Saturday, April 14, 2007

INCREDIBLE! as in NOT CREDIBLE!

OH MY! The letter from Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi simply is incredible to believe she wrote the whole thing by herself.

But she does put her foot right into Bob Bisno's mouth when you read both her letter and Bob's guest column. Not only does she misstate housing prices, according to Bob's piece, she also tells all of us that there will be families that will want to move into Ponte Vista.

Families moving into Ponte Vista could be a problem because Bob claims that only 199 students will live in the 1,725 non age restricted units.

Good old Linda does use the term "single-family homeowners" in reference to her attack of Doug Epperhart on the zoning issue. Even Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro D'Ambrosi acknowledges by her writing that "single family housing" stands for detached residences. Bob cited "single family housing" would be at Ponte Vista in his survey and with print ads. Of course, he has no plans to actually build detached units for single family residences anywhere at Ponte Vista.

Let's talk about "condescending" for a moment from someone who claimed she lived in San Pedro all of her 57 years of life, when she actually has resided in Rancho Palos Verdes for some time. Yes, Linda is a real estate agent, and yes, she could be involved in sales of units at Ponte Vista, and yes, she might even get special treatment from any sales organization because of her involvement in groups supporting Bob's current plans.

I hereby challenge Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi to an intellectual debate about the Ponte Vista project. She can sit with me and she can bring in her "facts" and I will simply supply the truth and she and I, both R.P.V. residents, can go toe to toe on what should be built in San Pedro.
_________________________________________________

Rachel Viramontes is a bit like John Kerry was accused of being, concerning involvement in Iraq. John was dogged by folks who claimed "he was for it before he was against it."
Rachel was against Bob's current plans before she was for them, according to Rachel herself.
Rachel is a bit of a thorn in the side of the "keep Ponte Vista R1" crowd because she lives in R.P.V. in the neighborhood closest to the Ponte Vista site.

Could it be that Rachel would like to cash out her house's value and move into a Senior Housing section unit at Ponte Vista. Are there any special incentives for members of boards supporting Bob's current plans who may want to buy a unit at Ponte Vista?

Please remember, Bob's current plans call for a guard-gated community. Isn't that "elitist" in and of itself, Rachel?
___________________________________________________

What, actually can make Christina S. Villa believe that any condominium at Ponte Vista would actually be "affordable" to first time home buyers? Does she know something I don't know? Do many first-time home buyers make between $65,000 to $73,000 dollars per year (which Bob claims would be the income required to have the opportunity to buy a condo at Ponte Vista)?
If first-time home buyers have that kind of income, can I learn where they work, because I might want a job there, too.

If folks like Christina truly believe there is a real need for "affordable housing" in San Pedro, then not only is Ponte Vista not the place to look, but now may not be the best time to start looking. The housing market may allow folks who really make upwards of $73,000 per year a near future opportunity to buy a much larger home for less money. Bob won't be able to cut his prices in the development he currently plans much more than they might be already.

I have an idea for folks like Christina, why not wait until Rachel sells her house in R.P.V. and moves into a Senior unit at Ponte Vista? The value of Rachel's house is going to drop over the next couple of years and that house is in the Palos Verdes school district. I think anyone with a family who wants to send their kids to P.V. schools might want to get on a waiting list for Rachel's house. Taper and Crestwood are very, very good L.A.U.S.D. schools, but I can't say Dodson and Narbonne are better than Miraleste Intermediate or Peninsula H.S.
___________________________________________________

Back to Rachel. Hey Rachel, why can't Bob open up the south gate to his property right now and build Eastview Little League a great place to become their home? Why must he have strings attached? If the little league fields were built now, then the R1 groups could fall out of favor with more of the public and some kind of compromise project could be built. Could you imagine the outcry of folks if Bob built the fields and then folks who demanded all R1 at Ponte Vista would have them torn down because Bob wouldn't keep them in an all R1 project.
___________________________________________________

Denise Marovich-Sampson, thank you, thank you, thank you.
___________________________________________________

I was expecting to read more criticism of Tom Field's letter from last week in this Saturday's
More San Pedro. I feel I have been critical enough in my comments to Tom in places on this blog. My letter was designed to inform everyone about Tom's positions and not to defend those positions in any way. I think Tom got through this episode fairly unscathed. Let's wait to see what Tom writes in the future.
__________________________________________________

Of course I have already written a draft of my response to Bob's Guest Column. I would like to be able to read it in next Saturday's More, but if others have a good idea of what to write about, then please, take some really great shots. I might reveal my draft column on a post of this blog.
___________________________________________________

I hope to see all of you at the L.A.U.S.D. meeting on April 19. I think the paper got the time incorrect, but if you see a fat guy standing outside the auditorium handing out blue buttons with black writing on them, please ask for one and say "hi".

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am getting very annoyed with the pro-Bisno stance the Breeze has been taking, especially lately. TWO Bisno-written columns in TWO weeks, ONLY pro-project letters this week, etc. etc.

One more free ad for Bisno and I am cancelling the paper ... and my family has taken the paper since it began.

Richard Wagoner

Anonymous said...

It would appear you've misstated some facts Mr. Wagoner.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anonymous 6:04pm. Someone needs to check their facts. Bisno has not written a piece for some weeks. Just more histrionics by the R-1 crowd. If you are going to criticize a person, at least do it for what they actually did. But I guess the R-1 crownd can't be bothered with minor points like facts.

Anonymous said...

Oh, so the "Restrictive R1 Zoning" guest column by Bisno on page 11 of today's More San Pedro, and the pro-Bisno column written by him (or maybe it was a supporter) on page 2 of last week's More San Pedro were only in my issues? I didn't realize I get personalized copies of the Breeze. That's a nice touch. Few papers do that.

Anonymous said...

I just recalled; last week was the full-page ad hyping the results of his "poll" that showed "support" for his "proposed development." So last week it was just a column from someone ELSE supporting the project; this week it was just another in a long run of free-publicity guest columns. Few mentions in two weeks from the opposing side, which doesn't get free dinners to go to a public meeting as the pro-Bisno side does.

At least I sign my name to my posts, 6:04 and 11:37.

Richard Wagoner

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous 11:37 --

Mr. Wagoner did indeed misstate some facts. There were, by my count, two letters to the editor from people opposed to Mr. Bisno's current plans -- the author of this blog and a woman who is now supporting the R-1 group.

But it's interesting to see that you "agree with" me. Because if you did, you'd agree that Bisno Development has leveled massive amounts of "histrionics" within the community, including his fanciful claim that $101.5 million will be spent within a 5 mile radius.

If you really did agree with me, you'd be calling for 700-1000 units to be built at Ponte Vista. is that something you'd be willing to do?

On the larger point of whether the Breeze has been deferential to Mr. Bisno, the answer is "yes" it absolutely has been. So in that regard, Mr. Wagoner was correct.

signed,
anonymous 6:04

M Richards said...

Howdy anonymous 6:04,

Do you think Random Lengths has also been too soft on Bob? One gets the chance to view a full page ad from the Ponte Vista folks with every edition of R.L. and I wonder if the editorial staff have "suggested" to reporters that they "go soft" on Ponte Vista issues for fear of losing the revenue a full page ad brings in.
MW

tom said...

Let's introduce a novel concept - the use of a dictionary. According to the American Dicitionary "histrionics" is "Exaggerated emotional behavior calculated for effect."

Lumping together articles that were written by Bisno with articles or letters written by people who support the project and maintaining that they were, for all intents and purposes written or ghost-written by Bisno, exactly fits this definition.

Everyone has the right to express their opinion. Whether that opinion gets published or not is a decision made by the editors of the Daialy Breeze. To attribute the publication to undue influence is more histrionics.

I'm sorry Anonymous 6:04pm, but you have misused the word. If you examine the definition you'll see the one word "emotional" which makes your use incorrect. Bisno might be a lot of things, but his dissemination of information favorable to his project is anything but "emotional". It is coldly calculated. Call it "propaganda" if you like, but definitely not histrionic.

But the point is, it is us, the residents of San Pedro who are reacting with strong emotional content. We (at least some of us)are the one's being histionic.

Every time we dig in our heels and say no to everything except R-1, we walk right into the trap. Why don't people who oppose 2300 units come up with ideas for somethng else? Other than Mark and myself, there have not been any other detailed plans published on this blog. If you don't give your input, you can't cry when the decisions are made without you.

Anonymous said...

yes, random lengths has gone easy on bisno development. this i can say with certainty. nothing overt has ever been communicated to reporters, but anything harshly critical of the developer received close scrutiny by the publisher.

hey tom:
as i said before 700-1000 units works for me. but it's really not the job of the people who oppose 2,300 units to come up with ideas for something else. we who are opposed to 2,300 units aren't the ones developing the project. bisno could have saved everybody's time if he approached the manner in a different fashion. but hey, that's how he wants it, that's how it'll be.

anybody who is, at this point, siding with bisno development should have their head examined. have you been to Long Beach lately Tom? Ever tried to find parking in Alamitos Beach, or Downtown for that matter? it's a joke. but hey, if that's what you want for Pedro, that's fine with me. just count me out.

tom said...

Anonymous 8:10pm

Yes, of course I've been to the places you've mentioned. I think the parking there sucks. I do not want that for us either. But on the other hand, have you watched the way people drive around town? Goodness gracious, it's no wonder we have traffic backed up. Lights go green and people wait for the count of 10 before moving. And each car after them does the same. I've said it in my description of my ideas for mitigations of 5-Points. It really is TRAFFIC FLOW, more than raw number of cars.

As far as how the project was presented, I have to agree with you there also. Do you remember the article Doug Epperhart wrote? The open letter to what's-his-name, oh yeah, Eric Hoffman, asking him if he had a concussion? It is just my opinion and maybe I'm too sensitive, but Hoffman sure put me off. It seemed everything he said was with this condescending tone towards us "local yokels". Like what could we possibly know; and they would show us how they knew better than we did about what wass best for our community. Arrogance just oozed from his pores. Bisno would have better relations with the local community now, if his "vice-president" had not been so arrogant then.

As far as our responsibility to present alternatives, you are right, we don't have any. But that is why the CAC was formed. So doesn't it make sense to give some input that would eventually go to the Planning Department and maybe get us some features we like, instead of just sitting on our hands and hoping to not get screwed too badly?

Anonymous said...

Tell bisNO and his shills to move WAY OFF the ridiculous, not-gonna-happen figure of 2300, and then reasoned discussions can begin. This developer's propaganda, spin and bogus "poll" are crudely transparent. I know developers have City Hall in their pockets, but if Hahn thinks those us who vote are buying this developer's BS, she is badly miscalculating.

Anonymous said...

Amen anon 10:09PM.
But I'm with Tom's approach. He's a smart man ya know. We need to work with Bobby and develop a compromise that Bobby will accept and then thank him when he accepts.