Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Process To Begin Advisory Group Moves Forward

Well, it looks like I won't need to put this blog and my R Neighborhoods Are 1 blog on hiatus. I am not one of the folks who have been asked to be interviewed to sit on the new advisory group for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I guess for me, it is a double edged sword. Even though I have lots of opinions and have produced more than a few ideas for the site, others will be able to advise Ted Fentin and others about what they feel can be successful at the 61.53 acre site. I'll get to keep writing.

The public will have a chance to offer their views at an Open House in March, according to Outreach Team leader Ms. Elise Swanson.

But for now, there is a group of folks from a number of areas and concerns who have been asked to be interviewed for positions on the new advisory group.

There are candidates who are "staunch opponents" according to Ms. Swanson, who have been asked to participate in the interviews. I am a little confused because I don't yet know what anyone will support or oppose since no new plans have been offered.

I do know some of the names of interviewees, but it is not my place to spill the beans on who may be on the group.

As for public meetings of the new group, I would not hold my breath for something like that.

I do hope that whoever participates with the new group keeps the best interests of OUR community as their first and most important goal.

I have been told that communities other than San Pedro will be represented on the new panel, with community leaders, according to Ms. Swanson, being part of the new team.

I do hope there is some way that members of the public could have an ongoing stream of input to the group. Perhaps Emails can be distributed to members so they can learn what folks they essentially represent are thinking.

Members of the public must be provided means to inform folks representing their wishes, how they feel and what suggestions might be worthy of providing to the group.

If OUR community is to be involved, it must be allowed to assist the new group and the rest of the development team in offering comments and suggestions that would create the best new housing project possible.

I hope the new panel contains members who actively support some senior housing at the site. I also think there needs to be some members who object to multi-tenant buildings in favor of some type of single-family housing.

From the names of folks I already know, it is unlikely that the new group would ever demand or truly support keeping the current zoning on the land.

Somewhere between more than 429 single-family, detached houses and less than (hopefully) 1,300 dwellings, the new group will advise the money managers and the rest of the development team what is best for OUR community that can be successfully built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I'm still sticking with my 1,040 count containing 550-senior housing units, 130-upscale townhouses, and 400-regular condominium units as being my choices for what I feel is best for OUR community and that could successfully be built, bought out, and managed for decades to come.

But there are other views out there and perhaps those views will find a much better result than my dream creation.

Maybe the new group will be a very short-lived entity. Perhaps it might be a group that is gathered to try to sell whatever the development team is trying to do, with some alterations made by the new group.

It is hoped that the members of the new panel do not take their status within the community they have been chosen to represent as a means by others to help sell whatever comes out of the decision-making processes.

Having august and distinguished representatives from throughout OUR community come out and support a plan can signal to the development team that OUR community supports whatever is decided. That may not come to pass.

Having notables working on the issues also can be viewed as a marketing tool for the development team. I'd watch out to make sure that the new group has some regular folks representing regular folks.

We need to give the new panel a real chance to observe, learn, and serve OUR community from the get-go, though.

If you are truly interested in having the best results for OUR community, then it is probably a good idea to either support these new activities or remain neutral.

Please keep thinking about what you feel is best for Ponte Vista at San Pedro AND OUR community and that way we may be able to communicate with our selected representatives on the new panel, with our suggestions.

Your suggestions are important even though we will not be serving. Keeping the fires burning of our thoughts demonstrates that we are still involved in the processes to an extent and that we may be able to help in the processes.

A person who I am acquainted with stated, "Something is going to be built at Ponte Vista." Lets move forward to make sure whatever is built there is simply the best that can be built there.


Jim said...

This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Didn't they already do this? Remember the CAC?
There is no reason for any of this to be taking place. It's like a child asking over and over when they don't like the answer they get.

It's not our fault that some greedy out of town developer and his investers paid too much for the property. It's also not our fault that whoever owns the property won't make a massive profit building R-1 homes.

It's simple. We have no more room on our roads. The community is maxed out, totally built out. Period.

The property was R-1 when Bisno bought it, and thats what it must remain. I can't beleive all this xxit going on simply because someone whats to change it. Janis Hawn should have stopped all this nonsense long ago by simply putting her foot down and saying NO.

There is no reason in the world that the whole community should suffer because of the greed of a developer and a hand full of local business owners.

M Richards said...

Wow Jim, thanks for your comment.

You got right to the point and it looks like a strong point at that.

Whatever folks want though, the longer they play the longer bulldozers stay away.

M Richards said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
km said...

I've got to totally agree with Jim on this one. It is not our fault that Bisno overpaid for the property. The zoning was not a secret. He gambled he could change it and he lost. That's what happens when you want to play with the big boys. Not my problem.