Odds and Ends 106

This is the Phantom Odds and Ends.

I wrote it on February 26 and forgot to use 'Post Options' to automatically publish the post last Friday.

You will see the February 27 date, but I am actually writing this after I pre-published Odds and Ends 107.

Here is what you would have read, had I published this on its correct date.

(I knew something was amiss all week, but I didn't take the time to figure it out, until today.)
____________________________________________

Have you Emailed Mr. Oswald yet, at: jim_oswald@gensler.com? If not, why not?
Your opinions are just as good as the approximately 60 individuals who were expected to be interviewed, aren't they?

Many of the folks who have been interviewed neither live in the immediate area (within one mile) of the project, or can avoid Western Avenue in the area of the project's site.
Heck, there just might be 60 people living at Seaport (Apartments) by now, but I would not be willing to bet on that.

We know there are 62 units at The Tennis Club condos and 129 units at Casa Verde Estates, both sharing the same street (Well it's really the alley named Fitness Drive) as Seaport. ______________________________________________

Just when you are beginning to try to believe that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team is serious when they contend that Ponte Vista at San Pedro would have "Smart Growth" transportation elements provided, even thought there is still only ONE metro bus line going by the site, here is yet another story of interest, in the Los Angeles Times.

City planning chief: We have to 'bite the bullet and do the subway'
3:58 PM February 25, 2009

Any time I write about the "Subway to the Sea," I inevitably get a few e-mails from readers along these lines: If the subway is built, won't all the development the line attracts make traffic even worse?

In one sense, it's kind of a silly question. All civic improvements have the potential to attract more traffic. If traffic is a concern, it can be used as an excuse not to do anything in a city.

On the other hand, it's also a question that's fair given the city of Los Angeles' dubious history of urban planning. The city -- and most others -- routinely change their zoning codes to encourage denser developments around mass transit. The idea is to put more jobs and housing near rail and bus lines as a way to discourage people from driving everywhere and instead hopping on transit. If the bus and rail lines are no good and the buildings have tons of parking, it seems completely plausible that the subway could end up attracting more cars to the Westside.

With those thoughts in mind, I had a chance to throw the question at Los Angeles planning chief Gail Goldberg last Friday at the Westside Urban Forum, where she was on a panel . Here's what she said:

If we are going to continue to grow and prosper, more people are going to come here.... We can accommodate more people, we can't accommodate more cars. And so we have to give people other options. Other cities do this....

I think we are going to have to bite the bullet and do the subway. We are going to have to find other ways to get people through the Westside other than getting in cars. People have to have choices. We are going to have to deal with whatever the consequences on the ground are -- we can do that with land-use planning, but we have to give people other options. The car that gave Angelenos freedom in the '60s has turned into a cell in this era. We have to put a movie in the backseat of the car to keep the kids busy while we take them to school. This is no way to live.

I know Goldberg fairly well, having profiled her for the paper in 2007, and wasn't at all surprised by her response. She sees cities as dynamic entities that with good planning should grow and change, and she has little patience for residents who say "Let's do nothing" because of traffic. Agree, dear reader? Or think the subway is going to make a bad situation worse? That's why we have a comment board
--Steve Hymon
----------------------------------------------------------------

Since there is only Line Number 205 traveling past the site and ending up at the Artesia Transit Center, then finally at the Imperial/Harbor Freeway Green Line Station, where might other transportation resources come from?

Sure, there is a rail line close to the site, but without the new road to Gaffey, it would be a struggle to get to that spur.
____________________________________________
When the Outreach Team attempt to sway folks towards a denser project, using the concept of being able to live close to where one works, here is a reminder.

In 2006, information from Los County was provided that stated that there was only 6/10 of a job for each resident of San Pedro, in the San Pedro area.

Usually, a resident of San Pedro is 10/10 of a person, so it is troubling to learn where 4/10 of a person works. Of course there is no such thing as 4/10 of a person any longer, thank goodness.

So when Outreach Team members purport to suggest that there would be plenty of jobs in the local area for most residents of anything built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro, please ask them to show you 4/10 of a person.

The facts are, there are fewer than one job per San Pedro resident, in San Pedro.

Currently and for the forseeable future, there will be fewer jobs that folks normally would go to, in the entire Harbor Area and the rest of the greater L.A. area.

When one views the Ponte Vista Web site or blog and see the photos that include Longshore Workers, we should know that our ports are having a tough time offering work to potential buyers of units at Ponte Vista.

The days of getting two days of work as a casual, per MONTH, have also gone away. ____________________________________________
I wonder if Ted Fentin and Credit Suisse may want to temporarily put plans on hold at Ponte Vista and create more unemployment, at least temporarily, for the Outreach Team members. ____________________________________________
And now, here is a recent (Feb 11, 2009) article from Reuters UK.

Credit Suisse posts record annual loss
By Lisa Jucca and Emma Thomasson

ZURICH (Reuters) - Credit Suisse Group (CSGN.VX) posted its biggest-ever annual loss after a poor fourth quarter hit by trading losses and restructuring charges, but expressed cautious optimism for 2009 even as it cut some financial targets.

The Swiss bank said it had a made a strong start to 2009 and each division was showing a profit in the year to date, echoing relatively upbeat comments from rival UBS (UBSN.VX) (UBS.N) which on Tuesday reported the biggest annual net loss in Swiss corporate history.

"We are well positioned going into 2009," Chief Executive Brady Dougan told a news conference, but added: "This is not a light at the end of the tunnel message."

Switzerland's second-largest bank unveiled an annual net loss of 8.2 billion francs (4.9 billion pounds), worse than the average analyst forecast of 6.3 billion from a Reuters poll but in line with predictions from some Swiss newspapers and less than half the loss posted by UBS.

Credit Suisse racked up a fourth-quarter loss of 6 billion Swiss francs, missing an average analyst forecast of 4 billion while further reducing its exposure to risky asset classes as it slashed its dividend and staff bonuses.

On average bonuses were slashed by 60 percent, with managing directors getting no unrestricted cash. The overall bonus payout for 2008 was 2 billion Swiss francs, mostly for junior staff.

Dougan said the bank had made mistakes but now had a stronger capital base than most of its peers thanks to a Tier 1 ratio of 13.3 percent and less than 12 billion Swiss franc of toxic assets on its books and was still managing to attract client inflows at its private bank.

West LB analyst Georg Kanders said: "Results are negative and not much better than UBS in Q4. But there were lots of extraordinary items ... Toxic assets are now less of an item. They have confirmed they have been significantly reduced.

"Overall I would say that wealth management did much better than UBS. They have also had a positive start in January and just confirmed they have new inflows in the period."

After falling as much as 7 percent, shares in Credit Suisse later turned positive, rising 1.1 percent to 31.22 francs at 11:51 a.m. British time, while UBS shares, which gained strongly on Tuesday, rose 1.3 percent to 13.80 francs, compared with a 1.1 percent drop in the DJ Stoxx European banking index .SX7P.

BIG TRADING LOSS

CS also cut some of its long-term targets, including its goal for an annual return on equity which was pared back to "above 18 percent" from a previous 20 percent.

It said it would pay a 2008 cash dividend of just 0.10 francs, compared to 2.50 francs in 2007. Credit Suisse had already warned in December that it made a net loss of about 3 billion francs in October and November and would take restructuring charges of about 900 million in the quarter as it moves to cut 5,300 jobs, or 11 percent of staff.

Analysts were also anticipating the 538 million franc loss it booked in the quarter for selling part of its fund management arm to Aberdeen Asset Management (ADN.L), but said they were surprised by the extent of trading losses in December.

The bank was hit by a trading loss of 6.7 billion francs in the quarter, of which about 1.7 billion francs came in December.

Credit Suisse said its private bank recorded net new assets of 50.9 billion francs in 2008, but only 2 billion in the fourth quarter, as strong net client inflows of 13.8 billion francs were offset by deleveraging.

"Inflows in the private bank look disappointing. A good aspect is that they have said January was positive, but the first impression is that the report is weak," said Citibank analyst Jeremy Sigee.

Walter Berchthold, CEO of private banking at Credit Suisse, said half the deleveraging happened in Switzerland while inflows mainly came from the U.S. onshore business: "I think the worst is behind us," he said, talking about the trend in deleveraging. Credit Suisse said it had achieved about 50 percent of its targeted job cuts to bring headcount down to 47,800 by the end of 2008. It reiterated a target of paring its investment bank to 17,500 staff by the end of 2009 from 19,700 at the end of 2008.

Dougan said Credit Suisse, which contrary to UBS did not need state help, will focus more on private banking, where he sees the best growth environment in a generation, and asset management.

(Additional reporting by Martin de Sa'Pinto; Editing by Will Waterman and David Holmes)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse is one of the stronger financial institutions remaining on the planet.

Bob probably picked one of the best financial institutions to do business with.
I guess he was such a good salesman that the bankers really believed Bob could pull off the impossible.

Me thinks that there were several individuals at Credit Suisse who had dollar signs in their eyes, instead of views that were coming out, even back in 2005. ____________________________________________

Thanks so much to all of you who attended the regular production of I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change at the Warner Grand Theatre.

I was able to greet folks supporting all sides of the Ponte Vista issue and everyone got along extremely well!

Since I don't feel there are any "Supporters" and "Opponents" at this time, it is wonderful to see how we all can get along so very well, when not divided by a greedy developer.

If you are a regular theater, sports, or concert attendee, may I recommend http://www.goldstar.com/ where you can purchase tickets to many things going on, at far lower prices that regular tickets run for.

Goldstar.com is offering tickets to "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change" for the low price of just $10.00 per ticket, plus a $3.50 service fee.

The $10.00 ticket price is HALF the regular ticket price, found at the door of the Theatre. ______________________________________________

Odds and Ends 105

Well, the interviews are not over yet and I am not very surprised with what I have learned.

Elise and the gang did not post the names of the "Community Leaders" that were interviewed.

Four of the five members of Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Board who all held the position that the current zoning must not be changed were also not selected to be interviewed.

The only one of the five members who continues to state that the site must remain R1 is the President of a Homeowners Coalition representing residents in both San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.

One of the two members who supported anything Bob Bisno wanted was not only interviewed, but their spouse was interviewed too, according to that member.

At least two City Council Members will have been interviewed when all is said and done. You should not infer that the City Council Members are from the same city and there may very well be even more City Council Members interviewed.

I did get a reply when I Emailed Mr. Oswald at jim_oswald@gensler.com. I think if you, your friends and neighbors, and anyone else you can think of wish to offer your comments to Jim, you should probably do so.

It is also a bit funny to read the blog by Elise and the gang that offers the community a chance to comment on 'amenities and benefits' at the March 12 Open House event. There is no mention that Jim, Ted, Elise, or anyone else wishes to learn the number of units you feel might be successful at the site.
___________________________________________

I know this next bit has nothing to do with Ponte Vista other than the fact that there is no advertisement for the development on the program, however.....

The Relevant Stage Theatre Company is extending the run of its 2009 Season opening "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change" at the historic Warner Grand Theater in San Pedro.

Please visit http://www.therelevantstage.com/ for more information.
___________________________________________

The development of a Senior Housing project on Hawthorne Blvd ended last month after the hillside on the site was stabilized.

Money ran out, interest in more senior housing has ebbed recently, and the plans finally fell through.

Whether this portends any type of delay in developing Ponte Vista is a question many members of OUR community can't answer.

The stability of Credit Suisse has also been discussed in articles and by folks recently, too.

It could very well come to pass that Ted Fentin decides to allow a long limbo period for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro development as so many other projects seem to be in, in the greater L.A. area these days and months.
______________________________________________

I did not attend the recent meeting dealing with building on hillsides in the city of Los Angeles.

I was not eager to step out to a meeting while I continue to live in a house built on a hillside and in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Some humor may have been missed by me, but that was my decision to keep away from possible frivolity.

There is land on the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site that cannot be built on because of its steep hillside structure.

There has also been documentation provided concerning errors with regards to the amount and placement of the hillside areas that will not support residential construction on the site.

The errors are minor and deal more with the documented location of the areas.

Retaining walls in specific areas would have to be provided on the site to allow for residential construction closer to the hillsides near the fence line with the Defense Fuel Supply Point on the northwest side of the Ponte Vista property.
____________________________________________
There is a group call the Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME? which is advocating for the Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative to the Marymount College Facilities Expansion project.

The group is calling for denial of the College's plan to have a 255-bed set of residential halls built on the Rancho Palos Verdes campus and also the denial of the construction of a new gym, large field, and other athletic amenities on the main campus of the College.

CCC/ME supports the demolition of the existing off-campus housing units on the College-owned site along Palos Verdes Drive North between Western Avenue and Five Points.

That facility is called "Palos Verdes North".

CCC/ME also advocates the construction of more student housing on the Palos Verdes site, more than replacing the existing 86 units that currently hous about 300 students, faculty, and student advisers.

CCC/ME wants all the athletic facilities for the College built at the Palos Verdes North site, including a new gym and the large field.

Currently, CCC/ME does not have a well defined position on whether the College should attempt to purchase land and existing dwelling units the Volunteers of America currently own in the area adjacent to Palos Verdes North and Rolling Hills Prep.

All of this can and should be of concern to all sides dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro, in my opinion.

If the Preferred Plan is approved of with the construction of two residential halls on the Marymount Campus, there will be an increase of about 1,561 vehicle trips to and from the campus.

40% of that added weekday traffic would utilize Western Avenue from Crestwood Street, north along Western Avenue.

There is not sufficient documentation to consider the added daily trips of the Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative.

Also, there were no trip generation studies or levels of service rates taken at the intersection of Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North. This fact should be taken seriously by all of us having to discuss Ponte Vista and general traffic along Western Avenue.

I have spoken and been in written communication with many folks who consider on-campus housing to be beneficial for students, their parents, and others. I don't think there is a real dispute in that particular matter.

However, Marymount College is, by no means, a College situated where it is that, can provide reasonable and realistic on-campus housing for its students.

Marymount College is a private junior college in its second year of academic probation. Its student body consists of approximately 99% full time students. This is an extreme example of a vast difference between Marymount and other junior colleges that are also considered to be "commuter colleges" as Marymount continues to be.

The location of the main campus just above the switchbacks along Palos Verdes Drive East is another factor, as are the facts about the general size and condition of all of Palos Verdes Drive East.

The closest four-lane roadways to the college's main campus are Western Avenue and 25th Street.

With all of the issues surrounding on-campus housing, we all should not lose sight of the impacts many of us would face by having the Palos Verdes North facility expanded greatly.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion project is closer to the approval or denial processes by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council than the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project is to any decisions made by the Los Angeles City Council.

Right now, Marymount may be ahead in the race to see what get built in northwest San Pedro and it looks like neither projects will truly benefit the residents of northwest San Pedro, eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, south Lomita, south Harbor City, and west Wilmington.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone and everyone has the right to create comments and attend the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission's meeting scheduled for March 10, 2009 when the Marymount comment period continues to be extended.
__________________________________________

Currently there is no name for the proposed residential development along Gaffey Street, on the site of the former Kinder-Morgan facility.

I talked with a representative of the 134-unit 'patio home' project and wondered if the development company might want to sponsor a development naming contest.

Once upon a time, Jimmy Cochran's mom entered the contest to find the name of a new hotel and golf course project above the corner of Western Avenue and Weymouth.

Mrs. Cochran won $100.00 in the early 1960's by creating the winning entry of The Hacienda Hotel and Golf Course. Back then $100.00 was quite an award for that contest.

Several years ago I heard that the new project on Gaffey would be named "Highland Park" and "Highland Park, San Pedro". I was wrong about that.

The "Highland" refers to the neighborhood that was constructed in about 1962 along Gaffey Street. I remember the name of that huge project was "The Highlands" is my memory is still correct.

When my first wife was young, she moved into a brand new house that was built west of Westmont. We called that smaller development just "Westmont".

I live in the tract of houses that brought the name "Eastview" into the area. Rancho Palos Verdes also includes housing in the Rolling Hills Riviera, Peninsula Verde, Palo de Encino, Strathmore, and Mira Costa Terrace neighborhoods.

I must admit that I still don't know the name of the tract of houses in the area of Crestwood Street School, but it just migh have been named "Crestwood" when it was begun around 1955-1957.

It is also semi-humorous that so many folks who live in Mira Costa Terrace don't know they live in Mira Costa Terrace. Perhaps they have never pondered the lettering on the wall on Caddington where the housing project begins.

The largest single condominium building along Western Avenue houses the "Crestwood Homeowners Association" and there are numerous other condo and apartment projects along Western between Avenida Aprenda and Summerland.

If you look around this blog, you will find the English translations for the Italian "Ponte Vista", including secondary meanings.

Of course, "bridge view" is the primary translation, but "bridge" can also mean where the Captain of a ship commands from.

I offered a tiny bit of humor with that particular post.
_________________________________________

Out With The Old 'Dream' And In With The New

Today I am ending my 'dream' of seeing up to 1,040-units built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

After much pondering about my 'dream' of seeing up to 550-Senior Housing Units, 130-Upscale Town Houses, and 400-Regular Condominiums built on the 61.53 acre site has been relegated to the files on my computers and into my memories.

Although I still consider that some senior units could be built and successfully sold at Ponte Vista, there have always been far too many obstacles to having so many total units on the site.

In place of my former 'dream' is a dream I created about two years ago that I will now consider less of a 'dream' and more of a 'demand'.

Illustrated below are superimposed illustrations of the Ponte Vista and Mary Star High School sites on a Google Earth photo.

Looking more closely, you should be able to see the illustration of a roadway between the border of Ponte Vista and Mary Star and the intersection the new road would have with Gaffey Street.

Far down in this blog's archives are other illustrations of a road to Gaffey and there are also illustrations depicting a new roadway to the 110 Freeway, complete with an on-ramp and an off-ramp.

Simply put, there is absolutely no number of total units at Ponte Vista greater than the 429 single-family, detached houses on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet that could be built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro without a second road to a major route, Gaffey Street.

Western Avenue will be hard-pressed to handle the additional traffic created by building housing according to the current zoning that has been at Ponte Vista for decades.

More than 429 units at Ponte Vista demands that a new road be constructed to allow for eastern access to both Ponte Vista and Mary Star of the Sea High School.

It is only common sense. There are already quite a few Mary Star students who approach the campus coming south along Western Avenue. It would be much easier for everyone to have both Ponte Vista and Mary Star have two-four lane routes as primary access routes.

Click over image to enlarge.

It is absolutely true that land on the Defense Fuel Supply Point would have to be used to build the new route.

The new roadbed could be elevated above the ground over the Supply Point using supporting columns, piers, and concrete pillars.

I learned years ago that both Bob Bisno and Councilwoman Janice Hahn support having a new road placed to Gaffey.

It is time to stop thinking about what can be successfully built at Ponte Vista until everyone does their very best to get a new road authorized, funded, approved of by the U.S. Navy, and built for the benefit of the entire community.

Janice, Ted, Jim, Antonio, the San Pedro and Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, the local Realty Board, elected, selected, appointed and volunteer officials all need to work together to get that road built.

The Ponte Vista Outreach Team needs to support a new road if they truly have the best interest of OUR community and new residents of Ponte Vista in their minds and hearts.

The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council should get behind demanding the new road which would go next to ZERO houses currently within their boundaries.

CalTrans, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, the Port of Los Angeles, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, and every other agency or government entity that is supported by taxpayers in San Pedro, Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles need to support the new road.

Ted, Elise, Bob, and far too many folks are going to want 1,500 units or more at Ponte Vista. The Los Angeles Department of City Planning guidelines for up to 1,196-units also would provide far too many units for all of the Ponte Vista traffic using just Western Avenue.

Even a density bonus applied to the current R1 zoning would find too many units built with regards to added traffic along Western Avenue.

So many former supporters of Bob's plans kept stating that we all needed to understand that change occurs and that we have to live with change. Having a new road to Gaffey is certainly quite a change that OUR community must have if condos are built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

There are older residents living in San Pedro Highlands who have threatened to sue because of attempts to build a new road to Gaffey. Let them get in line because one thing is for certain, there will be lawsuits brought by individuals and groups should one particular side of the issue gets what others do not want.

Just read the newspapers and go online. The only other residential project in the city of Los Angeles larger than Ponte Vista, Playa Vista is continuing to deal with a second Environmental Impact Report on Phase II of that development project and lawsuits continue on Phase II issues AND problems residents are having in Phase I.

Groups and individuals may have to sue the Federal Government to get a new road built to Gaffey Street. But lawsuits would be worth it if OUR community has any chance of creating the best results for Ponte Vista and the folks dealing with Mary Star of the Sea High School.

The 'dream', 'demand', 'suggestion' or whatever, there needs to be a new road to Gaffey Street.

Odds and Ends 104

I begin this with an admission.

This particular Odds and Ends was written beginning at 11:06 AM on Thursday.

I am the newest member of The Relevant Stage Theatre Company and our new show, "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change" is opening on Friday and I have been working late, during rehearsals and I probably won't want to produce this post tomorrow morning.

Please visit, www.therelevantstage.com and plan on attending a very funny musical about relationships between men and women.
__________________________________________

So, you may be wondering what Bob has been up to lately.

You may want to take a gander at: http://www.bisnodevelopment.com/ and see what is still listed as one of his prime projects.

UPDATE!!! Somebody from the Bisno Organizations apparently read this post after it was published and the site is no longer easily found on the Internet.

No matter. If I choose to publish more information I saved from the site on this blog, I just may do so.

First you will certainly find Ponte Vista all over the site. I guess Bob either didn't get the memo that he is out of the picture.........or he really isn't and he may ultimately make a bundle of money after others (seemingly) create a new project without his input.

Then, looking more closely, you can find out what Bob's plans for with an old apartment development he is changing.

Chase Knolls in Sherman Oaks used to be an apartment complex with older units that probably rented out to folks with lower incomes that what Bob wants in his developments.

It looks like Bob wants to clear out the interiors of the historical buildings, modernize them and charge a bundle of cash in new rents.

But that's not all, as they say. Bob also wants to build an additional 140 apartment units on the site and it also looks like he wants about 498 condominiums there, too.

Anyway one looks at it, Bob is looking to raise the rents on those who live at Chase Knolls.

We haven't learned yet whether he is using some of the same tactics he used at Lincoln Place, to move out renters that lived in that project for many years.

There is a tiny cadre of folks who will be looking into Bob at Chase Knolls and be reporting back what we learn.
___________________________________________

I continue to be hopeful, but cautious with what is currently happening with regards to Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

There are many folks I have talked to who have strong opinions about the development, but were not asked to participate in the interviews currently being conducted by Mr. Oswald.

Not everyone I have talked to or have discussed the latest ongoings via Email are R1 demanders or wanted the fewest number of units on the site. I continue to ask opinions of just about everyone who I believes lives in the area and has an opinion.

If Ted Fentin ultimately comes out with a number at or above 1,300 units, then it will be clear that "Oswald's folly" was just a ruse to gauge the community members and try and get them to allow too many units at the Ponte Vista site. __________________________________________

The Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes voted 5-1 to oppose a new "affordable" housing project for seniors at the intersection of Crenshaw Blvd. and Crest Road.

The site was questionable at the outset and it really isn't close to the amenities seniors want and need for enjoying their lives.

The site would have required some zoning changes and there was land that is zoned as Open Space Hazardous in the mix.

Being one who feels that some seniors may want some units set aside for them at Ponte Vista, I keep looking out for more senior housing on the peninsula.

However, there have been senior units built in Torrance that haven't found buyers yet.

The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will vote on the proposed Affordable Senior Housing proposal at its March 3 meeting, it is expected.
____________________________________________

The Interviews Began

www.yourpontevista.com has published its account of what is happening with the discussions regarding what may come to the 61.53 acre site.

Should we buy into their claims? Please be cautious.

We can read the Outreach Team's account. We can read Ms. Littlejohn's article. You can read this blog and other blogs. You can talk to your friends and read information from other sources.

It now looks like Mr. Oswald is going to interview folks picked by Ms. Elise Swanson, the head of the Outreach Team. He MAY also take opinions from 'regular' folks during a planned Open House.

Here are some ways Ms. Swanson and Mr. Oswald can provide some information that actually attempts to show they are being fair and impartial IF they are truly going to make it look like they really are attempting to get the pulse of OUR community.

Publish a list of the approximately 60 names of 'community leaders and others' who are being interviewed.

Publish any and all formal questions Mr. Oswald will be asking the folks.

Provide an Email address directly to Mr. Oswald that won't first be viewed by the Outreach Team or Mr. Fentin.

Provide more than just one Open House event for folks to make comments. There just might be more folks wanting their opinions heard than can be accommodated in just one evening.

Share the outline of what ranges, if any, the Outreach Team and Mr. Fentin have established for the number of units necessary for DLJ and Credit Suisse to remain at least neutral on the project.

If Credit Suisse, DLJ, Mr. Ted Fentin, Ms. Elise Swanson and her Outreach Team, and the remaining members of the development team truly want this outreach plan to be viewed as open and honest, they all need to be completely forthcoming about the process and the policies they are using.

It is also unreasonable for all of them to believe they will be able to take whatever they come up with to the April 9, 2009 meeting of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.

To keep in place an application backed by studies that have been found by many to be fatally flawed, demonstrates that they just might not be willing to accept and adhere to what OUR community is calling for.

The do over the Ponte Vista at San Pedro folks are being provided may be the last time OUR community allows them to attempt to build a large number of units on the site.

If they are not willing to be objective, forthcoming, honest, and open, why should any of us believe they are really going to listen to all of us and attempt to find the best solution for OUR community?

I have already heard and read from a number of individuals who are very skeptical about this new process. They fear the outcome has already been planned.

They have also commented that except for Bob Bisno, all the players from before are still in place.

Ms. Swanson can probably do well by publishing who is still in the picture and who has left. That might provide some skeptics more information that may make them less skeptical

I hope that is not the case and I am still willing to remain objective IF the Ponte Vista folks subscribe to many of the things I am asking for in this post.

Elise did not include me to be interviewed. I can understand why she didn't ask me. I get to comment any time I wish.

I have also already written my 'dream' and provided it to her. She and Mr. Oswald can easily find just about anything they might want to know about my views.

Let's hope that the Outreach Team is open enough to provide information on their site during this time and into the future.

Please don't be too optimistic or too pessimistic. Be objective for as long as you can, keeping all issues in mind.

Go and see "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change" at the Warner Grand Theater over the next two weekends. Go to www.therelevantstage.com for information.

It is a funny musical about relationships between people who are much younger than I am.

It is a great evening of theater and it is truly less expensive than going to most other live shows in the Los Angeles area.

Wave to the fellow in the balcony, if you see him. Or just say, "Hi" in the lobby.

Ponte Vista Tries to Build Support

Here is an article from the Tuesday February 10 edition of The Daily Breeze.

Ponte Vista tries to build support

Facilitator offers stakeholders a chance to see new plans and voice their concerns.
By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer

With former frontman Bob Bisno now out of the picture, developers of the controversial Ponte Vista housing project in San Pedro this week are relaunching efforts to strike a community compromise.

A series of private meetings with more than 60 stakeholders will begin today with Jim Oswald, a facilitator who has been hired by the developers to get the project back on track in time for a Los Angeles Planning Commission hearing on April 9.

A community open house to unveil project plans, expected to be scaled back from the 1,950 homes currently proposed, is tentatively scheduled for 4to8p.m. March 12 at Peck Park Community Center.

"I think it's fair to say we know it's going to be a smaller project," said Tim McOsker, who is serving as an adviser to the developer.

Oswald said he has a "cursory" knowledge of the development and intends mostly to listen to those he interviews.

"I'm going out on behalf of the developer to talk to the community and find out more about what the specific concerns are and what the developer needs to do to make changes," Oswald said.

The private meetings -- with individuals or small groups -- will continue through February and possibly into early March.

Among those to be interviewed today is John Greenwood, who served as the chairman of the Ponte Vista Community Advisory Committee appointed by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn.

"They have to start over with a new application,"

Greenwood said, calling the earlier application "fatally flawed."

Oswald said he anticipates traffic on Western Avenue and housing density to be the key issues raised in his sessions.

Los Angeles city planners recommended that 775 to 1,200 condominiums should be built on the site.

While many opponents remain staunch supporters of holding the line at the site's current single-family home zoning -- limiting the number of homes to just over 500 -- Hahn said she's supportive of the city's recommendations.

"That's a lot more than what some people would like to see there, but it's over 50 percent less than what was originally proposed," Hahn said.

Hahn said the developers appear willing to "go through a process of listening to the community and starting over to design a project that San Pedro can be proud of."

Developers, however, have indicated they believe the existing environmental report should still be usable.

Hahn said she's requesting a list of people the developer wants to meet with to ensure a broad spectrum is included.

"I just want to make sure they handpick people from all viewpoints," Hahn said. "One of the things I stressed to Jim Oswald was that he was coming into a very sophisticated community. This is a community that has spent a lot of time studying this project."

Participants have been selected largely by Ponte Vista spokeswoman Elise Swanson, and come from neighborhood councils, the community advisory committee and other stakeholders.

The 30- to 45-minute interviews will include some formal questions, Oswald said, but also some open-ended discussion.

Oswald said his goal is to identify what most of the concerns are and where the developer can make changes to better satisfy those concerns.

"I'm not going in with an agenda," Oswald said. "My agenda is their (the community's) agenda."
Whether a consensus is possible, though, remains to be seen.

"A lobbyist's dream is to be able to go to the City Council and Planning Commission and say everybody likes our project," said Ponte Vista spokesman Steve Arr. "I'm probably not going to be able to say that."

In the end, he said, "We'll probably have new supporters and new opponents."

Hahn said the project, first proposed in 2006, fell off course when the developer failed to listen to community concerns during the process in which a formal advisory committee tried to work toward a solution.

"They met for a year and it was a good group of people," Hahn said. "They were really open-minded and sat down with Bob Bisno for what was really to be a give-and-take. But that never happened."

Bisno finally agreed to lower housing numbers, but only from 2,300 to 1,950.

"That was the point when it went bad," Hahn said of the process. "That that group had been so disrespected that he came down only a couple hundred units was an insult. At that point the community lost trust."

Bisno was ousted from the project's development team in December.

But the same core developer -- DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners, a subsidiary of Credit Suisse -- remains in place.

The poor economy in some ways is an asset, developers said, noting that by the time anything is ready to be built the nation's financial picture should be better.

donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have been given some information that Mr. Oswald seems to be a fair person, willing to listen to all sides. This is encouraging, finally.

I do feel that all the 'formal question' Mr. Oswald poses should be placed on the Ponte Vista Web site, Your Ponte Vista.com, on my blog so the largest number of stakeholders have a chance to respond to those questions.

60 interviews out of a great number of residents of San Pedro, Rancho Palos Verdes, Harbor City, Lomita, Wilmington, and other communities seem like too small of a number, in my opinion.

I would also like to see Ms. Swanson offer a way for any and all of us to write our opinions that could be forwarded to Mr. Oswald.

Ms. Swanson already has a copy of my 'dream' proposal for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site and there really should be thousands of 'dream' proposals that Mr. Oswald and the Outreach Team can review.

I still contend that there are no longer 'supporters' and 'opponents' regarding Ponte Vista. We all get a do-over where we should be able to voice our own ideas, without being placed into a category.

The one thing that really needs to be accomplished soon is the removal from consideration of the current application and that there is no reasonable way to amend that application to find approval of anything that may come out of Mr. Oswald's interviews and future plans.

OUR community and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro team have the opportunity to start from scratch and find ways to provide the best new project for OUR community.

Let's work with everyone to achieve that result.

Odds and Ends 103

Well, I'm just about at the end of my second year of Odds and Ends and I'm still here, continuing this blog that was begun in September, 2006.

If you simply just drive by the Ponte Vista as San Pedro site, you can probably feel that absolutely nothing has been done since the property left the hands of the Federal Government and the Volunteers of America, years ago.

If you have that thought, you are both correct and incorrect.

We are still many months, or even perhaps years, away from any destruction of the current buildings on the site begin and the later construction of anything that may get approved.

But for many of us, we need to remind ourselves that there was a time that some people truly believed that 2,300 brand new condominium units would be under construction in phases, and that the first phases would be under construction as I am writing this post for Friday.
_____________________________________________

Ms. Swanson and her Outreach Team is continuing efforts to create a "whatever" type of group, advisory board, committee, or "whatever" to deal with what special members of OUR community will consider is something the rest of us can live with at Ponte Vista.

There will be an "Open House" in March, according to Ms. Swanson. Us regular folks will be invited to share our thoughts, comments, rants, raves, and numbers of units we think we can live with.

I have learned a number of more names of folks who have been asked to be interviewed.

I know what type of interview will be conducted, who is conducting the interviews, and what the process will be just after the interviews are finished.

I don't think anyone knows what will happen after the interviewer sends his comments to Credit Suisse and Mr. Ted Fentin.

If you want to see a Web site that looks impressive, go to: www.gensler.com.

I guess it will be up to Mr. Fentin to tell us what goes forward from the end of the interview process.

We can state that there is at least one person being interviewed that would not consider anything other than keeping the current zoning as it is on the site.

We also know that there will be folks interviewed that run the gamut between R1 and 2,300 units. There are also some who want the most number of units possible, with or without a density bonus.

I am interested in the processes and the outcome of the interviews.

I am still keeping much of my information private because I want the processes to proceed and succeed. It has been too long since compromise has been really considered and we shouldn't simply oppose the current processes and ideas coming forth.
____________________________________________

I have a post at: http://www.sanpedroissuestoponder.blogspot.com/ that deals with a recent meeting from representatives of Mayor Villaraigosa and his housing initiative.

If you look at that post, be sure to carefully look at the illustration that was presented to everyone at the meeting held in San Pedro, for San Pedrans and others, again in San Pedro.

The illustration is just about exactly how it was first presented on a big screen, in San Pedro.

That's San Pedro, California 90731.

It is one more example of what too many downtown L.A. bureaucrats think about San Pedro, one of the leading revenue generation areas of the entire city.

Also, the folks presenting the meeting didn't seem to realize they were speaking in San Pedro, a community that is debating and discussing the largest residential development project in the city of Los Angeles after Playa Vista.
_____________________________________________

It continues to look like the largest organized group opposing new residence halls on the campus of Marymount College wants to have a complete remodel and more off-campus student housing built at the College's Palos Verdes North site along Palos Verdes Drive North between Western Avenue and Five Points.

Currently there are no private junior colleges that are also considered "commuter colleges" in the State of California.

There are public colleges, four-year private and public educational institutions that have on-campus housing.

If Marymount is allowed to build on-campus student housing, 40% of the 1,561 daily vehicle trips associated with the college would pass along Western Avenue from approximately Crestwood Street to Palos Verdes Drive North.

There are no sufficient studies to determine the amount of new vehicle trips that would be generated if the housing units were greater in number than they currently are at the Palos Verdes North facility.

In fact, the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue was not studied with any detail or sufficient traffic counts no matter where student housing is located.

I understand that students being able to live on-campus during their college years may be a great thing. But for those of us having to deal with traffic in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, northwest San Pedro, and Western Avenue, it is not such a good thing.

Currently 70 of the 658 students currently enrolled at Marymount actually live in Rancho Palos Verdes while at least 400 students live in the two housing sites Marymount owns in San Pedro.
_____________________________________________

An Email With One Correction

An Email has been sent out from: "RNeighborhoodsAre1 Steering Committee"
According to the Email, it suggests that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team will not have or take input or hearings where citizens can participate.

Ms. Elise Swanson, the head of the Ponte Vista Outreach Team assured me that there will be a public "Open House" where members of the public can offer their opinions, number and types of units they want, rants, raves, suggestions for amenities, and whatever members of the public wish to speak about.

Ms. Swanson stated that they will try to schedule the "Open House" in March.

As for the rest of the Email, I happen to agree with everything else, but I felt it is only fair to correct an unfortunate miscommunication the writers of the Email may have with Ms. Swanson.

I am a member of the Steering Committee and I believe everyone needs to keep their eyes open and consider what they would like to see at Ponte Vista.

I hope readers of this blog will also realize that the current application cannot successfully be changed using only minor changes to find approval from the Planning Department and I have to agree with the Email that it is necessary to demand that all of the processes beginning with a brand new application based on realistic numbers and what is best for OUR community is in order.

So now that I have corrected the one item I don't happen to agree with, here is the body of the Email in question:

The Very Latest Update on Ponte Vista
_____________________________________________________________________________
Current Status

Almost everyone has heard that Credit Suisse First Boston has replaced Bob Bisno at Ponte Vista. However, everyone else except Bob remains on the Ponte Vista team.

Right now, the Ponte Vista application for 1950 units [2633 with the density bonus] is on the April 9, 2009 Planning Commission agenda. This was continued from February 12th at the request of Credit Suisse. However, while Planning Department staff recommended denying Ponte Vista’s application, they also said that, based on a proper application, approximately 885 units might work. Since this equates to 1196 units with the density bonus, far greater than the density of the Gardens, we question whether that is appropriate.

What Is Ponte Vista Up To?

Why would Ponte Vista continue a hearing they are sure to lose? Here’s why:

They will try to use the time to negotiate minor changes with Planning Department staff and ramrod it through the City Planning Commission without input from the community and without any of the hearing safeguards that are normally required. .

Ponte Vista has stated that they want to ‘reach out” and “work with the community” on a plan. We understand that they intend to meet with “key individuals” of their choosing. However, the rumor is that they may consider reducing the size to 1500 units [2025 with density bonus] and will try to negotiate this change with City Planning Department staff with no input or hearings where citizens can participate.

Why is a New Plan Important?

Ponte Vista needs to withdraw their existing application and start over, thereby allowing for consideration of a wider number of options for use of the property, obtain a credible traffic study, and permit public input in the planning process.

What Can You Do?

Send an email to the Planning Commission, with a copy to Janice Hahn, asking the City to

[1] turn down the present Ponte Visa application,

[2] require a new project application, and

[3] hold the April 9th hearing and future hearings on it in San Pedro. A sample e-mail letter is printed below. Cut and paste the subject line CPC 2006-8043 GPA-ZC-SP-DA, Ponte Vista into your email subject line.

Please email your letter to the Planning Commission (james.williams@lacity.org) with a copy (cc:) to Janice.Hahn@lacity.org stating that you support the staff recommendation for denial and asking that the meeting be held in San Pedro. You might also want to send us a copy (cc:) at info@rneighborhoodsare1.org. You can cut and paste and personalize the following message:


Sample letter:


Subject: CPC 2006-8043 GPA-ZC-SP-DA, Ponte Vista

I support the staff recommendation for denial. I am concerned about allowing Ponte Vista to continue the hearing on its current application while at the same time, they are telling the community that they intend to change their project. It sounds like they intend to negotiate with the City without the public input that would be required of a new application and without submitting adequate traffic and other analyses.

I am also concerned that all Planning Commission hearings are held downtown. These are very difficult for me to attend. I would like to request that any hearings on this project be held in San Pedro.

Thank you for listening.

What We Also Need Now

Thanks to everyone who has already help fund this cause, but additional contributions are still needed to help pay the attorneys' fees. You can still make make your contribution by using PayPal on line at http://www.rneighborhoodsare1.org and click on the donate button or by sending a check payable to

“R Neighborhoods Are 1" to:

R Neighborhoods Are 1
1840 S. Gaffey St. #316
San Pedro CA 90731-5361

Please note on the check that it is for the legal defense fund. We are keeping track of donations. If there are funds remaining after all the legal work is completed, we may be able to return some portion to the donors.

Volunteer to help get the word out. We are developing a list of individuals who will help get the word out in their respective neighborhoods. Please e-mail us at info@rneighborhoodsare1.org with your contact information if you are willing to help.

Check www.rneighborhoodsare1.org for the latest information

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.

Odds and Ends 102

All quiet on the Western front.

Look for things to pick up speed when the folks at Ponte Vista create their list of who might be asked to be interviewed to help produce a workable plan for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

Look towards February for more things to unfold.

The more members of the public who are interested and informed about Ponte Vista, the better.

Please consider seeking a place at the conference table regarding Ponte Vista.
_____________________________________________

Ancient But Revealing Article

The article that I am posting below may be ancient in today's rapidly changing world, but it does state what must be surely obvious to all of us who try to get around the greater Los Angeles Area.

Published almost ten years ago, the article contains the words, "smart growth" and not in a wonderful light.

Since the publication of the article, the 110 Freeway got its HOV lanes, but the Long Beach Freeway still is stuck with basically its same geometry.

Whatever benefits have been gained during the last 9 years since the article was published has been more than eaten up by increased population and so many more vehicles on the road.

But sometimes it might be a good idea to learn from the past so we don't repeat it. Unfortunately, the L.A. Department of Transportation and others didn't seem to remember or learn what they should have.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Honk if You Love Traffic
By Wendell Cox

Op-ed published by Los Angeles Daily News17 October 1999

Everyone believes Los Angeles is the ultimate in "urban sprawl" -- low density residential and commercial development. And, indeed, Los Angeles covers a lot of territory -- stretching 75 or more miles from Ventura to Beaumont and from Santa Clarita to San Clemente.

But compared to the sparse suburbanization of other U.S. cities over the past 50 years, Angelenos are packed in like sardines. Los Angeles now has the highest population density per square mile.

For example, if Los Angeles followed Portland, Ore.'s more sprawling path, the Southland would extend uninterrupted to Mojave, Barstow and Indio.

If Los Angeles were developed at the same density as the New York City area, nearly 10 percent more rural land would have been developed.

Most people also believe that Los Angeles is nothing but freeways. The fact that Los Angeles has the nation's worst traffic congestion has led some anti-automobile interests to suggest that freeways are incapable of solving the problem.

However, Los Angeles has less freeway space per capita than most urban areas -- ranking 44th out of the largest 57 urbanized areas in 1996, according to Federal Highway Administration data.
Nashville and Kansas City have approximately double the equivalent freeway lane miles of Los Angeles, and traffic congestion is under control in both locations.

The plain fact is that Los Angeles, with an urbanized area density of 5,800 residents per square mile, has a freeway system that is at least one-third too small to accommodate travel demand.

This did not have to be the case. Decades ago, the California Highway Department planned to build freeways four miles apart that would have provided close access to virtually the entire community.

Unfortunately, special interests and communities opposed the freeways planned in the San Fernando Valley along Reseda Boulevard, Topanga Canyon Boulevard and a mid-Valley east-west route so vociferously that they were canceled, as was a freeway planned for Slauson Boulevard.

Had all those freeways been built, there would be considerably less traffic congestion in Los Angeles today.

Clogged traffic should have been recognized as a conscious choice based upon the freeway development policies that were pursued.

There was also a lot of wishful thinking that didn't materialize. Policy wonks believed the public would abandon their cars in droves and hop on buses or subways. They didn't.

Thirty years of history make it clear -- people love their cars. And it's not just a phenomenon found in Los Angeles. From Europe to Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- more cars are fighting for space.

It is time that state and local officials recognize the obvious -- that the automobile is here to stay and the number of cars will continue to grow at least at the rate of population growth.

No amount of transit expansion or rail construction is going to change that. Providing transportation for the future means providing for the automobile, pure and simple.
Solving the traffic problem in Los Angeles won't be easy. But it can be done. It means either building more freeways and/or improving efficiency.

Politically, the task is daunting.

Practically speaking, adding capacity isn't a problem. For example, in Tokyo, a city that has more people but fewer cars, double-deck freeways are being constructed in the middle of major surface streets, while major downtown streets are double decked. Little additional right of way is required by these approaches.

And Paris is beginning to build 60 miles of underground freeways.

Making roadway use more efficient also could be easily solved by adopting the type of road pricing plans that operate in Singapore. During peak periods, car and truck drivers are debited by freeway scanning devices that make toll booths unnecessary.

Making drivers pay more during peak hours would discourage freeway use at the most congested times.

That certainly would reduce traffic congestion, but almost as certainly would rile the public who are used to paying for roadways at the gas pump rather than on the highway.

Until the politics changes, traffic congestion will continue to get worse.

But if government adopts the current fashionable idea of "smart growth" the worst will happen sooner.

Well meaning but naive people believe that such so-called "smart growth" -- increasing densities and restricting growth boundaries -- will reduce traffic congestion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Traffic congestion in the United States and around the world is worse in more densely populated urban areas.

The reason is very simple -- higher population densities mean more cars per square mile, more travel per square mile and thus, worse traffic congestion, not to mention air pollution.

The last thing Los Angeles needs is higher densities. It may seem ironic, but at the end of the 20th century, Los Angeles faces the nation's most severe traffic congestion because it has become too dense and has too few freeways.

Wendell Cox was a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission from 1977-1985.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Since the article was written there have been busway access points added to the 110 Freeway, but still there is only one METRO bus line that travels along Western Avenue during the day.

I don't believe that Ponte Vista would ever receive real beliefs that is could be completed and be truly be called a development that had enough of the smart growth standards needed.

It certainly could be built utilizing some of those standards.

As I have considered for several years and illustrated on this blog, there needs to be a route to Gaffey provided for both Ponte Vista and Mary Star of the Sea High School.

With 'new' ideas that will be considered, the new route should come up again with real discussions this time and more pressure on the U.S. Navy by regular residents and those who want housing at Ponte Vista in numbers greater than 420-735.

Now that the Planning Department has opined that there should only be two access points along Western in and out of Ponte Vista, the new route to Gaffey should be given even greater importance as a subject to consider and work towards.

Ponte Vista may never reach the heights of truly being considered as real smart growth, but that doesn't mean we can help it achieve as many of the standards as it can get. That may end up helping all of us out in the long run.

Odds and Ends 101

I've taken a slow pace when considering Ponte Vista this week and I may not have been the only one.

There was nothing new to be found at www.yourpontevista.com as of Thursday night. I hope the Outreach Team has been working on plans how to get more community involvement into the process of considering what could be successfully built on the site.

Maybe next week will find all of us learning more that can be published.
_____________________________________________

Here is a bit of a warning for folks who may read this blog and live in areas where things like this are occurring.

Apparently there are folks knocking on doors in the area claiming to represent the Peninsula High School football team's efforts at raising funds.

This is a scam and it has been reported and information has been passed around the areas further up on The Hill.

However, my doorbell was rung the other night by two individuals who claimed they represented Narbonne High School and it appears they were asking for funds, too.

I can't say whether they were legit or not, but since I am on a very fixed income that is not very big at all, I did not provide either of the two any money.
_____________________________________________

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission is continuing its public hearing regarding the Marymount College Expansion Project and I have mentioned that in earlier posts.

It also seems that opponents to that particular development project also have a great deal of difficulty with the Traffic and Circulation Section of the Project's EIRs.

Tuesday evening may get as interesting as some of the meetings many of us attended regarding the Ponte Vista project.
____________________________________________

Planning Commission Meeting Regarding Marymount's Expansion

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission will continue to take oral comments concerning the Marymount College Expansion Project at is meeting scheduled for Tuesday January 27, 2009, beginning at 7:00 PM, inside the City Council Chambers at Hesse Park.

You are also encouraged to contribute written comments to the Planning Commission and you may do that via Email, using the Marymount College Expansion Project in the subject line and sending the Email to: aram@rpv.com That address is for Mr. Ara Mihranian, the city's manager for the project.

The Expansion Project's most controversial aspect is the proposition of placing 128-on campus dormitory rooms to house 250 students and 5 faculty advisers.

I will posting this notice on three of my blogs and providing some different comments on each blog, depending on the blog.

For anyone considering anything about Ponte Vista at San Pedro, you may want to learn some facts about the proposed expansion.

If the proposed plans are accepted, over 1,500 ADDED trips to and from the campus would be generated every weekday classes are held.

40% of the added traffic would travel along Western Avenue from Crestwood Street to P.V. Dive North.

Actually the Traffic and Circulation section of Marymount's Environmental Reports have significant errors that should be corrected before approval is granted for anything.

There is an Alternative that states if on-campus housing is not granted, the College's administration may want to increase the number of students and faculty living at the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site on P.V. Drive North.

This would be almost a complete disaster, in my opinion, if this were to happen.

The Alternative also includes items that would basically place the entire Athletic Department and their classes at Palos Verdes North, along with a large increase in housing units.

The off-campus housing site already has about 300 individuals living there on a site that has a code variance because there are actually more dwelling units at the site than is currently allowed by L.A. zoning laws.

I doubt very much that the College's administration is looking to try and deal with the city of Los Angeles with regards to expanding the off-campus housing site, but you need to know that it is on the table.

No matter what you would like to see at the Ponte Vista site, I hope you join many of us in objecting to any on-campus housing being built at Marymount College and that there must be no real consideration of the Alternative which would add more units along Palos Verdes Drive North.

DLJ Funds, But Doesn't Really Develop

DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners LP looks to be a member of the Alternative Investments division of Credit Suisse financial organization.

From what I have read on the Internet, here is how Credit Suisse acquired DLJ.

In 2000, the giant investment and brokerage firm of Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jennerette sold its real estate funding business to Credit Suisse First Boston.

The acquired unit was named CSFB Realty.

In 2002, Credit Suisse quietly closed down tha unit, but kept the name DLJ and subsequently created DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners, LP.

There is nothing that I have been able to find that suggests that DLJ has anything to do with planning what types of units would be built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners appears to be a financial organization and continues to have the funding to back whoever is attempting to act as a developer for the project.

It is my impression that Mr. Ted Fentin in his role as a representative of DLJ is primarily concerned with the funding and financial management of the project.

I feel it is still fair to request that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team provide the name or names of individuals who actually are supposedly replacing Bob as a developer of the project.

Mr. Fentin may be the one person who give the go ahead with whatever is proposed, but from what I have been reading, his firm doesn't deal with physical project proposals, mitigation, and outreach, other than in a financial way.

As I learn more, I will post more.

Odds and Ends 100

Wow and THANK YOU!!!!!

If someone had told me just after I wrote "Odds and Ends 10" that I would still be creating weekly posts for Friday publication, I would not have believed them.

It's 2009 already and many people thought the old duplexes would have been gone by now and Bob would have left to let a contracting firm deal with the site, while the marketing team was busy collecting deposits on units that had blueprints drawn and willing buyers.

I don't know if any of us could have imagined that opposition to the first plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro would get us, partially, to where we are today.

It is impossible not to believe that the recent, current, and future economic turmoil has had an impact on all of the issues, but when OUR community got together and said, "NO!" I guess we were believed.

I feel all of us have learned quite a bit. I am still looking for someone to help me with a book about what has happened so far. To claim that events surrounding Ponte Vista as San Pedro weren't interesting, would not be a believable claim.

Where we are today is where we were almost four years ago with the giant exception that all of us have learned so much more than we knew that long ago and the Outreach Team also has learned quite a bit, I believe.

That exception provides the fact that we will not be starting over from scratch and as we start over, many new implications, concerns, visions, and discussions will become very important.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. In this case, we will watch very carefully for any attempts by anyone to fool anyone else. This is a major piece of education I think we have all learned.

Caution now replaces the optimism first expressed by too many people when thinking about the project.

Caution in this instance is going to be a good thing to insure that whatever is approved of at the site will meet the best interests of OUR community and not just a developer trying to profit at our expense.

Caution is also something we need to use as we really try to work with everyone, including the Outreach Team and the development team, whoever they are, now and in the future.

Can some kind of development of the property be successful? I certainly hope it can and I will help try and make it so.

I feel everyone is a stakeholder if they feel they are. Everyone should be heard who wants to speak.
_____________________________________________

If I remember correctly, Mr. Ted Fentin, the Credit Suisse representative identified in the article was one of the two people Ms. Swanson gave me the name of, last year.

I bring that point up because I have not seen any published reports as to who makes up the 'new' development team for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

We have been told that DLJ Real Estate Property Management Co. is now involved, but wouldn't it be a good, trust-providing thing to do, for the Outreach Team to provide the names of the individuals who will be making up the new development team?

If the names of Mr. Alan Abshez or Mr. Hoffman are included, that is a sign that some of the 'new' members are not new at all and are still affiliated with Bisno Development Co., LLC.

It's kind of funny to see "Copyright 2009 Bisno Development Company, LLC" on the right side of the 'your ponte vista'. It might make somebody think that Bob is still in the picture. Is he?

I thought Bob was removed in 2008. Oh well, he may still own the site.

If may bring up the issue of whether to trust folks representing Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I think I uses a word several times on this post that states what I feel should be the way folks look at the issues.
_____________________________________________

Since the Outreach Team still seems to try and tell you that Ponte Vista at San Pedro will be used using 'smart growth' techniques, I moved the very, very large article by Mr. David Zanhiser up to where you can find it.

The article was first published in June, 2007 in the L.A. Weekly and it is titled;
What's so smart about smart growth.

Real smart growth involves many things including creating a community that favors walking places, nearby mass transit hubs, many shopping venues, and a community that fits in with the mush larger surrounding community.

I am sure the Outreach Team will advise you to go to: www.smartgrowth.org so I am jumping in and letting you know about that site. It is a treasure trove of information about smart growth and what qualifies and what does not.

A smart growth community has businesses that allow residents to walk from their home to where they work or take a few steps to a mass transit hub to get to work in an area close to another mass transit hub.

A smart growth community also tries to reflect the nature and tenor of the overall area of the city where it is located.

A smart growth community allows for residents to get to and from major shopping and entertainment venues by walking or utilizing mass transit that is located at the smart growth community.

Line 205 of the MTA, the ONLY bus line traveling past Ponte Vista does NOT go to the Del Amo Mall, the Promenade Mall in Rolling Hills Estates, but does end up at the 110-105/Green Line hub.

I'll be watching how the Outreach Team spins their smart growth concepts and how Ponte Vista fits in with the rest of the San Pedro community.

Frankly, with all my reading, it could never qualify to receive official claim of being a smart growth project.

The Outreach Team will also spin LEEDs certification. It is a very good thing to be environmentally conscious and Ponte Vista will (hopefully) be built satisfying all the requirements for LEEDs certification. What folks may not know is that by the time the project gets approved for any new building, the requirements will be mandatory and more regulations are being approved of all the time.

Ponte Vista will provide the benefits of the certification because they will most probably be required to do so.
_____________________________________________

I think since the time span has literally been years since the traffic and transportation studies and the school enrollment studies have been done regarding the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project, new ones for any new application need to be conducted.

Now that Mary Star is open, we can get a better set of studies conducted. Since Dodson Middle School continues to have about 600 students bused in and an unknown number of students being driven to that campus from outside San Pedro and R.P.V., this is another reason why new studies should be undertaken.

The economic arena should be restudied because of the opening of Target and the loss of businesses within a five-mile radius of the site may have changed the dynamics in a big way.

I highly doubt that a revised application should be accepted by anyone.

The guidelines set up by the Planning Department suggest one fewer access route into and out of Ponte Vista so just about everything associated with the very area most local to the project's site will be greatly changed. Longer turning lanes, different signal timing, more congestion, and more mitigation will be necessary.
____________________________________________

What' Smart About Smart Growth

Some individuals have asked me to post the entire article titled "What's Smart About Smarth Growth?" by Mr. David Zanihser, originally published in the May 30 edition of the L.A. Weekly.

The article is about 7,189 words and I have to divide it up into several posts. I tried for over an hour to get the whole thing onto one post. I am now posting the article based on major sections as laid out by Mr. Zanhiser, in his article.

Here is the first section:

What's Smart About Smart Growth?

City Hall's plan for the future expects you to give up the yard, the car - and learn to love density
By DAVID ZAHNISER
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 3:00 pm

We are not moving. We, the passengers of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s No. 304 bus, are not moving. The traffic signal up ahead is green. But we are not moving because we sit behind a constellation of brake lights, a seemingly endless chain of cars lined up end to end as far as the passengers can see.

The No. 304 bus is heading east on Santa Monica Boulevard in rush-hour traffic, inching its way out of Century City and into Beverly Hills. Because traffic is terrible, as it so frequently is on the Westside, the bus is nowhere near to being on schedule. After all, it spent 27 minutes traveling in a straight line from Lincoln Boulevard to the 405 freeway — a pace of 7.5 miles per hour.

“It’s always like this,” declares passenger Sharon Tohline, who takes the No. 304 each day to her job at Koning Eisenberg, an architecture firm in Santa Monica. Because her firm specializes in environmentally friendly design, and because her 7-year-old Mazda has seen better days, Tohline decided to do her part and hop on the bus. Now, she has a commute that consumes three hours each day.

The bus on Santa Monica Boulevard isn’t just slow, by the way. It is also smelly. Wretchedly smelly. One passenger asks out loud whether someone vomited. In reality, the odor comes from the disheveled man with a ponytail in the third to last row, who grins incoherently as he sways to 50 Cent’s “In Da Club” playing on a nearby stereo. The stench is violating, so powerful that passengers have emptied out the seats on each side of the smelly, drugged-out man.

Tohline is philosophical about the situation, making jokes about indignities suffered on other commutes, like the day passengers swiftly concealed a mystery odor by spraying perfume. The 26-year-old native of Louisiana also makes sure her hours on the bus aren’t wasted time. She has an iPod, the preferred device of the bus passenger, and she has books. Many books. Tohline has read 30 of them since she started taking the bus in February — Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything Is Illuminated, Nicole Krauss’ The History of Love and, most recently, Marisha Pessl’s 514-page Special Topics in Calamity Physics. “I polished it off in a week,” she says.

If the bus is moving slowly now, wait a few years.

Huge development projects are planned for Santa Monica Boulevard, in a district of Los Angeles known as Century City. The Related Companies recently demolished the St. Regis Hotel to build a 42-story condominium tower. Westfield, the shopping-mall giant, is planning a 42-story skyscraper that combines shopping with condos. And JMB Realty, based in Chicago, recently received the go-ahead to build two 47-story condo towers and a 12-story loft on nearby Constellation Boulevard.

The elites who control L.A. real estate have two words to describe the changes in store for Century City: smart growth. When planners talk about smart growth in Century City, they mean high-density housing in a job center. When lobbyists talk about smart growth in Century City, they mean luxury condos surrounded by walkable streets. Even Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss, who does not hide his boredom with certain planning issues, rhapsodized in January that Century City will one day behave like a village, not an intimidating cluster of skyscrapers. In other words, smart growth.

Los Angeles leaders are pinning their hopes on smart growth, the utopian planning vision that seeks to halt the suburban sprawl that comes with endlessly expanding cities. Politicians, planners and policy types say smart growth, sometimes described as “new urbanism,” will relieve the region’s housing shortage, diminish its traffic woes and solve L.A.’s overall unlivability.

Real estate developers have caught on, using the phrase shamelessly to gain public support for enormous developments, from a hillside subdivision near Santa Clarita to the Westside’s Playa Vista, the massive, 5,800-home development near Marina del Rey. In a city where growth was once a dirty word, smart growth is the spoonful of sugar that suddenly makes bigness palatable.

Conceived a decade ago as a way to protect open space, smart growth relies on a few major precepts. One is that the car is bad. Another is that cities should be composed of villages, where residents walk to their amenities — shops, restaurants, a decent dry cleaner. To make those places walkable, housing and businesses are concentrated in the same multistory buildings, according to the smart-growth doctrine. And to discourage cars further, those “mixed use” buildings are placed on big streets with frequent public transit, like Santa Monica Boulevard.

With a real estate boom serving as the spark, smart-growth projects have spread like wildfire, rising near subway and light-rail stations. Hollywood is adding thousands of condos and apartments along the Metro Red Line. Koreatown is ground zero for hundreds of new multistory homes and offices near the subway. Little Tokyo is a magnet for four- and five-story condo projects, largely because of a Metro Gold Line station slated to open in 2009.

And Union Station, the 1939 train depot and Los Angeles icon, is now hidden by apartments on two sides — a situation viewed as a disaster by L.A. design purists.

Beyond this construction near the area’s few rail lines, the city's many bus corridors are also attracting apartments, lofts, town homes and condos — La Brea Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard, Vine Street and Ventura Boulevard, Western Avenue and Washington Boulevard. Higher-density housing is being recommended for any corner where a bus arrives every 15 minutes or less.

And that leads to one huge problem: For all the talk of a subway to the sea, Los Angeles is a bus town. For each mile of rail operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, there are 40 miles of bus routes. And in 2007, the average speed of the widely used orange bus is just 11.7 miles per hour. Buses, which will serve in many ways as the backbone for smart growth, are stuck in traffic along with everybody else.

If smart growth is about changing behavior — getting people to give up the car, the backyard, the five-bedroom house on a cul-de-sac — then planning gurus are taking a tremendous gamble in Los Angeles, the city that made sprawl the urban form of the 20th century.

Smart-growth enthusiasts believe motorists will become so fed up sitting in traffic that they will abandon their cars for a substandard transit system. The bus, in particular, provides a series of indignities: the lone screaming passenger who makes everyone else miserable; televisions that noisily broadcast commercials for gym equipment; the ban on beverages and food. (You can bring a travel mug on the bus; you just can’t drink from it.) And despite all that inconvenience, MTA daily passes are set to double in price — to $6 in 2009.

Advocates of smart growth are making a second risky bet, arguing that once someone makes a home in a condo or a multistory apartment building, he or she will work nearby — reducing the number of cars on traffic-choked streets. Or, as a newsletter published in 2005 by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce put it: “More [transit] funds and smart growth are key to correcting L.A.’s traffic woes.”

So here’s an unpleasant thought: Unless enough people can be persuaded to change their behavior, the L.A. traffic nightmare will be much, much worse under smart growth — miles and miles of high-density neighborhoods, with public transportation no one but the poorest residents will use, or tolerate.

Smart-growth advocates say they aren’t worried. The city will need density either way, they say, just to qualify for federal funding that pays for rail. If traffic gets worse in the short term, neighborhoods will finally rise up and demand the light-rail and subway lines that could transform Los Angeles into a functioning city, says Gloria Ohland, vice president for communications with Reconnecting America, an organization that promotes rail and transit-oriented development.

“Traffic, which is the problem, is also the solution,” Ohland says. “So I would argue, boost the density in Century City. Build it out to the max. And then, there will be the constituency to build a subway down Wilshire Boulevard.”

Ohland and many other smart-growth backers assume that at some unknown point, the number of commuters who abandon their cars will reach a critical mass and the city will become more livable. But no one knows precisely when — or if — that will happen. To make it work, they will need commuters like Tohline, the 26-year-old office worker who gave up her car.

With a three-hour daily commute, Tohline could easily succumb to the boredom and get back behind the wheel. After all, no subway will reach Century City for at least a decade. And even if it does, that subway will come from Koreatown, not from the Hollywood neighborhood where Tohline lives.

Asked how long she can last on the bus, Tohline pauses. “I don’t know yet,” she says, as her bus heads past the skyscrapers of Century City. Even the upbeat commuter on the No. 304 is no sure thing.

More of What's Smart About Smart Growth

The Unnerving New Map

Los Angeles has always had an uneasy relationship with growth. The archetypal boom-and-bust town, L.A. repeatedly sees its real estate market surge and recede, with each growth spurt followed by a period of financial pain. Transportation was the catalyst for one of the earliest booms, with newcomers flooding into the city after fares on the transcontinental railroad from the Midwest to L.A. dropped to $1 per ticket. Land values soared — until a bank crisis caused a collapse in 1888.

For much of the 20th century, growth was considered good in Los Angeles. The city accommodated its continual influx by creating the most extensive trolley network in the nation. It was dismantled after World War II, replaced by the “Motor Coach” — General Motors’ halfhearted marketing term for the bus — and by the sprawling freeway system.

With the freeways came discontent, as traffic choked the Westside and then much of the city. The symbol of anti-growth ire was Proposition U, which voters easily passed in 1988. Proposition U shifted L.A.’s planning equation from unbridled growth to “slow growth,” by limiting the height of buildings on major boulevards to 45 feet and cutting in half each commercial building’s “floor area ratio” — a formula used to determine the mass of a building. Then, in the wake of the 1992 riots, a crushing recession stopped development almost completely, and growth slowed on its own.

But at the start of this decade, and without much public notice, slow growth was replaced by the concept of “smart growth,” as Los Angeles city planners quietly urged elected officials to put “mixed use” projects on major boulevards, with retail on the ground floor and housing up above.

The first push for higher-density housing came in 2002, during the administration of Mayor James Hahn, when the Los Angeles City Council passed — with little scrutiny — a law allowing projects with affordable housing to exceed existing density limits by more than one-third if they were near a rail station or any of the city’s dozens of bus routes.

Months later in 2002, again with little public involvement, the council went further, voting unanimously to create a smart-growth zoning designation — “Residential Accessory Services” — that allows developers to build projects twice the size previously allowed if they combine housing and businesses in the same building.

On low-rise commercial avenues and boulevards like Ventura, La Brea and Pico, developers suddenly found that by adding housing, they could blow past the growth limits voters established under Proposition U. Prop. U, after all, only capped the size of commercial and industrial buildings.

The results can be seen all over the city, with construction pits and steel girders marking where the development rules have abruptly changed.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, elected in 2005, says smart-growth strategies will produce “elegant density,” multistory buildings that are embraced by neighborhoods. But County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who campaigned for Prop. U, has a more skeptical view, saying the Department of City Planning found a way to circumvent the electorate.

“There’s nothing elegant about busting the limits that have been in place on the Westside, that I got in place in my district,” Yaroslavsky says. “And it isn’t elegant to the people who thought they were protected by the restraints we put in place 20 years ago in those neighborhoods.”

Eight thousand housing units — accommodating thousands of new residents — have been approved in the past three years using the new smart-growth zoning, says Jane Blumenfeld, a 16-year veteran of the planning department. To help her employees understand where she believes that zoning makes sense, Blumenfeld created a map that shows every place in Los Angeles that sits within 1,500 feet of a major transit stop — that is, a transit stop at which a bus or train arrives every 15 minutes during afternoon rush hour.

( Map ommited from this copy. Please visit http://www.laweekly.com/ to find it)

The map is, to put it mildly, jarring. On it, nearly every boulevard north of the Santa Monica Freeway and south of the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills appears as though it could be converted to smart-growth zoning. A huge swath of South Los Angeles and several pockets of the San Fernando Valley are also prime candidates.

Why? Because nearly every boulevard has a bus. “We want to build housing near transit, as opposed to building it where there’s no ability to reach transit,” says Blumenfeld, who oversees citywide planning strategies. “South of the mountains, there’s pretty much transit everywhere.”

Blumenfeld cautions that the map is only a guide, and can’t be used to force density on the few remaining areas still designated R-1, or single-family, where no more than one house can be constructed on a residential lot.

The new higher density, she says, will go primarily in places permitted in each neighborhood’s community plan. Community plans are official documents now being updated, with varying levels of community input, all over Los Angeles. First up in the battle over adding new density to their community plans are West Los Angeles, Sunland-Tujunga, Westlake and parts of South Los Angeles.

Barring another Prop. U–style voter revolt against development, Los Angeles residents won’t be given a choice. For the past few years, the neighborhoods have been warned: If they don’t find places to allow density, the planning department — and the 15 City Council members — will find those places for them.

Hollywood resident Lucille Saunders is not quite ready to see her city remade on such a dramatic scale. A volunteer with the Melrose Neighborhood Association, she has been combating a proposal for an outsize 219-unit apartment building on La Brea Avenue. Minutes after she testified at City Hall, Saunders took one look at the map and gasped. “It’s a travesty,” she declares. “It just seems as though this is opening the entire city, the entire central city, to whatever the developers want.”

Saunders’ group was prepared to allow a three-story apartment complex on La Brea. But when the developer announced his desire for seven stories and an exemption from height limits, her group hired a lawyer — and a lobbyist. After spending thousands of dollars, the Melrose Neighborhood Association persuaded city officials to prepare a full environmental impact report on the project, a move that delays but does not stop the seven-story tower

.With so many bulked-up buildings springing up on major boulevards, some politicians are seeing a resurgence in restlessness over new construction. Councilman Weiss, whose district includes Century City and much of the Westside, has been targeted for recall by a handful of neighborhood groups. And Supervisor Yaroslavsky, who pushed for “slow growth” initiatives two decades ago as a city councilman, says traffic is so bad that he no longer travels to certain parts of his district in the late afternoon.

Yaroslavsky blames not only Los Angeles, but smaller cities like West Hollywood and Santa Monica, for allowing developers to go for projects that were “previously unacceptable.”

“There is a revolt that is now surfacing in various parts of Los Angeles, and rightly so,” Yaroslavsky says. “Communities [will] never be able to compete with the real estate lobby. All they have is their political power and their voice. And they need to be heard.”