Michael Meacher, What Was He Thinking?

One of my more recent posts was "Bob Bisno and Some Numbers". That post created a number of comments. Some of the comments were well informed, thoughtful, and to the point. Other comments were not.

An anonymous commenter attacked Michael Meacher. Mr. Meacher appears to be a supporter of Bob's current plans, or someone who seems to favor a large development of residential units in northwest San Pedro. I wish I knew his true stance on the issue, but I have failed to find in any of his writings what he actually believes to be what should be built at the Ponte Vista site.

Unlike Tom Field, I have not had the opportunity to shake the hand of someone I don't necessarily agree with, so "Michael Meacher" might actually be someone other he claims to be.
I should point out here that many folks want me to point out Mr. Field to them at CAC meetings. Tom and I continue to discuss the debate with comments on this blog and Emails between the two of us. This is something "Michael Meacher" also has the opportunity to do, but he has not availed himself to doing that, at this time.

Back to the anonymous commenter who started what is to me, currently, a downhill process. The anonymous commenter (see below) was a bit harsh on Mr. Meacher, but what sprang from that was a string of comments, the first one, boggling the mind.

So, forthwith, here beginning from the comment by the anonymous commenter, is the current string of comments:

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.

9:58 AM

michael.meacher said...

Anonymous 9:58amTake 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
11:27 AM

The spelling in this last comment is left in, as it was originally written.

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 does not seem to have any of those qualities and probably does not know the factual differences between being an idiot, imbecile, or moron.

To Anonymous 9:58 AM, this comment does not 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.

2:11 PM


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

9:46 AM

Here I am going to repeat Michael's last set of comments and add in comments of my own. If folks don't like it, tough, they can start their own blog:

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 want 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 does not like that, he any 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” does not 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.

I think it is time for Michael to sack up like many others have done and actually put in writing what he thinks should be built at Ponte Vista and why. If he is unwilling or unable to do what so many others, including Tom Field and Bob Bisno have done, then perhaps, any future comments from him should ignored. What's it going to be, Mike?