Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Bob Bisno and Some Numbers

Bob Bisno and his organization like numbers it seems. I think they love numbers so much that when the R Neighborhoods Are 1 group started to ramp up the rates signatures on R1 petitions were coming, the folks at Bisno Development thought enough to cough up many numbers of dollars to sponsor a flyer/post card campaign to increase their numbers.

Has it worked? You get to be the judge. Below are the numbers directly from the Ponte Vista Web site. I copied them to show that I am not creating numbers that are different than numbers posted on their site, and I need to be honest enough to show you the numbers they are posting. So here are their numbers:

"Over 11,091 community members and leaders support Ponte Vista, a community where everyone can live, play and grow. One that’ll add luster to the Peninsula, and income to the area’s merchants."


"Individuals who do not support R-1 zoning, or single family homes, at Ponte Vista: 11,091
Supporting 2,300 units at Ponte Vista:

Senior Signed Support Cards: 1,113
Signed Support Cards: 1,063
Potential buyers in support of Ponte Vista: 2,319
Petition Signatures: 6,596"
____________________________________________

If you get out your calculator, the numbers above total 11,091!

Now being as how the folks at Bisno Development like to illustrate numbers, I think I will post some numbers that mean just about as much as the numbers shown above, if you really think about it.

The numbers below are as of 6:46 PM PDT on Tuesday May 1, 2007 and are in no particular order.

Number of Board Members on three Neighborhood Councils who voted to oppose Bob's current plans: more than 60. (60 is the number Bob sites as the number of members on his three advisory boards).

Number of households within the three Neighborhood Councils whose Boards voted to oppose Bob's current plans, and call for keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning: Probably more than 50,000.

Number of signatures given to Ms. Janice Hahn at the roll out of R Neighborhoods Are 1, on petitions demanding that the current zoning at Ponte Vista be kept: 3,096.

Number of signatures collected since that roll out on March 23, 2007, just 40 days ago, on R1 petitions: 5,862.

Rate of signatures gathered per day since the organization was rolled out: 69.15

Number of visitors to this blog since September, 2007: 7,378.

Number of pages of this blog read since September, 2007: 12,126

Average number of visitors per day to this blog: 71.

Number of cars in my driveway where the rear passenger doors swing out backwards and are referred to as "suicide doors": 2

If Bob wants to continue to play the numbers game, then I think we all would like to play, too. Supporters of keeping the Ponte site with its current zoning are growing in numbers at a faster rate than Bob can pay petition gatherers to get signatures on his petitions. More letters to the editor have been published opposing Bob's current plans in the Daily Breeze, even though many individuals believe The Daily Breeze favors Bob's current plans.

Bob has had to spend many numbers of dollars to fund campaigns to get folks to support his current plans. If his current plans are so wonderful, then why does he have to pay petition gatherers to try and get signatures? Why does he still need to spend numbers of dollars financing parties, and other gatherings to support a project he claims the community already wants? Why does Bob need to open up his property to potential buyers when he claims he already has more than enough seniors who want to buy into his Senior Housing section than he will have condos available for them? Why are so many of Bob's numbers still in question if he actually is going to build a project he believes so many people want to live in?

Why, for the last two CAC meetings has opponents to Bob's current plans so outnumbered supporters of his current plans? Where have all the numbers of supporters who have showed up at previous meetings gone to?

Bob, you want to still play with numbers? How about letting everyone know the real numbers concerning the pricing structure of your planned units that Ms. Swanson promised would be given out several weeks ago?

Bob, I don't know the number of dollars you have spent trying to "sell" your current plan to a community that seems to not be listening any longer to your side of the issues.

But I do know that many volunteers have spent many hours fighting for what they believe in and opposing your current plans. I know how many dollars they charge for their time and services. I know their numbers of dollars are the same as mine: Zero!

When Bob talks to his financial backers for his outrageous project, do you suppose they are wondering where their dollars are actually going and how Bob Bisno needs to spend their numbers of dollars fighting against an opposition that spends virtually zero numbers of dollars in its mission to keep Ponte Vista R1.

13 comments:

michael.meacher said...

Mark,

How can you possibly state the neighborhood councils represent the numbers of houselholds in their districts? Total voter turnout for Northwest, Coastal and Harbor City was 700 or less per council. Are you trying to say a few activists represent the views of everyone in the district?

And as far as number of people signing the R-1 petition, we'll see on the 16th what kinds of "facts" they have been presented with to sway them into signing.

Michael Meacher

Anonymous said...

Meacher 10:06 a.m.

Elected Neighborhood Council members represent all eligible voters, not just those that cast a vote. Just like any other elected representative, the council members are speaking for every qualified voter. By one example; I can vote in city elections, but seldom bother. Nonetheless, those elected represent all.

michael.meacher said...

Anonymous 2:58pm

"Represented by" and "reflecting the true feelings of" are two completely different things.

While you are technically correct, conceptually you are off base. Take for example Lucie Thorsen who represents her HOA from across Western in RPV. At least she took the time to poll her HOA members to get their feelings. Whether you agree with her position or not, at least she did the extra work and can rightfully claim she represents her constituency.

One of the biggest problems the City Council has had with neighborhood councils is the extremely low voter turnout. 700 people voting out of 22,000+ in the Nortwest Distric is NOT representative.

Using the number of households in the district to contrast with people who ACTIVELY support Ponte Vista is misleading and a distortion of the facts.

Mr. Wells has professed to be an advocate of the truth. Then let him compare apples to apples.

Michael Meacher

M Richards said...

Howdy Mr. Meacher,

You have made some good points about some of the numbers.

I think that whether you decide to vote or not, doesn't mean you don't have the opportunity to cast a vote, but it probably means you either don't care enough about the issues, or you believe you are being represented by the folks who actually do vote.

You are probably most correct in writing that only 700 folks bothered to vote in the Northwest Neighborhood Counsil election out of a base of some 20,000 homes. I don't know whose "fault" it is that so few folks bothered to vote, but what happened is that those few votes counted more than they would have if more residents had cast more ballots.

One of the things I have been trying to illustrate with posts about numbers, is that my numbers, Bob's numbers of supporters, and other people's numbers really don't add up to a hill of beans, in my opinion.

Bob can claim he has 200,000 supporters, but where is the factual public records backing up his claim. The numbers I post about this blog consist of times I visit the blog, visitors whose visits count twice for the same visit, and many folks who hit this blog and go away from it, very quickly.

I can't really compare apples to apples as far as supporters versus opponents, because I have been told some of the tactics used by Bob to collect some of his numbers and some of my numbers, dealing with this blog, are sometimes out of whack.

The numbers game was apparently started by Bob Bisno and his organization. Many people have told me they signed the support petition based on mistatements they believed were true, but later turned out to be false, by paid petition gatherers.

I bet if you could look at the names of all the folks who signed petitions in support of Bob's current plans, and folks who signed the R1 petitions, many of the same names and addresses would appear.

Both Bob Bisno and R Neighborhoods Are 1 want to gather the most number of names possible on their respective petitions. If apples need to be compared to apples, then perhaps only the two petition signing numbers should be publicized.

In then, it will probably come down to one number. That number is 8. That is the number of votes needed by members of the Los Angeles City Council needed to keep Ponte Vista with its current zoning, or allow Mr. Bisno his giant project, or some other sized development, Bob agrees upon with the folks at City Planning.

All other numbers, are just for publicity, I think.

Now about "facts" Mr. Meacher and the meeting on May 16.

I can personally guarantee you that the "special guest" will only use facts documented in the DEIR, the Initial Study, or some other public document supported by independent verifacation.

There is absolutely no reason to use any other information to inform meeting attendees that Bob's current plans are too large, too dangerous, and too costly to members of OUR communtiy.

There are enough statistics in the DEIR and other documents that too many people don't know about, that when learned, will show more people that Bob's current plans for 61.53 acres of OUR community, are plans none of us should be asked to live with.

The meeting if for supporters of R1 and keeping the current zoning at Ponte Vista.

Opponents to Mr. Bisno's current plans have not been routinely invited to meetings, dinners, and other functions by Mr. Bisno and his staff. Supporters of Bob's current plans have plenty of affairs they are welcome to and I don't want any of those supporters to feel uncomfortable attending a meeting for supporters of R1.

I am sure that you can understand when Republicans don't want Democrats at their conventions. This meeting will be a little like that, too. But we won't disallow anyone from attending, I just hope supporters of Bob's are better behaved than some R1 supporters have been at recent CAC meetings.
MW

michael.meacher said...

Mark,

Well, heck, your comment is very refreshing.

I have to agree that all the numbers except the "8" are superfluous.

Also it will be interesting to hear what facts are quoted from the DEIR.

In addition, it is nice to hear that at least someone on the R Neighborhoods Are 1 committee realizes not all their allies have behaved civilly during CAC meetings.

Let's just stick with discussing the realities of the situation. I realize it can easily be an infuriating topic. But we can at least try to remain civil. After this is all over, we still have to be neighbors.

Michael Meacher

M Richards said...

Thanks Mr. Michael,

Have you included what you would like to see built at Ponte Vista and why, on this blog?

As you probably have read, Tom Field and I have engaged in discussions over time, sometimes very tough and sometimes informative and challenging to both of us.

I don't really know if you are a member of the "compromise bunch" that Tom and I belong to. We both have to do battles on all sides because of our stances.

I still am inclined to wish for some type of Senior Housing section, but the folks who are more supportive of keeping the entire site with its current zoning are making an impact in the community and have made some pretty good points to try to sway me.

We'll see what falls out of the demonstrations, meetings, and CAC meetings. It still is interesting, don't you think?
MW

Anonymous said...

Geeze Meacher, can't we all get over the "let's be nice and civil" rhetoric? And "The R1 supporters are a bunch of hooligans" baloney? This truly is a battle. Janice Hahn has to realize that we are angry and serious. She needs to know that she will loose votes and support and we ain't fooling around. There really is NOTHING to discuss and be civil about. Bisno bought R1 zoned property....Right? Let him build whatever he wants on his R1 property and we are done! You guys just keep wanting to make this thing soooo damn difficult. Less is better...simple logic. Now let's just make it happen.

michael.meacher said...

Anonymous 9:58am

Take your few hundered votes and go pound sand... How's that for dropping the "let's all be civil"? In effect that is all your group amounts to. I don't care how many signatures you gather. The signatories are being given false, inflammatory informatin in order to get them to sign. That does not translate to people voting at the polls. If I know this, then Janice Hahan certainly does. She won't (and cannot afford to) give a rat's patootie about a tiny group of nut-jobs.

You guys can't even understand by now, with all the eveidence presented to you, that the nominal R1 zoning which is on Ponte Vista was placed there by a City Council which had no authority to do it, plus it did not even match the housing in existance on the property which was duplexes. Duplexes require R2 zoning. Obviously the City Council was just going through the motions.

And it a bunch of moron, lunatic fringe people like you to seize on something which is erroneous and would never hold up, to make it as a central theme of your group.

Michael Meacher

M Richards said...

The "author" of the comment time stamped 11:27 AM said:

"Take your few hundered votes and go pound sand... How's that for dropping the "let's all be civil"? In effect that is all your group amounts to. I don't care how many signatures you gather. The signatories are being given false, inflammatory informatin in order to get them to sign. That does not translate to people voting at the polls. If I know this, then Janice Hahan certainly does. She won't (and cannot afford to) give a rat's patootie about a tiny group of nut-jobs."

I almost can’t believe Michael Meacher wrote this. Not only is the spelling not like any spelling Michael normally use, the author of this particular comment is so very incorrect on actual facts, that it boggles the mind.

Then He/she went on to write;

"You guys can't even understand by now, with all the eveidence presented to you, that the nominal R1 zoning which is on Ponte Vista was placed there by a City Council which had no authority to do it, plus it did not even match the housing in existance on the property which was duplexes. Duplexes require R2 zoning. Obviously the City Council was just going through the motions."

Whoever wrote this comment is ignorant of the facts surrounding building zoning on federal property. To put it simply, whoever you are, the federal government, in this instance the U.S. Navy is under no municipal regulation to follow any zoning which was or is on the land the buildings are on. Furthermore, less educated one, the duplexes and apartment-style buildings on the old Navy Housing site were built beginning in 1962, which was prior to the annexation into the City of Los Angeles, which was done in 1981.

The fellow or fella continued with;

"And it a bunch of moron, lunatic fringe people like you to seize on something which is erroneous and would never hold up, to make it as a central theme of your group."

I guess the real author of this comment is claiming that I continue to write falsehoods and am, essentially, a liar. You see Mr. or Ms. Idiot, I don’t need to use any facts other than the ones Bob uses to prove that Bob’s current plans call for an enormous, (that means really big, author) segregated, (that means Bob wants to keep the property away from ordinary folks like you), and very expensive (I can’t imagine the author of this comment has the funds to purchase even the smallest unit planned at Ponte Vista) development that will change the face and quality of our community for generations. (that means a really, really long time.)

The author or authoress then claims to be;

"Michael Meacher"

If this comment is really from Michael.Meacher, he/she either had a pretty bad fight with his/her significant other or he/she is just overflowing with stupid. I don’t like putting concerned, intelligent, opinionated, and thoughtful folks down, but whoever wrote this comment doesn’t seem to have any of those qualities and probably doesn’t know the factual differences between being an idiot, imbecile, or moron.

To Anonymous 9:58 AM, this comment doesn’t seem to have come from the Michael.Meacher who has commented in the past, and very well and thought provoking, too. Thanks for your comment contribution.

michael.meacher said...

Mr. Wells,

That was my post and I stand by the facts.

First of all, Anonymous 9:45am asked "Geeze Meacher, can't we all get over the "let's be nice and civil" rhetoric? And "The R1 supporters are a bunch of hooligans" baloney? This truly is a battle..." Okay. Happy to oblige, let's get down to bare knuckles.

Second, if you would bother to do some true research into the City's own records you would see that the zoning placed on the Ponte Vista tract is completely fraught with errors. In addition to the duplex/R2 error I already mentioned, part of their OS "Open Space" zoning actually overlaps some of the existing housing on the project. Obviously someone wasn't paying attention.

Besides, R1 is the "default" zoning that is slapped on a property when the City doesn't know what else to do. Kind of like when your answering machine loses power and defaults back to that robotic "Please leave a message."

Beyond that, all you need to do is a little research and you can find that "the Shoestring" which included areas of Watts, Wilmington, Harbor City and pieces of other cities including the piece of Wilmington extending down to just past Summerland was annexed to the City of Los Angeles on December 26, 1906, Ordinance No. 13447 N.S.. The main body of San Pedro wan annexed August 28, 1909, Ordinance No. 18414 N.S.. Ask your buddy Doug Epperhart, he knows.

As for my spelling, I apologize. I was in a hurry and forgot to use my spell checker.

But on the subject of whether I can afford to buy a unit at Ponte Vista, you are way off-base and have no right or knowledge to comment on my financial situation. If you want to get personal about it, like I said above, we're down to bare knuckles; so please explain to our reading public how it is you are passing yourself off as a homeowner, when the house you live in is still owned by your mother. What's the problem, not enough money for a down payment on your own house?

Michael Meacher

M Richards said...

Michael Meacher actually claims to have written that comment that some folks might seem to think it was written after drinking a few too many “liquid refreshments” earlier in the morning. O.K. If he claims he wrote it, I won’t argue with that.

Michael really wants to get his points across because he published the same comments in the comment section of two different posts. That’s fine with me, too.

Unfortunately with the comments he asserts he wrote, it only hastens the need for me to start considering holding all comments for publication until after I have reviewed them I don’t like that, and I don’t think it is fair to everyone else who has an opinion. I do not want to be a gatekeeper for the opinions of others on this blog.

Michael brings up a point he researched that I do not personally own the house I am living in. He is correct. If anyone and everyone looks through the entire blog they will be unable to find any reference to the ownership of my home. I have been particularly careful to not claim ownership of the home I live in, because it is of no real importance to anyone other than folks who believe it can be used as a point to attack me.

Michael, I don’t know how long you have lived in the community, but if you have lived here long enough you would know about the many close knit families who share, trade, live in, and provide housing for family members who do not actually own the home they are living in. This fact is true with other houses not only on my block, but with houses throughout our community.

Mr. M., Have you ever heard about family trusts? Also, all seeming to know everything one, I have purchased, owned, lived in, and sold several homes between the time I moved out of the home I am currently living in, and my return here in 1998.

It was very tough making payments on a small house in San Bernardino when I was serving our country as a member of the U.S.A.F. But the payments were never late and the house was a small but decent place to call home.

When I moved to Simi Valley, we bought a brand new home, lived in it, never missed a payment, a sold it as a result of my divorce from my first wife.

Michael, your attack on me over the ownership of the home I live in could very well backfire on you. The home I live in is my home I share with my wife and our half-lab, half-chihuahua, Cookie. It was my home when my parents carried my over the threshold at the age of one-day old, on May 4, 1955, it is our home right now, and it will be our home for the foreseeable future.

And since you mentioned that my mother owns the house, she would be perfectly within her rights to move into the house, however, the Alzheimer’s Disease she is suffering from would make it impossible to care for herself, living on her own.

Also my father could probably move back into the house, if he ever leaves Los Palos Convalescent Hospital. He is bed-ridden now and would require 24-hour live-in care, if he were to move back.

I am sorry if I touched a nerve concerning the financial situation Mr. Meacher may or may not be in. I am not a financial planner, banker, or loan officer and I actually have no idea what Michael can, or cannot afford.

Now I am going to repeat everything Michael Meacher wrote in his comment and respond to whatever I feel like responding to. If Mr. Meacher doesn’t like that, he and everyone else is entitled to have their own blog and make their own comments on them.

“Mr. Wells,

That was my post and I stand by the facts.

First of all, Anonymous 9:45am asked "Geeze Meacher, can't we all get over the "let's be nice and civil" rhetoric? And "The R1 supporters are a bunch of hooligans" baloney? This truly is a battle..." Okay. Happy to oblige, let's get down to bare knuckles.”

Might Mr. Meacher and others supporting a large residential project in northwest San Pedro becoming pressured by calls that the project is just too big?

“Second, if you would bother to do some true research into the City's own records you would see that the zoning placed on the Ponte Vista tract is completely fraught with errors. In addition to the duplex/R2 error I already mentioned, part of their OS "Open Space" zoning actually overlaps some of the existing housing on the project. Obviously someone wasn't paying attention.”

Whether the current zoning if “fraught with errors” doesn’t mean it should necessarily be changed to what a single developer want the zoning changed to.
Again, I feel I must remind all readers that municipal zoning guidelines do not need to be used on federal government land and that any residential structure of any type, size, style, and density built by the federal government are not under guidelines of the municipality the units are actually in.

“Besides, R1 is the "default" zoning that is slapped on a property when the City doesn't know what else to do. Kind of like when your answering machine loses power and defaults back to that robotic "Please leave a message."”

So, what is Mr. Meacher’s point here.

“Beyond that, all you need to do is a little research and you can find that "the Shoestring" which included areas of Watts, Wilmington, Harbor City and pieces of other cities including the piece of Wilmington extending down to just past Summerland was annexed to the City of Los Angeles on December 26, 1906, Ordinance No. 13447 N.S.. The main body of San Pedro wan annexed August 28, 1909, Ordinance No. 18414 N.S.. Ask your buddy Doug Epperhart, he knows.”

The City Strip or Harbor Gateway connects downtown Los Angeles to San Pedro for political and economic reasons. It was done by a greedy city that demanded influence and economic power over the port.

“As for my spelling, I apologize. I was in a hurry and forgot to use my spell checker.”

“But on the subject of whether I can afford to buy a unit at Ponte Vista, you are way off-base and have no right or knowledge to comment on my financial situation. If you want to get personal about it, like I said above, we're down to bare knuckles; so please explain to our reading public how it is you are passing yourself off as a homeowner, when the house you live in is still owned by your mother. What's the problem, not enough money for a down payment on your own house?”

Hey Michael, I hope you read the first part of my comments. A home is a home whether it is owned, rented, shared, or whatever, to the people living there.

My home was my home for the first 21-years of my life. I lived in homes that were rented, leased, and even owned by me. My home is where I live right now and it will be my home until I either move out or die. I have experienced living in this area beginning in 1955.

The home I live in is in the first tract of homes built between Western Avenue and Miraleste Drive/P.V. Drive East. It was built in what was then an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County at a time it was considered to be part of San Pedro, but it was never within the limits of the City of Los Angeles.

Now about my financial situation, it seems you enjoy attacking me when you appear to be so very touchy about your own financial situation. Whether I can afford a down payment or monthly payments for the home I live in, is none of your business. Actually it is none of anyone else’s business, either.

The stake I claim living in this area goes back farther than well over 99% of everyone else living north of Park Western Drive/Channel Street, between Gaffey and Miraleste/P.V. Drive East. If you want to go bare knuckles with folks, try the “newbies” who only have known about this area for 40 years.
MW

“ Michael Meacher 10:48 AM”

michael.meacher said...

Mr. Wells,

Let me address the peripheral points first, and then let's drop them. Let's go "bare knuckles" on the central issues.

I'll drop the comments about personal financial situations and would request you do the same. My response was triggered by your writing "...(I can't imagine the author of this comment has the funds to purchase even the smallest unit planned at Ponte Vista)..." Just as you said that your financial situations is none of anyone else's business, neither is mine. Let's leave it alone.

I'm sorry that there were a total of 5 misspelled words in my post. Sometimes I get in a hurry and I am not a touch-typist. I would appreciate if you refrained from insinuating I was inebriated.

Now, back to the core issues.

I do not support the project at Ponte Vista as proposed. I'm not certain exactly what I would like to see there, but I think neither R1 nor 2,300 works.

What I DO support is accurate information. I'm sorry my analogy to the answering machine fell flat. My point was, the City Council was just slapping things on the property. You are correct in saying the Federal government is not bound by local municipality regulations. Yet, now that the land no longer belongs to the Navy, everyone seems to want to use those regulations, no matter how flawed they are. How can we use zoning that is a result of cartographic error? The only reason the OS exists at the north end of the property is because it was drawn incorrectly. It was supposed to follow the property lines in order to give open space between any housing and the fuel tanks. Why should we be bound by an R1 designation slapped on the property 26 years ago when the City knew very well the Feds were not bound by the zoning? This directly contradicts John Stinson's assertion that the zoning was put into place with forethought and the purpose of preventing the infrastructure from being overloaded.

Furthermore, I am tired of people quoting "facts" out of context despite obvious evidence of the truth. I agree with you that "the Shoestring" and San Pedro were annexed to the City of Los Angeles out of pure greed. There would be few in this town who would disagree. But at least use the correct dates. San Pedro was not annexed in 1981. It occurred 72 years earlier. Please reference the Ordinance Numbers I quoted and you will see that they are correct.

But as I see it, there is a core group that doesn't care what the facts are. They have seized on R1 and will not let go of it no matter what facts are presented to them.

Michael Meacher

M Richards said...

Thank you Mr. Meacher, for your last set of comments.

I think we can no get back on track discussing and debating the issues on a higher level and we can stay away from personal attacks and name-calling.

I am glad you are still open-minded about what you would like to see at Ponte Vista. Both Tom Field and I take positions that differ from what Bob's current plan call for and what the folks who want to keep the current zoning at Ponte Vista.

I may have explained the annexation poorly. The area we now call Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the other areas near there were annexed into the City of Los Angeles in 1981, and certainly not what you were correctly referring to for the rest of the area.

I think you are also correct that the establishment of the current zoning was most likely done by default. I don't know why that should matter, though. For whatever the reasons were for placing the property in the current zoning it is, it is that zoning we must contend with and it is that zoning which Bob seeks to change.

Bob wants to use "specific plan" zoning which does not place firm structures as to what can be built, according to a particular zoning. Specific plan zoning allows for many types of housing, or the type of housing Bob invisions.

Specific plan zoning is tougher to explain the R1, R2, C3, and so on.

The OS1-1XL zoning was drawn to create more space between the D.F.S.P and any housing that might be built at Ponte Vista, as you wrote in your comment. It consists mainly of the steeper hilly area adjacent to the fence dividing the two properties. Whether it is or was drawn incorrectly, still didn't mean anything to the Navy, because, like we both wrote, basically the federal govenment can do just just about whatever it wants to.

The use of facts is also within the realm of debate and discussion. I do use facts supplied in the DEIR and other documents paid for by Bisno Development in my arguments against having such a large development built in northwest San Pedro. You are correct if you claim that I use facts you believe are out of context, but I hold that everybody does that, including Bob Bisno.

In Bob's guest column, he claimed the least expensive unit woul cost approximately $330,000. I can believe that, considering the current market climate and that he apparently lowerd the price approximately $50,000 since he told me and others what the projected price might be.

What I didn't read in his column was that the average price for a unit at Ponte Vista would be approximately $712,500 as written in the various documents, and I didn't read what Bob told me was the projected price of the 4-bedroom units: $1.25 Million Dollars.

The use of facts is dependent on what points the fact giver is trying to make. I need to make absolutely sure that I use only facts that come from the DEIR or sources that are either supplied by Bisno development, or from sources that are deemed reputable by the majority of readers.

I take the easier path of using facts supplied by Bob's company. I do also use facts funded by Bisno Development and other development projects to compare facts to facts and I am trying my best to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

Case in point. Bob is using the ITE tables for high-rise condominiums for his trip generation numbers for Ponte Vista. I won't continue to argue that point. He does, in the student population section, state that there will be approximately 199 school-age students living at Ponte Vista at build out.

Urban Village is going to have an 18-story tower with 215-condominium units in that one building. I am sure that will be considered high-rise condominium as far as the ITE trip generation goes. Urban Village's public documents state that there will be approximately 98.5 school-age students living there at build out.

How can two different "high-rise" condominium developments be so far apart in their school-age student figures. Urban Village will have a total of 251-units with 98.5 students while Ponte Vista's 1,725 non-age restricted units will only house approximately 199 school-age students?

Bob Bisno himself told me that apporximately 172 units at Ponte Vista will have four-bedrooms each.

Can anyone explain to me how two different developments came up with such different "facts"?

And writing about "truth". Every time I listen to Bob, he continually claims what will be at Ponte Vista. He uses "will", "is going to be", "will have" as if that is actually what really will be at Ponte Vista. The real truth is that nobody living on this planet today knows what the real truth of what will be at Ponte Vista. If Bob continues to tell everybody his "truths" then he is fair game for those of us who are intelligent enough to know that nobody knows the real truths about Ponte Vista, no Bob, not anyone favoring R1, and not me, either.

Mr. Meacher, let's get back to good debates and discussions. You have already shown that you are very able to write intelligently, as in previous comments, and I think we can all learn more about what should really be built at Ponte Vista if we all engage in informative, logical, and thoughtful debate.

Welcome back Michael, it's good to have you back!
MW