Here is a second letter to the editor, based on the editorial in the Friday November 9, 2007 editorial in the Daily Breeze. The editorial can be found in a previous post.
___________________________________________________________
Voter apathy is concern
In regard to the editorial where you state your conclusion that last week's election was somehow a referendum on Ponte Vista, I have a different slant ("Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns," Editorial page, Nov. 9).
Since the turnout on the Hill was around 22 percent and in Lomita about 18 percent, I think it says that 78 percent of the Hill and 82 percent of Lomita could care less about Ponte Vista one way or another. Conversely, you could as easily have said that the higher percentage reflects the amount of support for the project.
In truth, as should be obvious, to draw either conclusion would be stretching the importance of this very poor turnout to extremes.
Actually, I do see a conclusion, one that worries me a lot. I see our country becoming more and more controlled by small groups of people with their own special agendas. They rely on being loud and on demonizing anyone who does not agree with them. Compromise is evil and disagreement with their particular view is a punishable offense.
In a democracy, fringe elements are not a problem since the body politic should work together to find mutually acceptable solutions to problems. But when 80 percent of the people stay home, they are abdicating their responsibility for good government. The result is that a fraction of the electorate sets the agenda for all of us. We see the results even here, within the city of Los Angeles, where the vote of fewer than 150 people lets neighborhood councils claim to be the "voice of the people."
I do not know what the answer is, why voters stay home. I do find it ironic though, that on the day that is dedicated to veterans, I need to write this. When I served in the Army, when I saw my friends die in combat, and when I see our guys serving in Iraq, I hear people say that we are doing it to protect democracy and our right to vote.
Maybe some people need a reminder of what it has cost.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am one of the co-chairs of the Ponte Vista Senior Advisory Committee and that I firmly believe in the project.
- LOUIS DOMINGUEZ
San Pedro
____________________________________________________
I am also a veteran. I have to totally agree with Mr. Dominguez that veterans and all those currently on duty or in reserve do their jobs, at least in part, so we all keep the freedom and opportunity to vote for the candidates of our choice.
I have written about voter apathy in Eastview quite a bit, so I don't need to go that much more into that, except: With so many residents opposed to Bob's plans for Ponte Vista coming out to, at least, sign the R1 petition, I wish they would have taken the opportunity so few folks in the world have, and vote in free elections.
Mr. Dominquez has used the word "thugs" to describe me and folks like me, who have spoken out and demonstrated against Bob's plans. Well then I guess Mr. Dominquez might feel that anyone speaking out or demonstrating against his beliefs, are "thugs".
I guess the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America only applies to what Mr. Dominquez and his like-minded friends think.
And what about compromise? Mr. Dominquez has called for "compromise". What "compromise" have we heard from him, being such a supporter of Bob's plans. Is compromise 1,950-units or 1,750-units, or whatever Bob feels like coming up with? We haven't heard any real statements about any compromise proposals from any supporters of Bob's. I have been waiting to hear from any brave supporter who is willing to buck Bob's plans and suggest, at least to me and others, a compromise proposal.
There was a time that I was dealing with someone who supports a larger development than what I would like. We tried to come up with a compromise, but I think 1,750-units is still too large.
The ONLY reason that some folks like me are still so strongly supportive of keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning, is there is NO REASON to change our views as long as Bob is so headstrong to build the number of units he wants to build, without really working for some kind of compromise.
Mr. Dominquez is also lamenting the fact that only 150 of the eligible stakeholders vote in Neighborhood Council elections. This is also a problem that I hope he is willing to change in the Neighborhood Council area in which he lives. Perhaps he will consider running for a position on their board, next year.
In the interest of full disclosure I must state that I am Mark Wells, a former member of Janice Hahn's CAC and now a member of the R.P.V. Traffic Safety Commission. I did not sign the R1 petition until May 29, 2007, less than six months ago, because I did consider compromise as the best thing. I continue to wish for some senior housing in San Pedro. I am not a thug.
4 comments:
louis is anything but intelligent. i dont raelly care if he served or not. if bob's pathetic project had any real support he would get what he wants.compromise is a word he should discuss with bob. face it, a project that dense sucks and he should not get his way. only an idiot would even continue to push for it with the housing market what it is. Why do we need it? what is going to prevent bob from turning them into leased units after the fact like his next door neighbor? bob reminds me of someone on a sinking ship who will not leave their gold behind, and instead drowns with it in their pockets that swim to shore.
when is the last time anybody from that side even had an argument for this project? all their reasons have fallen by the wayside. mwe don't need a leisure world either. give it up bob.
louis,louis,louis. if so many people did not vote and that means that all who did not vote do not care about the project then it would be safe to also assume that bobs incredible number of supporters, as evidenced by his supposed petition signers that they really dont care either. you speak of compromise. flashbacki:autumn 2005; bob stated that the one thing that was nonnegotiable was the ZONING issue.
and remember this since he did not like the democratic cac results, he said they were "out of the process" what does that make the ponte vista advisory board?please come forward with somehing other that useless attacks and present your argument for this project. i would love to hear it. another thing, why doe4s he get to build only market-rate units and not any low-income housing? surely a project this big should be required to have some. or does the surrounding communitioes have to shoulder the burden?
CONTROLLED BY SMALL GROUPS OF PEOPLE WITH THEIR OWN AGENDAS? WHAT THE HELL WOULD YOU CALL BOB BISNO? ONE MAN, WHO WANTS TO BUILD 2000 UNITS ON A STREET ALREADY TAXED WITH TRAFFIC? WHERE THE HELL WILL THESE UP TO 7,000 PEOPLE SHOP?
AT HIS RESIDENTS ONLY COFFEE SHOP? THESE ARGUMENT FOR THE PROJECT ARE BECOMING SO PAHETIC THAT THEY HARDLY DESERVE A RESPONSE. WHY DOESN'T HAVE TO BUILD A SHOPPING CENTER ON HIS PROPERTY? OH, THAT'S RIGHT HE'S RESTRICTED TO ONLY 10,000 SQ. FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE. WHAT ABOUT THE R-1 RESTRICTION THAT CAME WITH THE PROPERTY? BOB, AND/ OR HIS MINIONS, BE PREPARED TO GET ONE HELL OFA FIGHT OVER WHAT YOU WANT.
Louis D. can rest assured that the small group of loud mouths voted the recent cities elections!!
And SHAME on Daily B. for appealling to the majority of their "election issue ignorant" readers. Those that don't vote but are otherwise aware of the Ponte Vista project. Shame, shame, shame!
And shame on Lousis D. for writing in his letter city of "LOMITA" and merely the "Hill" instead of RPV. Clever slant Mr. Ponte Vista Senior Advisory co-chair with an agenda in favor of a private developer.
Post a Comment