Here is a post that will probably unleash venom like no other on this blog. It is written as a direct result of actions, or inactions taken by the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council CSPNC) in regards to a recent resolution they passed concerning the Ponte Vista development.
Elections to the board of CSPNC are coming and I feel there needs to be a great change in the makeup of that board and many changes made in the way that group deals with its affairs.
For the record, I have never attended a single meeting of Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, but I don't believe attending any of them would do any good. I have attended meetings of both Northwest and Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Councils.
Now, technically I can be considered a stakeholder in all three Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro, my residency in R.P.V. make me feel a bit uncomfortable becoming a board member on any of the three N.C. boards, if I could get elected.
But Central needs help. I feel they need lots of help. After considering my options and the overwhelming needs that Central has to overcome, I don't think that attempting to get onto the board of that group is in my best interests, but I do believe there should be a great number of folks who should consider running for spots on their board.
To get a handle on some of the problems that Central faces, all anyone has to do is compare their Web site to to both Northwest's and Coastal's sites. After reading through all the pages of those three site, you can't help but find that Central's site is sorely lacking, not being kept up to date and flawed in so many ways.
Look for recent meeting minutes as required by the Brown Act. Can you find any on Central's site? Good luck!
Did you read the newsletters linked on Northwest's and Coastal's sites? They both come out in print form, too. What did you think of Central's newsletter and the money that used to create it?
Oh yeah, they don't have a newsletter, either on their site or in print that I could find. What do you imagine they do with the money the City gives them. If Northwest and Coastal can fund newsletters, where's Central's money going?
Because of the sources and resources I have gathered for over a year now, it looks to me that Central may be spinning out of control with its communications, finances, secretarial functions, and overall control.
Their adoption of the resolution they passed recently and the workings of how that resolution was debated bring into full view some serious problems with their organization. Unfortunately for them, their agenda for their "Special meeting" was in error and provided evidence that somebody, somewhere in that organization is not doing their job.
Can or should Central's board get an overhaul of new blood and organization? It sure looks to me like they should. Who should do that? first, I would ask Kara McLeod to run again for a spot on the board. I strongly believe that members of R Neighborhoods Are 1 should seek seats on their board, too. Like the name of the group implies, bringing all of our neighborhoods together, especially on the big issues like development in OUR community, would also align Central with the other two N.C.s in San Pedro more than they are now.
I have been told that the three N.C.s in San Pedro have a fairly good working relationship, but I feel that with big changes to Central's board, the three N.C.s could become even more alligned.
Central is going to deal with issues that deeply involve Northwest's and Coastal's interests as well, and having all three more closely aligned with the needs and wants of the folks all over San Pedro can't be a bad thing.
So if you are of a mind to want to help Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council deal with the issues of the day and into the future, please consider running for election to their board. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many others both in San Pedro and elsewhere, that they need help, they need help now, and maybe you can help them achieve the greatness I am sure the current board members want for their organization, but just can't seem to accomplish.
2 comments:
Kara McLeod attempted to post this comment, but had difficulty.
I am posting it, just as she Emailed it to me, today:
Mark,
I attempted to post to your blog but I think I was thwarted. Here's what I said ( or close to it):
I appreciate your endorsement but am somwhat mystified by it. I am on the planning committtee that wrote the much debated resolution and while I do not personally agree with all of it, I think it is a good compromise that our committee worked hard on. I think it is important to clarify something that is being missed. Our resolution calls for a "Specific Plan." This is not random language. A Specific Plan is a planning device that is, in fact, more restricive than regular zoning. Unilike regular zoning, including R-1, no exceptions are allowed once a Specific Plan is in place. It is a "big picture" kind of tool that allows for the inclusion of items like open/recreational space, public access and public transportation including something our resolution calls for, a shuttle service to the Downtown area. R-1 zoning can only address numbers of units and residential vs. commercial usages and exeptions can still be given. There are a lot of things wrong with the current plans for Ponte Vista, on that we can agree, but I and the rest of the Central Planning Committee think the best way to fix those things is with a Specific Plan. For the record, our meeting was properly noticed as required by the Brown Act, despite accusations to the contrary.
As to your critcism of Central's operations, I would point out that none of the executive officers of the CSPNC (president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer and communications officer) will be terming out. This election is only for at-large members of the board like myself. Officers will be up for re-election next year.
Kara McLeod
Thank you, Ms. McLeod.
Your correct intrepertation of a "specific plan" is refreshing to me because it demonstrates that more and more members of OUR community understand how it works.
Folks supporting the least density, who also want to run for at-large seats on Central's Board MAY have impact on future resolutions and issues that Centra's Board comes up with.
If your Board elects the officers of your N.C., then it may be that new at-large members will take the time between their election and the officers' election to deal with issues and be better prepared to elect the officers they want to have.
In pointing out my questioning of the Wednesday, I have only my saved "agenda" for that meeting and information provided to me.
When the agenda for a particular meeting that falls under the Brown Act is as error-filled as that agenday was, I feel I have a right and responsibility to question it.
Both Northwest and Coastal adopted resolutions, as I later found out that opposed Bob's original plans and seemingly called for the property to remain with its current zoning.
You mentioned "compromise" in your comment. Apparently 2/3 of the N.C.s serving San Pedro did not resolve to compromise, and even though Central worked "hard" on the issue, being the 1/3 in opposition to the 2/3 seems to indicate that, perhaps, your Board's position about what should be at Ponte Vista is in the minority as far as Boards of N.C.s go for San Pedro, and what now looks to be the majority opinion of the residents of San Pedro.
As Bob changes his plans, so to can your Board consider changing their resolution about Ponte Vista.
MW
Post a Comment