Thursday, April 05, 2007

Some Figures, Some Fuzziness

This post will not attempt to compare apples to oranges.

This post will compare two developments with buildings of 50 units or more in owner-occupied housing.

Development "A" actually has one 36-unit building, and one 215-unit building.

Development "B" has one 67-unit building, one 187-unit building, and 18 more residential buildings of varying number of units per building, all between 67 and 187 units.

Development "A" will have approximately 2.3 residents per unit, and development "B" will have approximately 1.88 residents per unit.

Development "A" will have approximately 577 residents and development "B" claims that 4,313 residents will occupy their units.

Development "A" estimates that 98.5 school-aged students will live in the development. Development "B" estimates that 199 school-aged students will live in that development.

If one uses ratios created for development "A" for ratios for Development "B", here is where some fuzziness comes in.

Development "B" claims they will have approximately 1.88 residents per unit for a total of 4,313 residents. If one uses the 2.3 persons per unit that development "A" uses, then development "B" would have a total approximate population of 5,290 and not 4,313.

Development "B" claims that there will be approximately 199 school-age children in that development. If one uses the ratio of students per unit of Development "A", then there could actually be 676.94 school-aged students in development "B", and not 199. With development "B", I am only using 1,725 units to make my calculations.

Please remember, I am comparing owner-occupied residential units in buildings of 50 units or greater.

Development "A" is Urban Village at Palos Verdes Street.
Development "B" is Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I used to live at Lincoln Place.

What Chris Yang conveniently leaves out of his letter, is that the Bisno company offered generous move-out bonuses, offered to pay for the moving itself, plus gave rent subsidies to compensate for the rent we used to pay and the rent in our new places.

I was lucky and took the deal, moving to San Pedro at a time when It was still possible to get an affordable apartment.

Mr. Yang also fails to point out that the entire complex had 1940s electrical wiring, 1940s plumbing and 1940 appliances. It was mostly a barrio. Take a drive of the neighborhood. Iron bars on all the windows, iron gates on doors, etc. "...landmark-worthy buildings..." What a joke! Their Renters Association tried to get this property declared a historical site. The were turned down flat. They were nothing but a bunch of old military housing apartments. Slapped together and meant to last only a few years. It is surprising they kept standing as long as they did.

THE ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIVILITY. I has to do with the right of a property owner to improve his property. The previous owner had done nothing. We all had decent deals offered to us and we were lucky to get them. When you let your lease lapse to a month-to-month rental, that is your own fault. Not that of the property owner. We could have gotten just 30-day notices.

These "poor" people who got put out on the street were just plain stupid. They just did not want to move. In addition, the number of 90-year olds was minuscule. Mr. Yang's letter makes is sound like it was a majority of the tenants when, in fact, it was only a few. There was plenty, and still is, of Section 8 housing available in LA. These people were just plain stubborn and stupid. Not even considering the Section 8, all the other apartments were way below market. Like I said, the previous owner didn't do squat. Not even raise rents when there was a turnover.

If you want to slam Bisno, that's fine. Just don't do it for something ANY property owner would have done to bring his apartment complex into market value. It's got nothing to do with civil. More like greed - on the part of the tenants.

Mr. Yang is just another knee-jerk liberal who wants everyone to have 1960 rents at the expense of the bourgeois property owner.

Oh, one last thing. Did Mr. Yang live there? Or is this just something he read in the People's Republic of Santa Monica press?

9:21 AM

M Richards said...
Howdy Anonymous 9:21 AM,

Thank you for your comments.

After living at Lincoln Place and then moving to San Pedro, you seem to have a unique history that would allow your different perspective to help us all more concerning Ponte Vista.

What is your opinion of Mr. Bisno's current plans to build 2,300 units? Would you like to see the current zoning remain, and if so, why? What do you think about compromise as a way to find, possibly, the best solution for our community.

I wish you would Email me at so I could learn more from you. I never print names of folks who I am in contact with, unless they give me permission to do so, and many have not.

Your unique history stands out along with another person who actually lived in the old Navy Housing before it was abandoned, and now lives in San Pedro.

This blog offers everyone the chance to write their views and, even though many know my slant on the issues, I feel I am as fair to all as I can be.

I doubt very highly if Mr. Yang lived at Lincoln Place. You may wish to ask him directly if both of you come to a CAC meeting. He is probably the youngest person who attends the meetings.

3:17 PM

Anonymous said...
you used to live in lincoln place? really? what's your name? How long did you live there?

i most certainly did not live in lincoln place, and if i did, i sure wouldn't have been interested in any "move-out bonuses."

i doubt anybody from lincoln place lives in pedro, and i doubt you know anything about venice at all.

Chris Yang

p.s. calling me a "knee-jerk liberal" and the santa monica mirror the "people's republic of santa monica press" isn't very civil.
p.p.s. i think you are full of shit.

6:58 PM

Anonymous said...
actually Chris, your p.p.s. isn't very civil, which is exactly the reason I chose to remain anonymous 9:21am. given this overly aggressive response, you forfeit any rights at all to criticize anyone about civility.

secondly, a member of the board of the central san pedro NC moved here from venice. so you are wrong again, people DO move to pedro from venice.

third, the "people's republic of santa monica press" is a long-standing joke and has been around longer than you have. it's like the "people's republic of berkeley". most people who are liberal and actually live there take pride in being called this, so take a chill-pill.

lastly, anyone with half a brain would see that it was a losing battle. a month-to-month rental agreement is just that. if that is what you have, guess what? you are going to lose.

the bonus allowed me to move, put down my deposits on my apartment here and still have money left over. since when is making fiscally good decisions a bad thing?

by your reaction, I can tell you are probably one of those people who would have chained himself to his radiator and been hauled off to jail.

it is generally a good thing to know what you are talking about before you go writing it down in a public forum and embarrassing yourself.

5:45 PM