Friday, November 14, 2008

Odds and Ends 91

When this blog was younger and perhaps even two years ago, I wrote a post titled "The Ugly Truths".

That post commented on some factual details that could come about if Bob was not granted the entitlements to build what he wants to build at Ponte Vista.

If should be understood by all that the fewer number of units built at Ponte Vista, the fewer amenities and less mitigation could take place.

I even agreed with Bob in that, if the site is to remain with its current zoning, Bob could take away the only amenity he has already granted; the private access from Western Avenue to the Mary Star High School Campus.

Even though some in the Planning Department and elsewhere state that he could not close that road, I believe Bob was correct when he stated he could not be forced to give up his land for the roadway, without his consent.

Many folks now know the minimum number of units Bob would be willing to get entitlements for and then perhaps, offer all the amenities and mitigation he has promised.

The 'jury' is still out as to whether Bob would be given new entitlements to lots at Ponte Vista and then simply sell them to others without providing any of the amenities, mitigation, or housing he has promised.

"Let's set something straight." (LSSS) Those words were published on a site created by members of the Ponte Vista Outreach Team and I am using those words to support some true beliefs I have has for some time.

LGSS, the facts about my opinion of Ponte Vista is NOT that I don't 'like' Ponte Vista. I do not like or agree with Bob's and Eric's current plans for the 61.53 acre site.

I understand and agree that, according to both Robert H. Bisno and Councilwoman Janice Hahn, "something will be built at Ponte Vista." What that 'something' is is still under consideration.

LSSS, I am still the only sole on the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee that has publicly stated that I 'wish' or 'dream' that there would be some senior housing units at Ponte Vista. I am still mystified that so many supporters of Bob's current plans keep attacking me with providing any credit that I do have opinions that differ from others on the Steering Committee.

Of course, as long as Bob continues with his current plans and refuses to offer a compromise number of units at Ponte Vista that is reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful to OUR community then the site must remain, R1, NO COMPROMISE. What part of this paragraph do so many supporters not understand?

LSSS, where where and are the supporters who suggested almost two years ago that the plans that Bob was using back then were too big for their liking? Why didn't supporters who have been concerned for some time that Bob would not get approval to build such a massive development, meet with folks like me to come up with our own compromise proposals and present them to Bob and Councilwoman Hahn and demand a redo of Bob's plans?

Thousands of opponents of Bob's current plans have their opinions about what could be built at Ponte Vista and that must mean there should be thousands of supporters who also have their own opinions. What has kept so many of them from speaking out?

LSSS, Bob 'gambled' with his purchase of land in northwest San Pedro. In referring to developers who buy land that has particular zoning already on it and then seek to have that zoning changed to allow for denser housing, Ms. Gail Goldberg, the head of the Los Angeles City Planning Departments was quoted as stating, "can you spell s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n?".

LSSS, Bob may also be a victim of the real estate crash and the dreadful economic downturn we are all facing and neither Bob nor everyone else who regularly reads this blog had any direct part in the collapses. But Bob could have most probably have received entitlements to begin building units some time ago had he used the total number of units he recently used as a minimum number of units he might build that included all the amenities and mitigation promised.

Bob's seeming unwillingness to compromise from the beginning is partially to blame for what may ultimately come to be at Ponte Vista and no one other than Bob and his senior assistants should be blamed for what may happen.


mellonhead said...

Michael Ponce, Joeanne Valle, Gloria Lockhart, Eleanor Montano, Camilla Townsend are the members of the L.A. Harbor Area Planning Committee. Is it possible that any of these people might have a bias for or against the Ponte Vista project? Does this upcoming meeting have any real purpose for taking place?

M Richards said...

Thanks mellonhead.

Two of the HABC members are Directors of Chambers of Commerce that have supported Ponte Vista and where Ponte Vista are members of those organizations.

It could be claimed that these Directors work to benefit the members of the Chambers and thereby act similar to lobbyists for the businesses that are members of those chambers.

One other member of the HAPC is a leader of a non-profit group that has received funds from Ponte Vista's Outreach Team. That person was seen wearing a yellow sticker supporting Ponte Vista and has been reported to have sponken in favor of Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at meetings where the public attended.