Saturday, May 05, 2007

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?

15 comments:

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

Anonymous said...

Mark, Since it was I who got 'ol Michael in such a tirade, I just want to say that when he mentioned the ownership of your home, I immediately thought exactly what you wrote about San Pedro and close families. He is so clueless as to what the real San Pedro community is all about. I think it's great that your family is able to keep their son home in SP. These are the exact reasons why I love my own family so much and the community I've called home all my life. I can't move even if I wanted to. Western traffic couldn't even make me go.
With that said, I can't help to laugh at Michael and his "bare knuckled" fight comments. Now the guy takes it to the extreme and go bare knuckles? Sounds like a tough guy. No problem Mikey!!
How the hell can you say R1 can't work? Sure it can work. He builds 500 home and we're done...Duh! And regarding HOW the property became R1, who the heck cares!! It's R1. Right? As far as statistics are concerned, they can be manipultaed to tell you any story you want. Bisno makes them say one thing, so R1 supporters make them tell the opposite. Where is the truth? Who knows. Keep it R1 and we don't have to screw around. THE BEST situation is the least amount of houses and the least amount of population growth. That is ONE fact that I know is true.
So, Mike, Why don't you tell me what the great avantages are to San Pedro to allow Bisno anything other than R1 (which is what he bought by the way).

michael.meacher said...

Anonymous 4:12pm

You certainly TALK a lot when you are anonymous hiding on the internet. I suspect you'd be a lot more polite if you had to look me in the eye while you were dishing your BS.

Michael Meacher

M Richards said...

Mr. Meacher,

Your last comment read like a vailed threat. Please remember that I am just about the only one whose face most folks know, concerning all who write on this blog.

It is still a fact that I can't even credit you as being a person who doesn't work for Bob and writes under an assumed name. You have never written a direct Email to me, so I can state that you are who you claim to be.

If folks feel stressed enough to level threats against another commenter, the they should either stop reading this blog, or take a time-out to regroup, rethink, and come back without menacing word usage.

It does no cause any good when some folks lower themselves to having to make even vailed threats of physical violence. Also the opinions and thought of folks who level even vailed threats are considered suspect and not as valuable as folks who can debate and discuss openly and honestly. It doesn't matter who threatens who, both are wrong in my book and not appropriate for this blog.
MW

Anonymous said...

Mark,
That's okay. Meacher can talk tough, that doesn't bother me. I might of graduated from Pedro High, but I'm not stupid. While Meacher puts his name out there and makes tough guy threats, I'll just stay anonymous. We'll see if he makes himself known at any of the public forums. No threats on my end, but it will be interesting to see what a tough guy like Meacher looks like, because all I've seen at those meetings are a bunch of old fat guys with glasses.

anonymous

P.S.
He still didn't answer the question about advantages of allowing a zoning change.

michael.meacher said...

Mr. Wells,

Absolutely no sinister meaning intended. I was merely pointing out an interesting social phenomenon that people act differently when they believe themselves to be anonymous. It is a well-documented and much-studied subject among social scientists.

People are much more polite when they are face-to-face with the person they are communicating with.

I would appreciate that if you are censuring me, that you also censure "anonymous" for baiting me. Even in his last comment he continues.

Hey Anonymous 9:19am, if you are not afraid of old guys, I dare you to go a few rounds with Ray Patricio who is around 90. It would be fun to see how you did.

Michael Meacher

Anonymous said...

OMG!!! Now you're threatening me with Ray Patricio? I would venture to guess that he or is family wouldn't appreciate your comments. Man you are a laugh a second Mike. HAHAHAHA..
Secondly, as I stated above, "no threats on my end...etc", I have not threatened you, I just want to see what kind of tough guy you look like. I figure you must be a bad ass.

M Richards said...

HEY ANONYMOUS 9:19AM, I AM ONE OF THOSE "FAT OLD GUYS WITH GLASSES!"

I don't mind, though we all strive to get old and some of us have fun getting fat. Glasses, they come with age but not always with wisdom.

I don't want anyone picking on our own wonderful Ray. He is really the one bright spot we all look forward to at each meeting. He missed one because he was in the Hospital, but thankfully, we had a certain female supporter of Bob's current plans who livened up the evening for all of us.

As long as we all remain at least somewhat civil and try our best to keep our tempers in check when writing on this blog, I will not censure anyone! I have not had to censure anyone yet, but there was a very racist #$^)_)_&% that I had to use some very choice words with in my comments back to that person. He has not darkened this door since I had a little bashing party on him, word wise, that is.

This blog is full of disagreements and changes of opinions and that is wonderful for all of us. If we all agreed on everything, I would stop spending as much time as I do with this blog.

If we are ever to get back to the place our community was like before Bisno came to town, and Eastview Little League found out it was losing its fields, we need to at least discuss the issues.

Both Ponte Vista and Eastview Little League are dealing with very difficult philisophical decisions, but they are both hair-trigger emotional issues, as well. To be confronted with two issues of this magnitude at the same time seems to have too many of us on the edge.

I hope I am going to get beyond all the emotional issues I have with Ponte Vista and continue with determined discussions and attempts to find the best solution. I am still ticked off that Bob has made absolutely no movement with his current plans and that makes me feel angry which is an emotional response. He is the applicant. He has heard directly from Janice Hahn that she does not support having 2,300 condominium units constructed at Ponte Vista. He "seems" to have been pressured to have a flyer/postcard advertisement come out just after the first 3,096 R1 petition signatures were delivered.

I would think that many of his current supporters may be willing to ask Bob to start talking about a development of some smaller size. I am still amazed with the number of folks who continue to follow Bob's current plans without using their own minds, talents, and writing skills to demand that Bob alter his current plans and help OUR community to find what should really be built at Ponte Vista.

Bob continues to make if extremely easy to use facts his company paid to produce, to allow me to prove that his current plans are simply too big for this area.

As long as Bob keep saying things like, "Ponte Vista will have", or "There is going to be", or "We are building...", or "There will be a 6 acre public park" or just about anything else, my job of assisting R Neighborhoods Are 1, is that much easier.

Yes, I do favor a separate Senior Housing section, and yes my thought match Tom Field's on this particular matter. It is probably better to consider that I am an unpaid, volunteer lobbyist for the R1 group, because I don't necessarily agree with their entire platform.

At least this lobbyist hasn't been charged with ethics violations.

Let's get back to discussing the issues.

Anonymous 9:19 AM, what do you want built at Ponte Vista and why?

Everyone should submit to this blog their own opinion about what they think should be built and why. I continue to offer to anyone, the opportunity to create their own post on this blog.
MW

michael.meacher said...

Hey Anonymous 9:19am, why are you twisting everything around? I was not threatening you with anything. I just think the comment about old guys was inappropriate. I think Ray might also. Perhaps you are too arrogant to think it through, but I know I wouldn't want to get in the ring with Ray. He's got a fist the size of a ham! I made the comment with the utmost respect for Ray.

Michael Meacher

Anonymous said...

Michael, you could probably show more respect for Ray if you just leave him out of this.

As for what I've done here, with Michael, is just to show how "the other side" reacts when they are just pushed alittle. All their whining about being civil and the "R1 Gang" is just a tactic to shut us up. The fact is that the Bisno Gang gets VERY upset and "uncivil" when they feel they've been picked on. Look at Michael, I tweeked him alittle and he goes off like a "nut case" that he accuses the R1 supporters of being. I've also done the same thing to Tom Field and Skip. They ALL talk and whine civility, but when they just get tweeked alittle, they go deeper than ANY of the "hooligans" on the R1 side. Yes Michael, I baited you and I've baited other R1 bashers and you ALL took it. Funny little sociology experiment eh?
As far as my comment about old fat people are concerned, it was another bait job to call Michael out. It also was meant to point out that the alligations of "R1 gang" and "hooligans" and such, are soooooo far out of bed, one has to laugh if ANYONE on the Bisno side feels "threatened" or "intimidated" by this group of middle aged San Pedro Patriots. It's just silly. By the way, I will again state that this is a VERY serious threat to the future of our community and it will take lots of tactics (protests, sinage, petitions, being LOUD) to get our voices heard. RNR1 is doing a great job so far and I believe their movement is just going to increase in size. Sorry for messing with you Michael, but I just wanted to make a point about "the other side" (the anti-R1 gang).

What do I want for Ponte Vista? Simple...R1 zoning. Bisno can do whatever the heck he wants as long as it ONLY includes R1 density. I would, however, support a Senior housing complex. But that's it! It should also be supported for Senior Vetrans so they can REALLY get affordable care, not just Bisnos BS about "affordable". Less is better guys. Keep it simple and we will get somewhere.

Your Friend,
anonymous

michael.meacher said...

Well My Friend Anonymous,

I can't speak for anyone else's feelings and how they react to your purposeful inflammatory remarks. However, it was several comments ago I stated that I knew I was being baited.

Re-reading through my comments, I see nothing there that was threatening or sinister, except when it was twisted that way. So I have a temper. Big deal. I started out on-topic and you exactly proved my point by pulling the discussion off-topic.

This is the perfect example of someone who is wrong. They change the subject.

So let's stay on topic and talk about the ramifications of keeping the (nominal) R1 zoning for Ponte Vista. You have to call it "nominal" because no one had any idea what the future usefor it was going to be when they slapped it on.

But you are correct, it is the zoning and there has to be a good reason for the City to change it.

Shall we discuss that?

Your Friend,
Michael Meacher

Anonymous said...

Sure Michael.
You say I'm wrong? What so wrong about keeping the density at Ponte Vista R1?

Anonymous said...

r-1 zoning:

1) will not allow the maximum housing density.

2) will not provide overwhelming traffic impact.

3) will not create bogus community benefits.

4)will not be consistant with existing single familiy homes west and south/east of the property.

5)will not generate maximum gain ($$$$$$$$$) for Bisno and investors.

6)will not create unmanagable traffic impact.

7)will not generate economic gains for RPV and Los Angeles to the greatest extent possible.

Anonymous said...

Michael, as you can see, some other "anonymous" had to answer up on your behalf!! Good stuff...

Oh well, I guess you just don't want to stick to the subject. I guess I have to go back to pushing your anger button.

Seriously though, what is so wrong about keeping R1 Michael? And what type of advantage do you foresee for San Pedro if Bisno gets any sort of zoning change?