Monday, January 15, 2007


Credibility. It means so much for being a fairly small word.

It is something we all seem to want, yet we sometimes work to destroy the credibility of others, or committees for that matter.

It is something that can be so hard and expensive to get, yet so easy for others to lose for us.

It can be very financially expensive to acquire and be lost with the stroke of a pen.

Credibility has always been at issue with both Mr. Bisno's plans and Ms. Hahn's Community Advisory Committee. This post will deal with the credibility of both. It will also deal with the credibility of the R1 issue, later in the post.

Mr. Bisno has spent thousands and thousands of dollars trying to establish and keep his plans to build 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista, credible. His organization funds the Community Advisory Committee as a way to demonstrate he credibility to use the Specific Plan system to achieve the goals he has set. I applaud his funding and his continued willingness to deal with a process that many developers would never choose as a way to move their developments forward.

The credibility of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is something I have tried to help establish and maintain in what may be an increasing fog of concern as to our ability to assist Ms. Hahn, the City Planning Department, and the entire community in finding the best possible outcome for everyone concerning Ponte Vista.

Both Mr. Bisno and the CAC always need to be focused on establishing and keeping the highest degree of credibility that can be achieved. When a city bureaucrat does something that many folks consider very wrong, it affects both Mr. Bisno's plans and the CAC concerns.

Is it fair to question the credibility of both Mr. Bisno's plans and the CAC? Sure it is I feel, and it is an important test for Mr. Bisno and the CAC to always find ways to maintain credibility.

Why should the CAC be credible? There are many reasons to fight for and keep our credibility as high as we possibly can.

First, the volunteer members of the committee feel that we can have an impact on what is built at Ponte Vista despite what Mr. Bisno feels or what other people think.

Second, members have taken it upon themselves to serve both Ms. Hahn and the processes to the best of their abilities.

Third, it is in the best interest of the public, I feel, to have real community input concerning a development of such a large scale and an overriding significance for Western Avenue and several communities.

Forth, having the CAC demonstrates a willingness by Ms. Hahn to include regular folks in the governing of the community. There is no stipulation that we agree with Ms. Hahn on any issue concerning Ponte Vista and she seem willing to respect whatever recommendations that might come from the CAC.

Fifth, several members of the CAC are very interested in making sure that our community doesn't get "bowled over" by a big developer and the members want to have some oversight to the processes and plans Mr. Bisno submits.

Sixth, having community input in such a large development HOPEFULLY might provide a more investigative side and the CAC can watch for and address issues that may appear to be in conflict with the best possible outcome.

Seventh, failing to provide for the best outcome possible would be disastrous to the entire community.

Eighth, Ponte Vista is only one of many projects being proposed or being built in the area. CAC's could become tools that the community could use to monitor and deal with projects not yet proposed and the credibility of this CAC is important if others might be needed in the future.

Now I am going to shift the credibility issue away from the CAC and onto proponents of R1

Is it important to test the credibility of plans to keep Ponte Vista R1? You bet it sure is. Mr. Bisno has been doing his best to test that credibility and supporters of R1 need to work just as hard to stay credible, in my opinion.

I will use me as the best example I can find to test the credibility of Mr. Bisno's plans and, as an R1 supporter, to test the credibility of that issue as it relates to me.

Mr. Bisno has consistently planned for building 2,300 homes on 61.53 acres of land in northwest San Pedro. For many reasons, I feel that 2,300 homes are just too many homes to be built with only Western Avenue as the only major road access for the development and everyone else that currently uses Western Avenue.

Is it credible to support R1 at Ponte Vista? My support of R1 is to maintain that current zoning because I believe the application Mr. Bisno filed to have a ordinance passed by the L.A. City Council to change the zoning to allow him to build 2,300 homes should be denied and the DEIR which the application is supported by is, in my opinion and for many reasons, not to be credible enough for issuance of any zoning change.

Should staunch R1 supporters be considered credible. I believe that supporters of having the area now known as Ponte Vista continue to be zoned R1 no matter what, have an uphill battle to remain credible if plans are made to drastically lower the number of homes to be built at Ponte Vista. Thier will be a much harder task and one that I can applaud, but I might not remain in that fight for a lengthy period of time.

Must the area always remain R1? The most credible answer to that is no. Within the City of Los Angeles, and for large developments like the scope of Ponte Vista, R1 or up to nine homes per acre simply are no longer being built. It may be a very sad truth for many people, but reality is reality. That is why folks who say "R1 now and R1 forever" have a very hard road ahead for them.

Do these last few paragraphs test my credibility? I think they do. Some staunch R1 supporters may find that I might be a "sell out" for suggesting that the area might not always remain R1. Supporters of Mr. Bisno might claim that I only want R1 because of Mr. Bisno's current proposal. They would be absolutely correct!

Are R1 supporters who have like reasoning to mine that far off from Mr. Bisno's plans? No, not really. I think it is only in two areas that I have a major disagreement with Mr. Bisno and his supporters. These two areas could be cleared up very easily with both sides employing just one simple word. Compromise. What could be the percentage of the total number of homes built at Ponte Vista designated Senior Housing? What is the total number of homes that should be built at Ponte Vista. These are two very big questions and one very big reason to support the credibility of the CAC, in my opinion. Please put your trust in us to find the best possible outcome for all of us. Give us chances to fail and shine and assist everyone in the process.

I would also implore Mr. Bisno to stop with the name calling. Now it seems he is calling some "ranting elitists", "whiners" due to their distrust of the DEIR. With what happened with Mr. Bagheri and the letter concerning part of the DEIR, why wouldn't some people question the credibility of the DEIR and city officials who had their hand in it? Name calling also increases the loss of credibility of people who stoop to that kind of level, I feel.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think Bisno used to get his butt whooped on the playground as a kid and his bullying ways in the investment game is his way of feeling like a man. He's still just a pastey faced little punk.
Whining, Ranting Pedro Elitist