Tom Field's Reaction From His Blog

Well I guess I should have expected this from Tom Field:


3 Comments Close this window

Collapse comments

KM said...

Thank you for pointing out that no one on Central has ever threatened to take over another board simply because they did not agree with us.Kara McLeod Member, CSNPC

May 29, 2007 9:02 AM

Comment deleted

This post has been removed by the blog administrator.

May 29, 2007 10:57 AM

Tom said...
The deleted comment was from Mark Wells. It was deleted because it was a rambling diatribe that was not even close to being on-topic.Tom Field

This is what appeared as comments to his post. I copied it directly from his blog.
___________________________________________
And this is what Tom censored:

Mr. Tom Field,

I will try to do as you have challenged me to do.

Mr. Field, I am Mark Wells, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, a former member of Janice Hahn's CAC a producer of a blog that has stated where ALL of my children live and their circumstances, and have been as open and caring as I can be.

Mr. Tom Field, who are you, really?

I will continue to read your blog and comment on it as I see fit, but I am Mark Wells and you have seen fit to "hide" behind "Tom Field" for whatever reasons you have and that makes your blog, less credible to many folks I have talked to or written to, whether they supported R1 or like me until early this morning, supported something else.

About negotiation, I feel you have probably the greatest amount of information that I have been calling for, pleading for, and would welcome negotiation. I even created Emails to you it trying to negotiate both of us to somewhere we both could live with, BUT YOUR PROPOSAL ON THIS BLOG AND THE ONE YOU FINALLY HAD POSTED ON MY BLOG CALLS FOR THE SAME TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS! That doesn't seem like negotiating, in my book.

As I read you post, you continue to attack me personally and continue to do what so many supporters of a large Ponte Vista do, call names and belittle their opponents. "Rabid" is just one word that comes to mind.

In criticizing Central, I do that in connection that it is one of three N.C.s that are supposed to serve SAN PEDRO. Harbor City and Wilmington serve their areas, but because SAN PEDRO has THREE N.C.s I feel that all THREE of those N.C. should serve all of SAN PEDRO in like manner and that ALL THREE of them serve their stakeholders more equally.

I will not become a member of any of the three N.C.s, and I would probably approve of stricter guidelines for membership, because if they are going to serve SAN PEDRO and SAN PEDRANS, then they should do it, and do it to the best of their abilities.

Mr Field, I wrote you late last week and tried (in vain) to read something from you that even suggested that you would consider my earlier proposal and try to negotiate with me toward finding something that we both could continue to negotiate on, as far as the two of us go. After not reading a single word from you about whether you would think about amending your personal thoughts about your proposal, I feel that you are not willing to negotiate from what you have proposed, even to me in private.

That saddened me and helped bring me to where my new position is.
I gave you opportunities to communicate with me and all you continued to do was write on this blog. I am very sorry that you didn't respect me enough to even write back, but now since my change, you used my name several times, (and it is my real name), and continued to attack me, personally, I feel.

Tom, your own writings about the number of new units that may go in and the ratios I was able to find while reading your blog gave me more reason to consider R1 as the best result. I do and did appreciate many of the parts of your proposal and I wrote that in several places.

1,700 units, even with all the amenities you offered is still way too high a total number of units. If you can't realize that, please don't blame me for anything. If you had commented in a more positive way about my earlier thoughts for 960 Senior Housing units and up to 187 SFR's on R1 lots, then we could have negotiated more. But still you cling to the 1,700 unit project you published months ago and don't seem to be willing to continue to negotiate with me on.

From the beginning when I was an R1 supporter, (a weak one, I now admit), to a blogger that presented many views and change my positions several time, I did FINALLY receive your proposal and published it. Because your proposal has not significantly changed from then till now, while I have considered several proposals begs the question; Who really is the one not willing to negotiate? I think I will construct a post to demonstrate who is the more negotiable.

Tom, I tried. I tried to find whether you are credible by trying to learn who you really are.

Tom, I tried. I posted many contributions not of my creation for everyone who wished to be read.

Tom, I tried. You and I Emailed each other and I really wished we could have come to a better understanding. I liked many of your insights and I told you so.

Tom, I tried. I included your exact proposal for a 700-unit Senior Housing section, as part of my former proposal.

Tom, I tried. I learned things from you and I used that learning in considering Ponte Vista.

Tom, I tried. I kept my own rhetoric to what many folks may feel as being "too nice" to those who attack me, like you do.

Tom, I tried. And I will continue to try my best to be "nice" to you.

But I clearly don't approve of a 1,700-unit Ponte Vista and all my efforts to negotiate your numbers toward a set of numbers I could live with, failed. Perhaps it is my lack of education or something else. I had an 1,147-unit Ponte Vista proposal on my table at one time, yet still you would not negotiate your numbers lower.

Time ran out. It ran out first for Bob Bisno and his supporters, all of whom had plenty of time to get him to change his current plans, but for reasons we may never know, they chose to stick by Bob publicly and call for his 2,300.

Perhaps some influence finally came from his supporters to get him to change his proposal, but you wouldn't know that from any recent information.

Time ran out. It ran out for me and my attempts to negotiate with Tom Field and others to consider a compromise that could have been comfortable for all of us.

Time ran out. Bob, possibly Victor Griego, members of the Planning Department, and probably Gordon Teuber want the CAC ended and ended near the time Bob is presenting his new plan that won't get the scrutiny and consideration his current plan received.

Time ran out. Our community is still to divided and the impact of R Neighborhoods Are 1 is continuing to grow.

Time ran out. As much as I tried to work with Tom Field, it seems to me that he is not willing to negotiate off of his 1,700 unit proposal, with me or perhaps, anyone else.

Time ran out. It ran out for me to try and sell my proposal for what I truly believed in. No one, other than me really considered my plan or was willing to negotiate with me on an open, credible level, not even, I now feel, Tom Field.

Today is the day I start answering a flood of Emails and get prepared for the upcoming attack comments.

Mr. Field has used moderation in the past and I hope my attackers are civil enough that I won't have to turn on moderation to remove extremely offensive attacks on me.

I hope Mr. Field is kind enough to post something on this blog to encourage folk to not use vial words and phrases when they attack me on this blog and my blog.

Thank you, Mr. Field for allowing this comment to be posted to your blog.
MW
__________________________________


I am wondering where Tom Fields believes I have veered off of the topic of Ponte Vista.

Do I need to turn on moderation on this blog just to take out comments from Tom Field that he previously wrote he would not write anymore of?

I think I will look back at the two blogs and bring to this blog Tom's statement that he would no longer make comments on this blog, but as folks can witness for recent posts, Mr. Field has chosen to ignore his own statement.

Many folks have said to me that they don't bother reading anything Tom writes on his blog. I think that is unfortunate. I would like to know from others if they feel that Tom exhibits a rage concerning the issues and if he has a "my way or the highway" attitude as it refers to his opinions.

Mr. Fields going back to "moderation" which is another form is censoring certainly doesn't seem to be in the best interests of a free an open communications stream.

But his blog is his blog and he will do what he will do. My blog will always try to keep from censoring folks, but having seen and read so many comments from Bob's supporters on this site, I can't guarantee I will be able to keep overly offensive material off of this blog.