I hope Ms. Padilla is not referring to folks who wish for no change in the current zoning as folks who are doing "bullying by some" I would imagine it is the folks who want to see a big change at the site are doing probably the majority of the bullying, they can afford to.
What may happen in several years when the government of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes actually has to really concern themselves with where to put real "low income housing" at? If they decide it should be placed along Western Avenue, what do you suppose the supporters or even residents of Ponte Vista and a large project, might do? If we find that many members of Bob's Advisory Boards resist "low income housing" along Western, in R.P.V., what might that say about them? Personally, I would hope they join everyone else who will know that Western really won't be able to handle that much traffic.
8 comments:
Mark, you might want to update yourself on RPV's state mandates regarding the city's required number of affordable housing units.
Very recently, it was public announced that RPV was granted their request for relieve of said housing units. 37 units, to be more specific.
RPV makes clear they don't have room for affordable units in the city. It may be that down the road redevelopments along Western Ave, in RPV will create mixed-use projects to include affordable units the city does not want to provide elsewhere in RPV.
Thanks Anonymous,
I had the fortune to talk to three two R.P.V. Council Members just today about affordable housing in R.P.V.
It is something they do not want to touch right now, with a 10-foot poll, it seemed like.
Unfortunately for many of us, if only 37 "low income" units are required in R.P.V. it looks like the two sites along Western that another Councilmember thought could be considered, would probably fit into a concept for a development of just 37 units.
I can't imagine anyone buying into a mixed use development that included market rate condos in R.P.V. that would attract buyers knowing that another section of the development was "low income"
housing.
Your point about redevelopment along Western is also good. I wonder if the City could buy up condo units and them sell them as "low income" units on a development by development thing, or if they have to build "low income" units in clusters or as at least part of a whole development.
What I did get from the two Councilmembers today, that it may be a few years before they are put to the fire and really have to settle down and tackle the problem.
Right now getting the user fee for the storm drains reapproved, while still trying to get reelected may be the front burner.
We all get to vote a user fee that about 20% of the dwellings in the city will not be assessed for, including the home I am living in.
I am having struggle with the idea of whether I should vote yes on the user fee, even though I won't have to pay it, or vote no and having the possibility of getting stuck longer when the otherstorm drains finally go sour under Western.
This might be the first vote in R.P.V. that I might sit out, because I don't feel it is fair for me to be allowed to vote for something I won't have to pay for, yet might receive the benefits from, if approved.
Mayor Tom Long is not now, nor would be required to pay the user fee, if reapproved, but he donates $86.00 per year which was the beginning rate. I am donating lots of money for a different cause, far in excess of $86.00 but very important to me.
MW
Did councilmembers mention during the Rolling Hills Riveria HOA picnic that 37 was the total number required?
Secondly, Why are you confusing "affordable housing" with "low income housing" in your recent response?
They are two different apples.
About the User Fee... U should vote to resind the User-Fee entirely. If you (Eastview resident) are not subject to the fee then you should not vote to keep it or renew it. On the otherhand, as a RPV tax payer you should vote to resind the User Fee in November.
Thanks Anonymous 6:49,
"Affordable Housing" means many things to many people, I believe.
If someone want to sell their SFR on an R1 lot in San Pedro and purchase a Senior Housing unit if they are built at Ponte Vista, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they will find a unit a Ponte Vista "affordable housing" in their eyes.
If the gentleman wearing the Ponte Vista supporter tag at last Thursday's CAC meeting, who has been living in a garage for some years, according to the article in the Daily Breeze, who is now going to be able to get a home built by Habitat for Humanity,were to find the current $330,000.00 price for the smallest unit currently proposed at Ponte Vista "affordable housing" I would think he would have chosen to buy something in a development like Miraleste Canyon Estates, which has lowered priced units that Ponte Vista will likely have, I feel.
I think "low income housing" means that folks who have low enough income to be able to purchase subsidized or government-priced housing, meet specific qualifications to get into a home like what Habatat for Humanity will build.
Thank you for your thoughts about the user fee. I am only partially an RPV tax payer, unfortunately. The portion of the property taxes I pay for education goes into LAUSD and not PVPUSD at this time. The City Council of RPV and folks at LAUSD would like to have the issue settled, but the folks at PVPUSD have been very reluctant to have us fully integrated. Students in our area attending PVPUSD schools do have monies transferred from LAUSD to PVPUSD, but we still cannot vote in PVPUSD schools elections.
Keeping the user fee means many of us in Eastview get the benefits without having to pay. Is that fair? On the other hand, if we use our real weight that we should use at the polls, and vote to recind, we could cause massive headaches for the Council members struggling to pay for storm drain failures and causing our emergency budget to take some big hits.
One of the C.C. members told me that if the 4,000 eligible voters living in eastern R.P.V. were to actually vote, the C.C. members would comprise whoever we wanted.
Unfortunately again, it looks like too many of our neighbors still cling to their San Pedro roots and don't involvement themselves in the city they actually live it.
Terri asked me if I would ever really consider trying for a council seat and I told her the following: I do not have the education, the look, the religious affiliation, enough qualifications, enough experience, or enough will to seek any office voted on by the people. I do not believe I am electable to anything other than a committee or a commission.
Looking for qualified candidates from our side of the hill would probably be fun, but looking in any mirror tells me, I am not one of them.
Yada, Yada about affordable vs.low-income. Glad you see the difference.
I don't think you could be more wrong on the Eastview boundary matter or the facts about the User Fee. However, you are right about not being qualified to serve as a council member. Frankly, I committee membership hasn't worked out too well for you either. Bye.
Thank you anonymous 12:07 PM,
I folks enjoying view the site meter have you to thank for adding all of your visits to the total.
You seem to also enjoy visiting this site because you seem to have visited many times and used different identifiers for yourself.
I had a good time serving on the CAC. Even when lots of folks wanted me to stay on the CAC and join the TSC, I didn't want to do both at the same time and I felt having some positive on the traffic safety of the city I live in, is more important that making recommendations that nobody necessarily has to listen to.
I also knew that in leaving the CAC, I would be more than well represented by some of the remaining members voicing opinions and questions I would have.
So keep reading and attacking 12:07 PM, you are demonstrating true colors of many of Bob's supporters. Running scared and forcing to hide, while continuing to attack me, is showing your true lack of civility and how many supportes of Bob's probably truly are.
How come for every 50 folks who sign the R1 petition at supermarkets are we finding only one supporter of Bob's who won't sign the petition? Either they are too afraid to defend their own opinions, or there simply not many of them left to defent Bob's position?
I am still wondering why all those "supporters of Ponte Vista" who attend only one meeting, actually come to that meeting. Is Bob now giving out vouchers for dinners at restaurants if he gets folks to attend the CAC meetings?
Also, 12:07, you might want to consider how your emotional quotient is hampering any attempts you have at having a happy life. Your rage is keeping you from achieving any true potential you may have and you seem to be stuck on an endless spinning wheel like you see hampsters and rats using.
If rage is what you must display, then you are to be pitied.
MW
FYI-3:59
RPV city councilmembers do not have to "listen" to traffic commissioners any more than Hahn must listen to CAC members. So, your city or ours.....doesn't really matter where you sit.
Bye again.
Actually Anon 7:43, The C.C. of RPV, even though they don't "have to listen", the five memebers do listen, learn, and act on many of the recommendations put forth from the Traffic Safety Commission, even when it was just the Traffic and Safety Committee. Our smaller government's structure brings folks closer to those who govern, if they wish to, and things can be settled in shorter periods of time.
The speed tables that will go into the Via Rivera neighgborhood is one example where the HOA, got together with the Traffic Safety Commission, who helped the folks finally get some traffic calming in their area.
MW
Post a Comment