Tom, or "tom" as he names himself, has made some interesting comments to my postings. I included his comments in a previous post.
For this post, I wanted to post his comments to my post and then respond to each comment.
Tom made the following long comment to "The Day After November 30" post in which I gave my estimation of how many residents and vehicles might be in Ponte Vista.
I will type Tom's comments in black and my response to Tom in another color.
Tom, I really appreciate your commenting because you illustrate that there are more than two sides to every story and we all need to read and hear the whole story in order to create the best outcome for the current and future residents of the area.
I also want to thank the others who have commented to the posts. I wish folks would be kinder to people who don't agree with their particular vision. But as long as folks try to stick to my "Four R's" then we can continue two, three, four, or more way discussions.
tom said...
Mark,
Well I have to give you kudos for digging up all the data from the various studies.
In keeping with your stated objectives for this blog, I do not want to "prove you wrong". I merely wish I could get you to see that you are being overly pessimistic about certain numbers.
Please Tom and others, prove me wrong. As a member of the Committee, I can use all the information I can get. If you don't like the numbers the DEIR and I have produced, please produce your own numbers, back them up with sources, and let me have them to post.
Let's face it, we could sit here for the next year generating numbers and the Planning people would counter with yet more of their numbers.
As some point, one has to apply some common sense. Is someone who just bought their own loft going to put up "screens" and turn it into a dormitory? No. They are going to turn it into a page from an Ikea catalog. Remember, this is their "entry level" home. They will want to sell it for a profit and step up to something larger when they are ready to get married and start having kids.
Tom, I knew the screens in the lofts would bring comments. I wonder how you can presume how anyone might use the units they buy. You used the word "entry level homes". You know who buys entry level homes? Singles, couples, and young families wanting their first homes. To expect that each type of entry level unit will hold a specific number of residents is probably not the best way of thinking. The numbers I generated were generous towards Mr. Bisno's side.
Are seniors who are down-sizing from huge homes going to go to the other end of the range to some tiny little space that is almost (an) apartment. No. They want something smaller, but they still want to feel spacious. When you have a 2,600 sq. ft. home and you down-size because all the kids are gone, you still don't want to go to 950 sq. ft. I couldn't. I've got a daughter who will visit. And, hopefully soon, grandkids too. I'm certain most of the folks in the age-restricted section are in the same boat.
Here again, you seem to know what everybody is going to want. In earlier comments, I believe you said that you feel the age-restricted homes would be mostly single resident homes. Does this mean that you don't think Mr. Bisno wants to attract "active seniors" who are still very much on the go and quite active in life and the community?
As you said yourself in the comments on a previous post, your own home has had varying configurations. Why would Ponte Vista be any different?
Even "screens" vary the configuration of lofts. So Ponte Vista might not be any different than how our particular home changed. In an R1 zone, homes could be added on to more easily than reconfiguring condominiums and town homes.
At some point you have to stop trying to analyse every single permutation and go with a set of basic numbers on which to base the calculations. You can't worry whether Johnny lost his job and has to move back in with Mom & Dad until he gets back on his feet. Do you see what I mean?
Tom, as you read, I did post some basic numbers that more closely aligned themselves with the DEIR as opposed to the Initial Study. As far as analysing every single permutation, I feel that I haven't done anything like that. Not that I couldn't, mind you. I am not dealing with traffic counts, lengths of lines of vehicles and waiting times on Western as some others are currently doing. My big concerns are few in numbers; how many units, how many people per unit, how many vehicles per population, how many school-age children will actually live in Ponte Vista. I don't remember writing about Johnny or Mom & Dad. If you find those comments in one of my posts, please remind me where they are.
In this case, the numbers were dictated by the Los Angeles City Planning Department. In their wisdom, they felt San Pedro would best be served by using the 2.0 RP/U for non-age restricted and 1.5 RP/U for age-restricted.
In fact, the numbers were approved for publication by the Planning Department and not written or dictated by them. I don't know who really came up with the Resident Population per Unit. But whoever it was did not use actual numbers, census data, or nearby community populations to generate the averages that are markedly lower than what is found in "the real world".
Now please let me throw in another factor which might tie some of these things together with the economic impacts.
If anyone has been paying attention, the current review of the San Pedro General plan EMPHASIZES THE REVITALIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. (sorry to use all caps, but I can't figure out the html tags) In the past the reason we have not seen economic benefit come back to us (and I'm talking about housing, not about Port-related construction - they don't buy things a "normal" neighborhood business would sell) is that we don't have that many places for San Pedro residents to spend their money. A revitalized downtown would give us that. A quichey, "old-town" type place. Sort of like they have in San Diego where Gail Goldberg just came from. Wow! Flash! And what type of housing did her department approve to be put up all around the newly-developed old town? Nice, spacious housing with low numbers of residents per unit.
Ponte Vista is not in Downtown San Pedro. In true fact, the Ponte Vista area was not in San Pedro at all before a City ordinance annexed the property into the City of Los Angeles in 1980.
It is improbable to believe that residents of Ponte Vista would travel into downtown San Pedro to do much shopping when there will be a Target less than 2 miles away from them. It is probable to believe that the residents would tend to shop at the Avenue or Del Amo and the larger shopping areas along P.C.H. rather than going into an area of smaller specialty shops.
Revitalizing downtown San Pedro will do much more for the folks who buy the lofts and condominiums now under construction in downtown San Pedro. It is probably wiser for shop owners in Downtown San Pedro to cater to these new residents and the business generated if the Bridge to Breakwater development gets approved and built. Catering to passengers of the cruise lines would be a smart thing to continue to do.
Don't you think this is too much of a coincidence to ignore? Don't you think that this type of planning would have influenced them to choose the numbers they did for RP/U in Ponte Vista?
And to add another factor, has anyone been paying attention to gail's championing of a light rail system (like they have in San Diego). Then people all over town, not just Ponte Vista, could leave their cars parked and take a tram downtown.
Tom, your humor shows through with this last paragraph. You seem to think that light rail is a good thing for San Pedro, yet you called me "hare-brained" when I mentioned it in a post concerning Ponte Vista. By the way, there is a separate post from a supporter of light rail on this blog. So am I to believe you support light rail for downtown San Pedro but think it is hare-brained to bring it to Ponte Vista, or quite close by?
Why do you think Mayor V. hired her? He wants to change the face of Los Angeles and this is the way to begin.
But change is difficult. People want the San Pedro of 1953. But unfortunately time marches on. The state and city have grown and we no longer have the luxury of "putting green" front yards and fields for backyards. And there will be some snafus along the way. But nontheless I think this is the first step toward a new and better, more vibrant and alive San Pedro.
Only as far back as 1980, the L.A. City Council adopted R1 as the proper zoning, in their opinion, for the area they annexed into the city and where part of it is now known as Ponte Vista. Whether you agree with that zoning or not, that is the zoning established by city government.
One of the biggest misconceptions people have is that building homes in Ponte Vista will relieve the numbers of homes that need to be built in San Pedro.
Ponte Vista is in the Wilmington/Harbor City Community Plan. No matter what gets built in Ponte Vista, it will not have any effect on the need to construct a minimum of 4,000++ more homes in the San Pedro Community Plan area. Ponte Vista will not relieve any of San Pedro's responsibility to provide housing within its plan area.
I would have liked to have ended there, but I know people will take it as meaning Ponte Vista. To be specific, I mean both Ponte Vista to give us the numbers of people with disposable income and the revitalization of downtown to give them someplace to spent it and keep the money here in local businesses. I, for one, would much rather spend my money at a locally owned and operated store instead of some huge national chain. I'm certain there are others who would aslo, given the opportunity.
People much more knowledgeable than I am about spending patterns are quite sure that new residents of Ponte Vista will not do much shopping in downtown San Pedro unless a large mall or major stores are built there. This seems very unlikely because of the entrenched families, homes, and longtime businesses that still exist downtown. Pacific Avenue, on the north end is an eyesore that would not attract the folks you claim will have the disposable income, to drive through. Gaffey Street gets tricky at the end of the Harbor Freeway, and Western Avenue will be a strolling parking lot of cars no matter what happens.
You also mentioned "disposable income" in the same comments you wrote about "entry level housing". I don't think young couples and folks with young children who will be attracted to entry level housing will have much disposable income. I would hope that supporters of Ponte Vista would wish those folks in entry level homes would use their extra income to save for a "move up" home at Ponte Vista.
Okay, now I'm done with my rant and hunkering down for the wave of angry criticism I know is coming.
I am sorry that some folks consider attacking rather than using supportable facts to debate you with. I hope you are not dissuaded from commenting and posting more. I would like to see if you could produce numbers on your own, like I did. I am interested in reading you set of numbers and the supporting documents that you used.
To Tom and others, you all might want to take some time and look at the numbers in the DEIR and ask yourselves if they are truly believable. I think I have been able to show that by using different methods, one can come up with different results for the same development. I don't feel you would need to get into the minutia as some folks continue to do. I would agree there are some opponents of Mr. Bisno's plans that are using micro-management type of figures to attack the development while not trying to figure out the big numbers that will have the greatest impact.
I also need to strongly point out to Tom and everyone else thinking about San Pedro. Let me remind you all that the closest front door of a single-family detached home to ANYTHING built in Ponte Vista will be in RANCHO PALOS VERDES and not in San Pedro, Wilmington, or Harbor City. The streets that will be most impacted by whatever is built in Ponte Vista besides Western Avenue (the west side is in R.P.V.) are Avenida Aprenda and Peninsula Verde Drive. Both of them are in R.P.V.
To be sure, I care deeply for my friends and neighbors in San Pedro. But I live in R.P.V. and was appointed to be on the committee by the city fathers of Rancho Palos Verdes. My greatest allegiance is to my neighbors in Mira Vista, Mira Costa Terrace, Palo de Encino, Rolling Hills Riviera, Peninsula Verde, and the Caddington area east of Western Avenue.
It has also been claimed by too many people that I am "against Mr. Bisno". This is not true at all. Sure I would be extremely pro Mr. Bisno if he were to agree with me and produce a plan for 429 beautiful single-family detached homes. But he and I have great conversations and we both have different opinions on what we believe is best for the entire community. I feel he could be very successful by providing wonderful homes in a community as it is currently zoned. R1 won't impact the need for building 400+ more homes in San Pedro because it is in the Wilmington/Harbor City plan area.
If you don't think there aren't 429 or more long shore workers who could afford 1.75+ million dollar homes, I invite you to take a tour of my neighborhood and I will show you the homes of members of the long shore unions. There are employees of Northrup Grumman right in San Pedro that could easily buy a single-family home in Ponte Vista.
Mr. Bisno now is planning to offer entry level homes, move up homes, and executive homes in his development. Nowhere are any "affordable housing" units planned for Ponte Vista. There are no "Controlled Price Units" that are below market priced homes for teachers, law enforcement or firefighters to purchase. All of these could have been included to not only attract the most number of buyers, but also to help the government's mandates to provide such type housing.
8 comments:
Janice Hahn quotes, chronologically:
7-13-05: "I will not be supportive of 2,300 units," Hahn said. "I'm in talks with him now and hope that this will be a much scaled-down project by the time we get through the EIR process."
10-5-05: "I don't think 2,300 units is a good idea for San Pedro," said Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn. "Traffic has always been bad on Western Avenue and the schools already are crowded. They're going to have to scale that down a lot."
6-2-06: "I will tell you right now I'm not convinced that 2,300 homes is something that we can absorb, particularly on Western Avenue," Hahn said.
-----------------------
**Councilwoman appears to be firmly against 2300, but does she support R-1 ???
Thank you anonymous 9:40
You posed a great question.
Here is my question;
Could the hybrid scenario be the point where the developer and government officials begin to compromise?
i for one, would really like to know who "tom" is. and whatever happened to that moderator? did he quit? was he fired? anyone?
ironic that an anonymous poster (such as I) is really interested to solve the mystery of "Tom." The moderator couldn't make the date of the meeting and will return for more fun at the next meeting after the holidays.
Howdy Anonymous 9:21
I think I know who "tom" is and if I am correct, he is someone I have known the name of for a great many years.
As he seems to wish his last name not be reveales, I will honor that by not posting my guess.
It is true that Victor Griego was somewhat noticably absent from the meeting. I had not heard that he was not coming, and I haven't heard since why he did not attend.
Tony Torres of Victor's staff is the administrative facilitor for the Committee, and he has kept us informed quite well, in my opinion.
MW
Mark,
I barely know where to start.
First let me answer to the anonymous posters who want to know who I am. No I am not on any Advisory Board, nor am I an employee of the developer. I have been here running my own business since 1976. But it seems anyone who dares to disagree with the consensus of this blog is automatically assumed to be someone who is being paid off. It is ironic that while I actually use my name, these folks are anonymous.
Secondly, if you were at the Planning Seminar and were listening, you would have heard Ms. Goldberg put in her plug for light rail. Additionally, I have heard her speak of it at other presentations also.
Let me take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. Wells and the inclusion of "light-rail" in the list of "hare-brained ideas". However, as I recall, I retracted that statement. (How many mea culpa's do I have to say before that left behind? I made a mistake and admitted it. Am I going to continue being beaten with it?) While I would love to see an access road leading directly to an on-ramp to the freeway, it will never happen. The Navy will just never give up on this while they have an active fuel depot on their property. Light-rail though, (or at least the DASH bus for starters) is something which could be something achievable.
As for you Mr. Wells, how you can continue to maintain that you impartially present everyone's views is ludicrous. As soon as anyone disagrees with your position, you rip them to shreds. You put out more disinformation than the Bush administration ever did over Iraq. You have no training or experience in planning and therefore all your efforts produce flawed results. And you don't care because you WANT to believe development is bad. There are some real-world things going on, but you just keep repeating your mantra of R-1, R-1, R-1 as if somehow magically it will hold back the tide.
You have taken what I said in my comments and twisted them into something you could come back to and destroy with your "logic". Yet your logic is basically flawed. I will try to answer your points as you made them.
I have produced my own numbers. They are 1.5 residents per unit in the age-restricted portion of Ponte Vista; and 2.0 residents per unit in the non-age restricted portion of Ponte Vista. These numbers were selected by the City Planning Department. If you think you can get them to change, more power to you. But my experience is they are a power unto themselves. Their word is law.
Which brings me to a point where I beg to digress for a moment. My departed mother-in-law was deaf as a stone. She wore a hearing-aid, without which she could not have heard a bomb go off. When she would have a quarrel with her husband, she would fire off her salvo, get him so angry I thought his head would explode and then turn off her hearing-aid and go about her business contented that she had gotten in the last word.
What does this have to do with the Ponte Vista Advisory Board? Well, after seeing how it works, it seems to me that most people on it use their own version of turning off their hearing-aid. They have "selective listening". It has been said time and time again that if the Planning Department does not approve of something, IT DOES NOT GET PUBLISHED. So it does not matter what you, I , or Bisno thinks. We all have to follow their decisions and the parameters they set. The sooner you accept this, the sooner the Advisory Board can get down to what they are supposed to be dong.
In all your"calculations" you seem hell-bent on pinning down an exact number of residents per unit. My analogy to Johnny losing his job was just that, an analogy to illustrate to impossibility of pinning that number down to anything more than an average.
Also along this same thread, is the number of school-age children. That question was answered in the meeting. But everyone was so fired up because they thought it was a "commercial" for Bisno, it slid right past them. Does anyone even remember Bisno was SPECIFICALLY ASKED by the Advisory Board to give his reasons and rationale for wanting to build the project? What did you expect? Some developer to stand up and say, "Well this property is kind of marginal, and I'm not sure I'll be able to sell all the product, so I'm really not certain I'll make any money."? If this is what you thought, maybe it would be a good idea to refer to your own words about real-world effects. Developers don't build unless they are convinced the project it going to be hugely successful. This is what he believes and this is what he communicated. If it is not what you wanted, be more careful in what you ask for.
Your point of Ponte Vista not being downtown is just plain short-sighted. A vibrant downtown is something all of San Pedro could be proud of. And I absolutely disagree with you about all the Ponte Vista residents shopping at Target. Target does not provide restaurants, boutiques, entertainment, etc.. All the things a revitalized downtown would provide.
If we don't start tying our town together, then we better shut up about our kids leaving because there are no jobs, no affordable housing, no charm. We CAN make downtown attractive enough to lure residents of Ponte Vista there.
And I guess no one listened to Bisno when he went through and listed all the different levels of products which they plan to have available. I would prefer that my daughter be able to buy here instead of out in Lancaster, or worse. Right now there is nothing she can afford. Have you been out looking for homes recently and seen what you can get for $360,000? Not very much, that's for sure.
In one of my comments, I answered an (again) anonymous poster who said if Bisno didn't like it, he should just sell the property and get out. I brought up the fact that he would subdivided the property and sell it off to smaller developers who would put up project and we would wind up with more total units, but no one to mitigate the problems. Funny how no one picked that up. You think we have problems now. What do you think would happen then? But no one wants to address this. Just beat back Bisno is the order of the day. Forget about the future problems we would be creating. Like I said before, no one is looking to the future.
I guess what I can't understand is that the Advisory Committee was convened to bring in suggestions and ideas to improve the project. All I've heard until now is the same old litany of complaints and opposition. Not one single idea of how to make the plans laid out in the DEIR better and more beneficial to all the residents of San Pedro. It is easy to knock things down and criticize. It is much harder to come up with positive alternatives. Silly me, I thought that is why Janice picked all of you, because you were qualified and could rise to the task.
When is the Committee going to start doing it's job?
What a bunch of whiners!
Driving in San Pedro is a
breeze. You people have no idea how good you have it. Try driving in Silverlake, or the Fairfax district, or downtown LA, or Westwood, or Riverside.
Yes there are a lot of cars on the road here in San Pedro. But it doesn't matter. The problem is the drivers, not the number of cars. I've seen people drive more stupidly here than just about anywhere in the LA Basin. I don't know why, but they do.
There is another reason for the bad traffic also. And I'm going to be very politically incorrect. My apologies in advance I do not mean to offend anyone, but there is a logic behind my theory and I've based it on actual observation of
different driving habits.
Here in San Pedro we have a large and growing population of Hispanics. Nothing wrong with that; they have as much right to live here as you or me. The
problem is, and this is a fact-of-life, a percentage of them are
"un-documented". I don't hold this against them, and it certainly
doesn't automatically make them poor drivers. But think it through. They are here illegally. The last thing they want or need is to have any problems with
the police. Most of them are supporting at least a family, sometimes more people than that. They cannot afford to get in trouble. And the vast majority of them do not get in trouble. They work, they live quietly, etc. But when they drive, they drive that extra 10mph under the speed limit. They are overly cautious about
making that left turn. And I do not blame them at all. I would do the same thing. But they create bottlenecks where there should not be any And they fill the streets with their vehicles so there is no place to park. And when you put four families in one house, it exacerbates the problems to an
out-of-control level. Perhaps this is what Mark Wells is so afraid of and why he keeps jacking the numbers. Well Bucko, anyone who can afford to buy in Ponte Vista, sure won't be doing that.
Don't believe me? Think back to the "Day Without Immigrants". It
was fantastic. No traffic jams, you could get through a traffic signal in one cycle. I keep praying they throw more of these types of protests so life
would be easier again.
What is the solution? I don't know the answer to that. One thing
is for certain. It is cheap to live here. So they do and commute to where they work. Clogging up the roads. This is going to continue whether they build the Vue, or Ponte Vista, Or JCC Homes, or Target. So stop blaming the builders for your perceived traffic problems. In reality, even with these problem drivers getting around San Pedro is smooth compared to other parts of Southern California.
Instead of whining, figure out a solution! But I suspect from reading all the garbage written in this blog, that most of you are happier to compain about something, rather than do something about it.
First I will deal with Anonymous 9:12 AM.
You must think I am an idiot and I don't know about driving in L.A.
Hey pal, I have been driving in the areas you mentioned since 1984, before that, in very crowded Orange County, before that, Riverside and San Berdardino, and for 21 of the last 26 years, in a large van rigged for manhole work.
I don't mind getting a little ticked when someone who doesn't know me suggests I don't know anything about traffic. I have been all over the Hollywood Hills, Central and West Los Angeles, Central Orange County and have probably logged more miles on local streets in the greater L.A. area than anyone else reading this blog.
Look folks, I'll take and match any driving experiences with any of you. I have stood in the middle lane of Olympic Blvd, working UNDER the street hundreds of times.
I have closed lanes on more streets than you can imagine!
Do not suggest to me that I might not know about heavy traffic in San Pedro or any other area, for that matter. I have created traffic snarls do to my work and I have encountered more stupid and thoughtless drivers than you have probably ever seen.
Have you ever heard of the following streets, Anonymous 9:12 AM; Sunset Blvd, Hollywood Blvd, Mulholland Hwy, Vermont, Normandie, Sepulveda,. Red Hill, Irvine Center Drive, Pico Blvd, 3rd. Street, Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Glen, Laurel Canyon, Flower, Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Drive, Beverly Blvd, need I go on?
Anon 9:12, For you to think any of us don't know a thing or two about traffic suggests to me that you are ignorant about many folks who live in Southern California.
Part of the reason I can write this blog is that, until this particular comment, I have tried my best to be nice, as impartial as I could and as respectful as I should.
How can anyone commenting on this blog think that it O.K. to write about something that is so ridiculous as commenting on drivers who are not citizens. If you have comments and criticisms about illegal aliens, unlicensed drivers, or whatever you think is unjust about driving, please post those comments somewhere else. I don't care as much about who is driving, my concerns lie with how many people are driving, where they drive, how well we can deal with more cars in our area.
Now Tom,
You attacked me, and that makes me sad. I believe I treated you with respect and was realistic in my comments, responsible to chastise those you had attacked you, and reasonable in including your comments as a post, not once, but twice.
Again, you use numbers generated by an author, and yes, approved by the Planning Department. That still doesn't mean logical people, using different modes of logic, can't come up with different results.
I have REPEATEDLY brought up the hybrid scenario as an alternative to both 2,300 homes and R1 or R-1, whatever you want to call it. I haven't read your subjective opinion on that alternative, which, if you read it again, proposes MORE senior housing than is now be invisioned.
As of this date, I have never heard a single word of compromise from any supporter of Mr. Bisno or his plans to build 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista.
I have also not heard independent thought from supporters of Mr. Bisno's plans. They all seem to adhere to the "talking points" that I can hear in my sleep.
Where is the compromise ideas from supporters. Why can't they have independent ideas that may suggest a better outcome than what is suggested by Mr. Bisno. Why do almost all of them, (look folks, I didn't write "all of them" so don't accuse me of generalizing)follow the lead of a person who doesn't live in the area and suggests he knows what is best for San Pedro?
Why do so many folks still believe that the maximum is far superior to anything else? If you listened, read, or questioned Mr. Bisno, like I did, and will continue to do, you would know that the number "2,300" is the maximum number of homes at Ponte Vista that can be built using an estimation based upon the recommendations of Mr. David Shender, NOT A CITY PLANNING EMPLOYEE, but rather, a traffic engineer hired by Mr. Bisno. 2,300 homes is the maximum number of homes that MIGHT be able to be built at Ponte Vista IF all the traffic mitigations are successfully accomplished.
If you really need me to name the City Planning Staffer that called Mr. Bisno's proposal "the worst case" than I just might!
Why then, are so many people following a proposal that is called by a City Planner, "the worst case"? don't you want better for San Pedro?
Tom, Where I grew up, most folks only marketed as far as McCowan's at 1st. and Bandini, until the Food Giant, Vons, and finally Lucky's opened up. We had a Thrifty's and W.T. Grant before the Sav-on and Newberry's were built in the 1960's Most folks went to Del Amo for their big items. Of course our family bought our appliances at Williams, because that is what you did back then. Remember the Market Basket at P.V. Drive North and Western?
Lochmann Farms gave us moo juice and we got to pet the cows. What I am getting at is that, for the most part, our neighbors and my family went elsewhere to shop rather than downtown San Pedro.
Tom, I knew you apologized for the "hare-brain" and I am sorry you didn't take my sentence in the humoristic vein I felt is was written. I am also sorry you didn't read my writing describing Thursday's meeting as Mr. Bisno's chance to give his side of his story and that I was not upset with the way he chose to have it presented. I did not originally use the word, "commercial", and if it was, then that was fine with me. You also may have missed the part where I asked the guy sitting next to me if he approved of the presentation that night, and he said he did. So it looks like both Mr. Bisno and I attended the same meeting and got the same opinon of the evening. You have written, and I also don't like it when folks lump me in with other folks and contend that I think and respond like they do.
Tom, I think you would have to agree that I still don't call you a "supporter" of Mr. Bisno's plans because you wrote that you didn't want or need to be identified as a supporter of his. Whether you are a supporter or not, many of your comments seem to side with the developer's proposals and the numbers match and are not challenged by you in the DEIR. If I ask questions to "supporters" I am not necessarily identifying you as one, but as someone who shares some of the same verbiage as supporters use.
Tom, I repeatedly state that I am as impartial as I can be, with this blog. I may not be as strong as other writers, being that, not only am I a novice, but I am also not a professional writer. Impartiality can only go so far. Reality has to kick in somewhere, I feel. To demand the maximum number of homes in an already crowded area, seems like it is an idea that should be challenged by compromise or continuation of the existing zoning.
Supporters of Mr. Bisno have the opportunity, obligation, responsibility, and the charge to prove that his vision is the best thing for San Pedro. Many of us don't see it that way, and I am always hopeful that more people will question Mr. Bisno's plans rather than follow them blindly. Not that you, Tom are doing anything of the kind,and you claim to not be a "supporter" of Mr. Bisno and his plans.
Let's stop the attacks, now. Let's try to find a positive way of communicating our concerns for the best future of San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.
MW
Post a Comment