I am a nobody. I bet all the supporters of Bob's plan(s) believe I am a nobody, and for that, thanks so much.
Being a nobody means I don't have a reputation in OUR community to protect. Being a nobody means that I came in invisible and when all of this is over, I will go right back to remaining the nobody that I am so proud that I and the many, many other thousands of "nobodys" are.
Just think of the influence a whole bunch of nobodys already have shown.
We have helped in a very major way, to get Bob to get ready to change his proposal.
We have come together into a movement, probably we nobodys thought could ever happen.
We seemed to have cost Bob extra money dealing with us, by paying for a survey that nobody really believes is based on the correct facts.
We have challenged local government and the bureaucrats in downtown L.A. to take us seriously.
We nobodys may be on the verge of successfully keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro, with its current R1 zoning.
What about the wannabe somebodys. There appears to be a number of them named within the pages of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Newsletter.
By supporting Bob and his plans, I feel these folks have "mortgaged" their reputations in OUR community to an out of town developer who thinks he knows what is best for our community.
Does he? Well it seems to me that there are names in that newsletter who think he does.
Will they be found to be correct. I would not have "mortgaged" my reputation in this town on that thin question. Since I didn't, don't now, or ever wish to have a reputation other than the one I believe I personally have at this time, I don't have anything to worry about.
It can be believed that not all of those names listed in the newsletter backed Bob's 2300-unit plan. Two brave individuals named on the list, actually called for compromise months ago. No matter what happend, I feel the reputations of those two should find some protection when the dust finally settles. I know that Carol and Mary Jo spoke their minds and called for compromise. For that, I thank them.
Back to being a nobody. It seems to me that democracy works best when it comes from nobodys. We nobodys seem to find ways to come together when necessary, to take on the issues that are important to us, like traffic, quality of life, our concern for other community members, and a large laundry list of other issues.
I am a nobody of one. There are nobodys of one that are adding up to what is now seen as an influential force in the outcome of the Ponte Vista debate. Nobody can affect change on their own. A large number of nobodys together, can be a force against the wanna-be somebodys who think they own the community and the nobodys should follow their lead.
I like all the nobodys coming together and doing their best to practice democracy at the lowest levels. I hope there are lessons that the younger generations are learning about the power of a movement of nobodys.
Nobodys know that their names don't have to appear just because several wanna-be somebodys demand to know their names. Nobodys know that they can remain almost invisible unless they are called upon to provide for the exercise in democracy. Nobodys know that they can have the real influence if they are willing to step out of their "nobody-ness" for a good cause an enlighten others on issues of improtance.
That is why I am proud to be a nobody. I take seriously when opponents of mine claim that I am a nobody. We nobodys built this country, work very hard to protect this country, land, and home of ours, and if all the wanna-be somebodys do like that, we then, they should become nobodys like the rest of us.
Thanks to all the nobodys who took the time to do something to show their support for keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning. Thank you to the wanna-be somebodys listed in the Ponte Vista newsletter, who showed us they they are willing to stake their reputation in OUR community on Bob Bisno. We all learn a lot from them, too.
12 comments:
hmmm... proud to be a nobody. well that part is correct.
proud to have cost someone extra money just because they want to conduct their business... despicable.
"...seeing democracy practiced at its lowest levels..." - how true. the tactics of the R-1 thugs are the lowest form of extortion.
being a nobody - yes, in San Pedro you are. stay in RPV where you belong.
love & kisses
your friend
Ted
Let's take a look at Ted's comments.
"proud to have cost someone extra money just because they want to conduct their business... despicable."
Don't you mean
proud to have cost someone extra money just because they want to ruin your neighborhood.
???
"...seeing democracy practiced at its lowest levels..." - how true. the tactics of the R-1 thugs are the lowest form of extortion."
It burns you up that the R1 movement is true democracy, with a big following, doesn't it Ted?
"being a nobody - yes, in San Pedro you are. stay in RPV where you belong."
And exactly how close are you living to Western Ted?? hmm??
Tom is deleting my posts so I wanted to put it up here. I was responding to his piece about central's proposition I wrote this, and was deleted twice! Please tell me what was worth deleting other than facts.
--BEGIN POST TO TOM--
The resolution says:
"3. Adequate amounts of open space for active and passive recreational use must be included. Developer shall be required to provide open space matching or better than the ratio of "persons served per park acre" recommended by City of Los Angeles Parks department within this development."
The City of Los Angeles Parks department recommends 4.2 acres per 1000 people. The Ponte Vista park of 5.46 acres would accomodate accomodate 1300 people or about 429 SFRs....
So true, except you need to learn to read. The resolution says "OPEN SPACE" not dedicated park space. Just more of your intentioal mis-statement of the facts.
Looks like we are going to have to do some straightening out around here.
And because I need to "learn to read" I should be deleted. Thanks for clearing that up Tom.
And exactly how much open space does the Ponte Vista plan have Tom? Lets see, theres the 5.46 acre park. The swimming pools might count. Maybe the parking structures are considered open space when all the cars are on Western.
Mr. Wells,
It's Sunday night. It's late. It's been a long day. I would prefer to not spend the rest of the night on this.
Your comment will be re-posted in the morning along with the relevant, correct information from the DEIR. I did not want incorrect information staying on my blog for an extended period of time.
Tom Field
Mr. Tom Field,
The only time I have visited your blog in the last two days was to get a copy of the resolution from Central, so I could post both it and Sue Castillo's Email to Elise Swanson.
If somebody is using my name to create comments, they are NOT from me. As I wrote on my blog, the war is over, I have removed your URL from my bookmark and I no longer routinely read your blog.
I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to in the last comment to me and I don't think you or I should deal with it, because, if it is a comment on your blog, made within the last two days, It DID not come from me!
If you would like to Email me whatever was written on your blog that you thought was written by me, I will try and help you discover whoever is using my name.
As far as multiple names being used by the same person to make comments, I am having a bit of a rash of that, especially this evening.
MW
To all,
The "6 acre park" in the current plans for Ponte Vista actually looks like this;
The gross size of the lot that is designated to be a public park is actually 6.07 acres.
After taking into accoung some of the roadway along one side of the park and a very small other piece of land, the public park was designated to have 5.46 acres NET of space.
Because Bob is changing his plans and we haven't received a look at those new plans, I cannot say, at this time, what a public park, if any, will be included in the new plans, and/or what its size might be.
MW
I am also haviving a problem with multiple posts from what apears to be a single source. That is why I turned moderation back on.
Aw heck, it's already so late, I will just work on the answer and get it posted up in a few minutes.
Tom
The commment I left (that was deleted twice) on Tom's site was under anonymous name, not Mark Wells. Tom is trying to confuse the issue and not answer the question.
I beg to differ. The question has been answered! And with the information shown in the DEIR (which you might have consulted before making your unfounded accusations) shows that there is plenty of open space to satify the requiremnt of the 3rd point of the Resolution.
Tom
Somebody wrote about the environmental impact that a project containig 429 SFRs and that it would be worse than if Ponte Vista were built as currently planned by Bob Bisno.
After viewing the illustration in the DEIR, showing 429 individual lots, I am having some trouble visualizing how 429 lots with housing pads, the possibility of environmentally sound landscaping in at least some of the yards, the grand amount of trees lining the roads that would take up more land for them, that whatever is planned for Ponte Vista with Bob's visions could have.
Tom properly notes that about 40% of the area, under Bob's current plan is open space, which includes the parks, waterscapes, areas between buildings, roadways, and other amenities that have no building pads on them.
The illustrations depicting the current plans for the site seem to show much fewer trees, much more grass-type landscaping, water filled waterscapes that wouldn't be used for potable water, and foliage that requires watering and the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
I think we should learn from an environmentalist specializing in drought tolerant open spaces, foliage, and other landscaping issues before any of us consider that Bob's current plans would have less impact on the environment than what would potentionally be found in an all R1 Ponte Vista.
MW
Post a Comment