Once again, another blogger, who is being pressured by certain members of a group he/she MAY be affiliated with, has written something that his false.
Now, for those of you who didn't get my original Email, you know the one Jody used to forward her blast at Central, let me provide it here for all of you to read.
Now remember to look at the date which I sent my original Email. I bet if you look closely, you may see that is was sent before any other Email was sent, concerning the matter I was dealing with.
Oh, and yes, I do save and back up lots and lots of stuff.
Tue, 22 May 2007 00:13:14 Hey folks? Did you see the date and time here? Good.
Now I am going to place the body of MY original Email. Here goes:
Howdy to all,
I am Mark Wells and I have this little blog at www.pontevista.blogspot.com that some of you may have heard about.
I have devoted many posts to the young R Neighborhoods Are 1 organization and I feel they and all the folks who support them are ready to soar well beyond what I have been doing in support of that group on my blog.
It is time for volunteer members of R Neighborhoods Are 1 to share their thoughts and opinions about Ponte Vista on my blog by contributing written posts and making whatever comments they wish to make on my blog.
Of course I will still mention, defend, and comment on the R1 group as I have been involved with the group since it was in the embryo stage. I am not leaving the group, but I want to explore other options for the Ponte Vista site that first demands that Janice Hahn firmly and irrevocably state that she will not support any changes to the current zoning of R1 at Ponte Vista.
One thing I think all of you MUST KNOW, is that there is no possible way Bob Bisno or anyone working for him or with him can insure that any non-age restricted units at Ponte Vista won't become rentals or leased out by owners who buy them for speculation or other reasons. In true fact, it doesn't matter what the DEIR states as predictions for anything, because the whole document is based on the concept that every unit will be lived in by the folks who actually purchase the units. This is something that doesn't happen in real life, so believing in or fighting over facts in the DEIR becomes more irrelevant the more one thinks about it.
Currently my blog is having posts about the owner-occupied problem and also considering an extremely different Ponte Vista at San Pedro development.
As those of us who are "Baby Boomers" age, we are going to need more types of housing that will allow us to have the best lifestyle possible as we age and our health declines. Just about everywhere you read, there is going to be a housing crisis, care crisis, and community crisis, in dealing with our aging population.
Please think about the entire 61.53 acre Ponte Vista site as a senior community with many amenities, types of housing, different levels of care, and what may just be the best outcome possible for OUR community.
Some of the types of living spaces could include the Senior Housing section type that Bob currently plans for. Add to that an assisted-living apartment complex, a fully staffed and wonderful retirement home, much like or better than The Canterbury, a convalescent home, with all the medical needs of patients covered in a beautiful brand new environment, a small grocery store/pharmacy on the site that is easily accessible to everyone, a senior community center for everyone in the entire community, and a great campus full of open spaces, recreational amenities, and leisure activities.
Of course there would be vanpools to get folks to doctors appointments, shopping excursions, entertainment events, gambling outings, and whatever else our older community members would like to have.
This is another way OUR community can have families stay closer together, as many families in OUR community strive to not have to travel to visit our parents and our loved ones.
This could become the most sought after senior development in the South Bay and other parts of the greater L.A. Area. It would bring family members whose oldsters have chosen to live in this type of complex, closer to shopping and dining in our area without having to many permanent vehicles added to Western Avenue.
I guess I haven't thought enough about the down side of this idea, but as I have thought more about it, this could be a real "San Pedro" thing to think about. Keeping our families closer together as our parents and other family members age, would be great, IMHO. Having one development consisting of differing levels of care and in close proximity to more caring environments as folks age out of their more active homes, might be considered, too.
Full services for folks who are gaining in their ages, but having to make distance choices where they may end up, is another concept that could be thought about.
And of course, to keep too many folks from commenting about you-know-what being directly across Western Avenue from Ponte Vista, I'll mention it now for those morbid folks who find humor in the location of Ponte Vista. Please, no new comments about tunnels, not only have I read many of them already, I have written some, too.
We all MUST FIGHT against any non-age restricted units with at least one common wall from ever being built at Ponte Vista. After we win that fight, and I know we will, we probably need to come up with alternate plans that folks can get behind. Keeping Ponte Vista is most certainly one of the most popular and easiest plans to go with and I can't blame anyone from stating: "R1 NO COMPROMISE!" I would hope, though that some folks can talk about some things that are different than that idea and consider a whole different look for Ponte Vista, whether it is a completely senior community, or something else.
After all, I hope we all are looking for the best outcome for OUR community.
Thanks for reading this and I hope to see all of you on Thursday morning!
Be well,
Mark Wells
Now, what did you think of that? It was created and posted before I changed by proposal for Ponte Vista.
Let me also provide for all of you to read, another Email. This one was sent to my personal Email address by "Tom Field" Please read this Email and you may get a better perspective on what may be in "Tom's" enraged mind.
Wed, 30 May 2007 23:16:42 -0700
Mr. Wells,
Your last few posts have been either threats, or dancing around threats. I wish you would stop. I have not threatened you. Why do you feel the need to threaten me. You allude to some "secret" information you have. Well, what is it? I know I have not done anything wrong. So feel free to let fly.
I would caution you though to be careful what you start. If you start in on me, you'd better make certain you are invulnerable. Or we can just stay off each other's blog and let things be.
Your call.
Tom
O.K., I have thought about my invulnerability and I have asked folks about how vulnerable or invulnerable I may be at this time, and I don't think I am all that vulnerable.
Of course "Tom Field may desire to hurt my credit score, or perhaps cut the brake lines on my cars, but I guess I will have to see what the future brings.
To everyone, I have tried to end any war between "Tom Field" and myself. "Tom Field" has not revealed his/her true identity and you can make whatever you choose to about that issue.
I promised "Tom Field" not to reveal his/her true identity until I was able to shake his/her hand. "Tom Field" claimed he/she needed to wait to the end of the CAC process and then he/she would shake my hand. I was the one always offering my hand in a gracious gesture, and not "Tom Field."
It seems to me that as the signatures pile up on petitions that are informational only and are not necessarily legal documents, and when given to Councilwoman Janice Hahn's office, probably become public property, "Tom Field" may be being directed by others to ramp up the attacks on me and others in the R1 movement.
Would anyone call "Tom's" tactics, "desperate?" Not only did "Tom" reveal Email addresses on his blog for people who support R1, he/she may in fact have placed those folks into positions he/she himself/herself can not stand to be in.
I guess it is time for me to make copies of all of "Tom's" writings that I have saved on this blog and some on his blog. It is despicable that supporters of Bob's have to stoop this low to try and save their sorry state.
It is true that "Tom Field" acknowledged that he/she fell out of favor of Bob's 2,300 unit plan early on in the process. It is also true that on or about March 22, 2007, "Tom" produced a plan that "Tom" states was self created. I am sure both Bob and "Tom" better hope that was a true statement.
I have in my records and stored in multiple locations, "Tom's" plans from March 22, 2007. It will be very interesting to see what Bob's "new" plans look like. If Bob's new plans look anything like "Tom's" plans that were revealed on this blog on or about March 22, 2007, I believe Ms. Janice Hahn will call Bob into her office and state to Bisno, "Bob, you got a lot of splaining to do!"
I don't put Email addresses of supporters of Bob's plans on this blog. What "Tom" did is irresponsible, unreasonable, unrealistic, and completely disrespectful to the persons my original Email was sent to.
It is bad enough that Bob and his supporters divide this town as much as he and they have. It is almost to ridiculous to have someone like "Tom" reveal the information he revealed. "Tom" has asked that his/her identity not be revealed, and I will continue to keep my word.
Here is just one more black eye on Bob, his staff, his supporters who shield "Tom" from the light of day, and PERHAPS, put the nail in the coffin of any sort of zoning change.
I don't know what else to write, except I deeply apologize that the first Email I sent did not use Bcc for addressing everyone that was to receive that Email. I won't give up the fight.
Anyone calling "Tom" a coward is giving a very bad names to all cowards!
No comments:
Post a Comment