worked out pending review and verification of population and traffic numbers which have been so all over the map as to leave everyone uncertain as to where it would finally wind up.

I think this comment thread would do well if it is cut and pasted into it's own entry.
3:55 PM
M Richards said...
Howdy Tom,

You have made some great points again.

"Gus" told me that his wife, "Betty" works part time.

"Gus" would like to see anyone who is interested in professing opinions about the whats and whys of Ponte Vista put them in a form somewhat similar to the way "Gus" put his opinions.

Your comments on the possible retail space is what is planned at this point. There has been a assessment that retail space be very limited to a Dry Cleaning business, a small coffee shop/food store, and possibly a day care center.

I do think it is very much in the realm of discussing alternatives to the retail area that would assist seniors more and supply further amenities to the general public if access to Ponte Vista is open. I think there is a strong belief among most of us discussing Ponte Vista, that the senior area, no matter how big it is, where it finally is, and what it looks like, should still have a guard-gated entrance as well as a remote-accessed entrance.

For the L.A.U.S.D. to have access to Mr. Bisno's land, I think a contract with specific wording and fee schedule would be the correct thing to have. It is not something L.A.U.S.D. wants to start to do. But it is simply the proper thing to do. I would regret Mr. Bisno's complete denial of access to his land under every circumstance, but he has a right to get paid for access to his property, if he chooses.

I, being the creator of "Gus" must caution folks not to be confused by the word "affordable" with respect to Ponte Vista.

Ponte Vista may provide housing that many folks can afford, but there are no plans to have any housing for sale that follow the strict guidelines required for calling the housing "affordable" in the sense of these types of housing requirements.

Ponte Vista's home prices will be dictated by the market that is current at the time the homes are placed for sale. There is a rebate scheme afoot for certain buyers who fit into specific job categories, but those folks will probably need an income higher than most "service" jobs pay.

Tom, I need your help in identifying which parts of these comments should be elevated to post status. I don't know if you want the all the comments elevated or just certain ones. You get the call on this one and I'll do whatever your wishes are.
MW
7:13 PM
tom said...
Mark,

IMHO the description of "Gus", his situation and what he would like to see, should jump up to its own post. Viewing things in that light helped to cut through some of the other issues I am as guilty as anyone else of letting infiltrate my comments. It sort of brought things back into focus. Perhaps if the discussion gets back on track, figuring out which numbers, generated by whom, are accurate and make sense.

I'll try to keep my own ego out of this, so my comments don't need to go with it. Let people start fresh. People can look at them here if they are really interested. The important thing is to get the focus back on people like "Gus" and "Betty".

I think we are on the same page re. LAUSD. I can empathize with Bisno not wanting people on his land without proper insurance, contracts, etc. But LAUSD is so used to being unfettered, this is a difficult concept for them to swallow. Much less the other item you mentioned of the precedent it would set. Seeing what unfolds will prove interesting.
*********************************************************

Now I am going to include the comments I found very worthwhile to me and fit quite nicely my ideas of what I was requesting.

IMBG said...
MW wrote:

Now imbg, why don't you tell us what you would like to see at Ponte Vista, and why you want to see whatever you want.

I would like to see something like the nature preserve at White Point, but without the militancy about native plants. Fat chance of it ever happening, of course, but you did ask what I'd like to see. It's not often you get a chance to reverse sprawl, so it's really dispiriting to see people shouting themselves hoarse over how best to preserve sprawl instead. You can never have too many places like White Point (another place that the military didn't need anymore, remember), and right now we don't have nearly enough.

As you can no doubt guess, I am not sold on the "need" for housing or other high-impact uses on this spot. San Pedro, Wilmington, and Lomita have plenty of fugly parking lots and struggling strip malls that should have a reasonably dense housing and commercial mix on them instead. Beautify neighborhoods while increasing housing stock and reducing car trips. Senior housing? Well, if I were a "senior" I don't think I would want to be shunted off from the rest of the world out in Sprawlvania, and the proximity to Green Hills just seems...mmm, unnecessarily poignant. The DiCarlo bakery would have been a better site for the LAUSD's high school, and would have spared us a local-business-killing Target store. And so on. It's not rocket surgery.
*************************************************

I have not included my comments back to imbg on this post. I encourage everyone to visit Life on the Edge at www.laharbor.blogspot.com to learn for this site and read some great posts and comments that don't necessarily all deal with Ponte Vista.
**************************************************

aNOnymous and tom have a lively debate going. aNOnymous has posted his opinions and reasonings he based his opinions on. So here they are:

aNOnmyous' Goal:
Influence the City Council to uphold the current zoning of R1 at Ponte Vista.

Method to achieve goal:
A two pronged approach of
a) Drawing attention to the issue.
b) Attacking the credibility of BisNO's application for re-zoning Ponte Vista.

Detail of methods:
a) We need to be loud. Believe it or not, many people do not have a clue of what BisNO is trying to do to SP/RPV with this development. We need to attract attention by coming up with catchy phrases like "Just Say NO to BisNO" and put them on posters, mailers, stickers, buttons, blogs etc, and then take to the street with demonstrations and pickets. We could try and attract the media and could even appear on a local cable show (that, by the way, I know is interested). The idea here is to call attention in a big loud way. Loud and angry.
b) Simultaneously, we have a group of people whose job it would be to take various sections of BisNO's support data and piece by piece break it down to expose all the assumptions, omissions and uncertainty in the data. That data would be used by an individual who would be very good at articulating that data to the public, media, council members etc, in order to drive home the "facts and data" side of our campaign.

I think something along those lines can get the attention of the City Council.

"Tom", my message and goal is clear, direct, unwaivering and it does not rely on trying to appeal to a person (Bob BisNO) who is purely motivated by making "boatloads" of money. You don't know what BisNO is thinking unless you happen to be BisNO himself or an associate. If you even begin to dig into the profit goals of Bob BisNO with your compromise solutions, he will slam the door shut in your face and you will be left with nothing but wasted time and no real goals. BisNO has no responsibility to the communities of SP/RPV. The City Council DOES. I choose to influence the City Council. I choose not to show any signs of compromise on this issue because the burden of changing the zoning is on Bob BisNO. The people who support R1 are in the drivers seat, for now, and there is no reason for compromise until BisNO gets his wish (if he gets his wish) and a zoning change is approved. Now "Tom" please don't reply with the old story of Bob BisNO walking away, and Ponte Vista turning into an Industrial Wasteland scenario. It's pure speculation, nothing more. I could speculate that a less greedy developer(s) could come in and make Ponte Vista work as R1 with a healthy enough profit to satisfy most property development company's goals. What's your go forward plan? Details please...Pretty Please?

The following comment from aNOnymous includes more of his opinions and reasoning behind them and I felt is also deserves elevation to post status.

Mark,I see you went ahead and elevated my plan. Actually my start of a plan. Obviously there are allot more details that have to be determined before it could be put into motion. Thanks for the recognition. I do want to also submit that there should be a 3rd prong to the plan. It's the part that would be the contingency part of the plan. This is where compromise comes in. If at any point in the campaign it looks as if the City Council is going to approve some type of zoning change, we have to be ready with a clear cut compromise or hybrid plan that could be proposed. It has to be a real plan with clear substantiated reasons for the plan that make it acceptable to the community. But this absolutely cannot come out before we hit the R1 only campaign....it's strictly a fall back position (a very important position though that must be prepared ahead of time). So as you can tell, I do see value in all the compromise discussions, it's just that we have to put it in the proper order.