As many of you know, I have not been aligned with the supporters of the Ponte Vista development project nor the opposition group "R Neighborhoods Are 1" created specifically to thwart the project. I wanted to remain an open objectice critic of both sides, consistently holding both accountable for answering specific questions and concerns I had or were brought to my attention by stakeholders in San Pedro. I have met many intelligent people on both sides, as well as others who shared my skepticism of the selective information disseminated by both sides. When there have been forums, rather than pick a side and join the "rally", I have often spoke about my concerns with both sides, often meaning that neither side of supporters gave very much applause.
At the latest forum held last Thursday at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, I honestly believe I was the only objective speaker out of the hundreds that pulled a speaker card. I say so based on a simple observation: I was the only person I saw in the room with a "Neutral" speaker card, which was white. Those speaking For or Against were given Blue & Pink colored cards, respectively. When I spoke, I gave each side something to address that would show me that they were truly considering the interests of the community, and not their own self-serving ones.
For the Ponte Vista developers, I have been impressed with their willingness to redesign the complex to reduce the number of occupants and address the traffic issues. I have always been a proponent of public transit as the biggest opportunity to take cars off the road. My challenge for the development was to ensure the design of the complex allowed for the pick-up and unloading of passengers for the Dash system, as well as the Max Transit, the route that goes from Western Avenue up through Torrance to all of the major aerospace companies.
For the R-1 opposition group, I have two issues that have yet to be addressed: 1) The R-1 group has been unable to produce a counter-design for councilmembers and neighborhood council members to consider that meets the R-1 zoning and would still be a viable project. One-way studies have been paid for to basically support pre-answered hypotheses, but no one has shown that the R-1 zoning supports viable development of the site. Therefore, my conclusion is that no such design can be produced; and 2) With the current real estate market already being flooded with devalued homes, causing many of us to lose a significant amount of equity in the past year, why would it be economically feasible to support a development project that adds another 500+ single-family residences to the San Pedro / East RPV market? Many of the R-1 activists bought into their homes many years ago, or inherited their San Pedro homes from family. Equity drops are a small concern for them. For those of us who bought homes in the last 10 years, we stand to lose a significant amount of equity from an additional flood of homes on the market driving prices down further. Again, the R-1 group has no answers for this concern.
So after having my concerns addressed, if not resolved, by the Ponte Vista development staff and supporters, and having the R-1 activist group members basically downgrade my concerns about their position. I have decided to go on the record (via this blog post and future letters to come) and announce my support for the Ponte Vista project.
I have always been supportive of the project's primary benefits, including senior housing units & services, mid-range housing for working families, and the development of the property overall as an asthetic improvement to what is currently there. I am pleased that the developer renewed their previous commitment to the Eastview Little League to provide fields for use; I still believe that the original recision by the developer to produce the fields was the root cause for the whole fiasco last year that resulted in the dog park being taken away. I look forward to my friends of Eastview having a more permament location, and hopefully having time in the future to attend more than one game a year.
I still have concerns with traffic and environmental impact of a development on the property, but believe, based on my experience living in both condo complexes and SFR neighborhoods, that an R-1 development will also have the same impact issues. I suspect that the R-1 group does not want R-1 development on the site any more than the proposed project itself. My belief is that they are are hoping to stall development efforts indefinitely, and hope that the developer will eventually sell the property to the city for some community project, like a park or homeless facility. (In many parts of San Pedro and the City of Los Angeles, parks become homeless camps fairly quickly anyway.) I have always stated that the "no development" solution is the worst one; the property needs to be developed, and if the R-1 group is unable to generate a viable R-1 design for the site, then the City Council should realize that one does not exist.
So, in summary, I have spent over two years weighing the arguments of both sides, and have decided that the Ponte Vista project should go forward as it has now been designed. The project will generate jobs, mid-range housing for younger couples, and a senior living community that will make all of us want to become "55 and up" much faster. You are welcome to either post your public comments or e-mail me your private comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
John, I wish you would have paid more attention.
There were THREE different compromise ideas put forth by the Community Advisory I belonged to.
Bob only lowered the number of units by 350 and out of 2,300 that is not much of a compromise I feel.
I also wish that everyone who considers themself to have been or is now neutral, they would look at ALL the information they can get their hands on.
John, did you ask me or Pat for information about anything? The two of us have more independent and objective writings than probably anyone else on the Ponte Vista issues.
I have provided lots of folks with unbiased information, even though on May 29, 2007 I finally had to consider R1 as the only option available because Bob has been so very reluctant to talk about real compromise.
I am sure you know as a N.C. member how Northwest worked closely with Target and the new housing project on Gaffey and how they worked so well with you, when Bob and his Outreach Team doesn't seem willing to work constructively with Northwest.
It is NOT in the best interest of OUR community to have 1,950 condominiums built in northwest San Pedro and if you can't understand that, then there is nothing anyone can do that might allow you to see where a middle road might be found.
You are most welcome, as anyone else is, to contact me with questions. I will do my best to provide the honest and most truthful answers I can.
I have written about what folks may find on all sides of the issues and early on I created a post called "The Ugly Truth" which tells folks who support keeping the current zoning at the property what we would be in for.
I did not come lightly into the arena that demands keeping Ponte Vista R1 and it took time for me to realize that the applicant, who should be willing to work with the community has been dividing us with his attempts for us to come up with compromises, instead of him.
He wants his cake served up by good people in OUR community, yet he is unwilling to tell us what kind of cake he will accept, other than one that is simply too big.
MW
Hello Mark,
Thank you for your comments.
Both you and Pat have known my concerns on both sides of this issue for over a year, if not two. Whenever I sat down with Pat, he basically talked to me like I was simply too inexperienced to know better. My neighbors and friends from local groups still want to know how the community is supposed to absorb over 450 SFR homes without affecting property values. Many are already struggling to meet mandatory refinances due to drops in their home equity below the 80/20 threshold, and they feel that "older residents" have no concern for their situation. Basically, the newer generation of homeowners (whom we meet at the library storytimes and at the playgrounds) feels alienated and unwelcome by the earlier generations who don't understand (or don't care) how a glut in SFR housing may force them to short-sell or even foreclose.
I've asked for a viable R-1 design of the property many times, and did so publicly in a Daily Breeze Letter to the Editor back in January or so. I provided this recommendation to the Planning Commission and specifically stated that I believe the "real" decision is between developing a multi-family complex or nothing at all. If a viable R-1 design of the property could truly be created that would allow for a modest profit and would sell units quickly enough to not downwardly affect the housing market, why wouldn't the R-1 group be promoting it at every turn? I'm sure it's been attempted behind closed doors without success. And while you have shared with me your personal mission of the R-1 group to drive the number of units down to an acceptable number ABOVE the R-1 amount, I believe many of your other members, including Diana & Pat Nave, do not want any development there at all. I suspect they are concerned that ANY property complex there will result in a large group of aligned stakeholders that will take over their NC, just like in Playa Vista.
Speaking of, I was amazed at how rude I was treated by Diana Nave at the forum last week, simply because I was not holding a PINK speaker card, but a WHITE general comments card. Dan Dixon had invited me to sit next to him, but then Diana had some "master speaker card" plan that I guess I interfered with. First she told me that I was sitting in Janice's seat; but when Janice took a seat in the front row, I was then in "someone else's" seat. Even my Democratic Party rival, Sergio Carillo, greeted me better and engaged in an open, objective discussion about his support for the Ponte Vista project, while I gave him my issues with the project as Elise Swanson listened. Rather than tell me I'm just inexperienced and putting my comments aside, both gave my comments merit and I got word that they will likely add one idea to ensure the Dash bus can make the necessary U-turn within the complex. The rude treatment by Diana left a big impression on me and likely made me more open to talking with Sergio and Elise later in the evening.
This after, at one point last year, I was the ONLY critic of Bisno Development for putting Eastview Little League into the situation it was in. Most of the other NC members alienated them, while I endorsed some of them for the NC election last year to get them integrated with the community. The Naves and their supporters treated them like "Playa Vista" candidates, even though they had told Bisno they would not sign an endorsement for the 2300+ homes, and were willing to lose their fields because of it. The R-1 group did not support Eastview LL in their time of need, and lost a huge opportunity. Now they've negotiated with Bisno on their own, and will likely never forget who was with them when they were in dire straights, and who made them feel unwanted.
While I am expecting the project to reduce in size one more time to about 1600 units, I am giving credit to those that addressed my issues rather than belittled them. If you're expecting voters to seek you out with their questions, you likely have fewer supporters than your signature cards suggest; I can guarantee you that the Ponte Vista group is seeking out those that signed your petitions to try and swing them, just as I would expect your group to be doing.
As you've pointed out, at some point there's going to be a complex there, filled with families looking for supportive local groups to welcome them and make them feel at home. It will be very easy for these new residents to quickly learn who truly welcomed them. I plan to welcome these new families and friends to our community.
Thanks again for your comments.
Best Regards,
John
Post a Comment