I can't really argue with somebody's allegations against San Pedro's Neighborhood Councils.
He/She may have a point. It probably should be investigated.
Perhaps along with that investigation, Laura Chick should have an investigation concerning folks in the City of Los Angeles being called for a telephone survey that suggested that Ponte Vista would have "a mix of single-family homes, condominiums, and townhomes."
Or perhaps, in the future, if Bob only gets entitlements to built many fewer units than he wants to build, he might not provide the land and the budget for a permanent road between Western Avenue and the new Mary Star campus. Since the advertisement appeared in today's More San Pedro where it is written that when the entitlements are granted, Bob will build the new road. What might happen if Bob decides that if the L.A. City Council refuses to adopt ordinances that would allow for a certain number of units, Bob would NOT build the access road. Bob has claimed that he is not legally bound to provide the road over his property, if the site remains R1.
I actually would welcome investigations into all matters of support or opposition to Bob's current, former, and perhaps, future plans. We seem to have an agent working for Bob who is using back channels and mis-identification, to further Bob's processes, and support. Why is Bob's agent hiding? What does he/she have to lose?
It is becoming more clear to me, at least, that a certain individual has much more intimate knowledge of Bob's organization than he/she claims. With that person's ability to bring up issues and have them dealt with, isn't it about time that person becomes brave enough to identify himself/herself.
If it is found that a certain individual is a person known to Bob Bisno, Alan Abshez, Elise Swanson, and others being paid by the Bisno organization, I think we might be able to get some more investigations going that would slow down Bob's processes much more.
I have absolutely no problem with starting and continuing investigations that could result in more time being spent before Bob's plans, whatever they are, come before the L.A. City Planning Commission or the City Council. The longer the delay, the happier I am. It means as traffic gets worse, the better we all will have to judge the situations.
Bob and his supporters seem to want to get things done quickly. Why don't we just slow down, think more about what this is doing to OUR community and deal with things, as they come along.
Perhaps Bob might even benefit from the slowing down. If he can sit on what should be vacant land for a couple of years, perhaps the housing market will rebound. Of course by that time both Target and Marshall's will be in full operation. Just think of the traffic studies that will have to be conducted in two to three years.
Oh yes, I am not a stakeholder in the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council and if I am a stakeholder in Northwest San Pedro and/or Central San Pedro Neighborhood Councils, I don't consider myself a member of either of those organizations.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Crap! He's/She's Back
Well I guess when I questioned a letter to the editor by Mr. Louis Dominguez, on my main blog, it seems to have brought back Tom Field into the picture.
Go figure.
Now I am not stating as fact who "Tom Field" really is and I am not stating, claiming, or telling anyone I know, for a fact, who "Tom Field" really is. It is just a wonder why, when I mention Louis Dominguez on my main blog, "Tom Field" begins to write again.
Well, I am still going to have to moderate comments on all my blogs, that's for sure.
I hope "Tom" doesn't hang around too long. We were doing so fine without him/her.
I must have pissed somebody off when I questioned just what in the Sam Hell is "the project".
I still don't have a real answer on that one.
I have not written about "Tom" for some time and I'll try my best to keep the person out of posts on my main blog.
To think, I nominated Louis Dominguez as someone who could be considered more like John Olguin. It would be tragic to find out that I am so wrong about Mr. Dominguez.
I guess now that Mark A. Waronek is the former Mayor of Lomita, that is another blow, at least very slight, to the Bisno group.
Some folks were even wondering if Councilman Waite and Councilwoman Dever were in league with Mark and/or Bob. I don't know anything about that, so you'll have to ask others yourself.
Things haven't been going to well for elected and selected persons who are also affiliated with Bob Bisno.
It really wasn't that pretty watching Mark Waronek exit the Council Chamber, especially after hearing from him that, "it still hurts." Mr. Waronek, you apparently hitched your horse to a bad buggy and it cost you. I don't think you can blame anyone, but yourself, for your loss, not even Bob.
Go figure.
Now I am not stating as fact who "Tom Field" really is and I am not stating, claiming, or telling anyone I know, for a fact, who "Tom Field" really is. It is just a wonder why, when I mention Louis Dominguez on my main blog, "Tom Field" begins to write again.
Well, I am still going to have to moderate comments on all my blogs, that's for sure.
I hope "Tom" doesn't hang around too long. We were doing so fine without him/her.
I must have pissed somebody off when I questioned just what in the Sam Hell is "the project".
I still don't have a real answer on that one.
I have not written about "Tom" for some time and I'll try my best to keep the person out of posts on my main blog.
To think, I nominated Louis Dominguez as someone who could be considered more like John Olguin. It would be tragic to find out that I am so wrong about Mr. Dominguez.
I guess now that Mark A. Waronek is the former Mayor of Lomita, that is another blow, at least very slight, to the Bisno group.
Some folks were even wondering if Councilman Waite and Councilwoman Dever were in league with Mark and/or Bob. I don't know anything about that, so you'll have to ask others yourself.
Things haven't been going to well for elected and selected persons who are also affiliated with Bob Bisno.
It really wasn't that pretty watching Mark Waronek exit the Council Chamber, especially after hearing from him that, "it still hurts." Mr. Waronek, you apparently hitched your horse to a bad buggy and it cost you. I don't think you can blame anyone, but yourself, for your loss, not even Bob.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Who is Tom Field?
I don't know who Tom Field really is, but I think it is time Bob and I find out Tom's real identity.
If Tom Field has any association to Bob Bisno, his companies, or groups supporting Ponte Vista at San Pedro, Bob Bisno needs to know that.
Tom Field made a promise to be in a private Email that he would introduce himself at the last CAC meeting. The last CAC meeting was held and nobody identified himself to be as being "Tom Field". I expected that whoever Tom Field really is, he or she would not actually do what he or she promised to do. Something like that was expected of that person, so I wasn't surprised a bit.
Since the last CAC meeting, several people have asked me if "Tom" had introduced himself or herself to me at the meeting. No one was surprised that "Tom" didn't do what he promised.
So I waited for about a week, and still no identification came forth.
I have decided that I am going to use this particular blog to make suggestions as to the real identity of "Tom Field".
I am going to use this blog to keep any information I learn viewable to the least number of viewers. My purpose in suggesting names it to try and enlist help in attempting to find other individuals who may see the names I post and create opinions of their own, as to who they feel really is Tom Field.
The way I am probably going to suggest possible identities is to list a name of a person who MAY be "Tom Field" and use objective and factual information to identify why each person may be thought of as POSSIBLY being "Tom Field".
I must use facts and be as objective as possible to keep from having my suggestions thought of as being libelous or slanderous. As I am being objective and stating only facts, I cannot be considered to have any civil action taken against me.
I will also limit comments being posted as to this issue. If I receive filthy comments or threatening comments, I will surely post them to defend my position.
If I name names and provide objective and factual information about individuals who turn out NOT to be "Tom Field" but consider themselves harmed in any way, it is NOT my fault. The fault will rest squarely on the limp shoulders of "Tom Field". He or she is willing to use their friends and acquaintances in order to keep their true identity secret, and if "Tom's" friends get suggested, then "Tom" is the only one to blame.
Now, I do believe that "Tom" is connected in some way with Ponte Vista at San Pedro. I feel that ignorance of his or her identity by everyone at BDC was a disservice to them and Bob Bisno needs to know the identity, too. Bob may be liable for some of "Tom's" writings.
I also believe that "Tom" may have been somewhat a victim of Bob's. There were quite a number of folks who have been sold a bill of goods by Bob and there are many of Bob's supporters who were not and are not pleased with Bob's actions and his complete denial of any sort of discussions for real compromises at Ponte Vista.
There are individuals who I have not identified in any post on this or any other blog that I may name as possibly being "Tom Field". If I do mention names you have not read in the past, I will objectively and factually identify them as best as possible. There are several individuals who I know for a fact are NOT "Tom Field" and I will probably mention those names, too.
I am also going to wait a bit to begin suggesting names. I would like to give "Tom" a chance to come forward so as to not put any of his or her friends on the spot by suggesting they may be "Tom" when the real "Tom" knows they are not. I want to give "Tom" a chance to keep folks he knows out of the spotlight, if he does not wish to have their names mentioned.
I will also suggest names of individuals who MAY be the creator of the fake R1 blog and Foul Mouth fellow, if I feel they are different people from "Tom".
Other than attempting to identify who "Tom Field" really is, I have no wish to go beyond that issue. I am more that happy to not deal with "Tom" on my main blog, now and in the future, unless "Tom" gets nasty. I would like finding out who "Tom" really is to go smoothly, quietly, and with the least amount of trouble being created for those folks who are not really "Tom".
It is time to move on and there are many more important issues to deal with, but I do believe, after reading what I have read for these last many months, "Tom" should buck up and provide the information he promised at the beginning of the year.
If Tom Field has any association to Bob Bisno, his companies, or groups supporting Ponte Vista at San Pedro, Bob Bisno needs to know that.
Tom Field made a promise to be in a private Email that he would introduce himself at the last CAC meeting. The last CAC meeting was held and nobody identified himself to be as being "Tom Field". I expected that whoever Tom Field really is, he or she would not actually do what he or she promised to do. Something like that was expected of that person, so I wasn't surprised a bit.
Since the last CAC meeting, several people have asked me if "Tom" had introduced himself or herself to me at the meeting. No one was surprised that "Tom" didn't do what he promised.
So I waited for about a week, and still no identification came forth.
I have decided that I am going to use this particular blog to make suggestions as to the real identity of "Tom Field".
I am going to use this blog to keep any information I learn viewable to the least number of viewers. My purpose in suggesting names it to try and enlist help in attempting to find other individuals who may see the names I post and create opinions of their own, as to who they feel really is Tom Field.
The way I am probably going to suggest possible identities is to list a name of a person who MAY be "Tom Field" and use objective and factual information to identify why each person may be thought of as POSSIBLY being "Tom Field".
I must use facts and be as objective as possible to keep from having my suggestions thought of as being libelous or slanderous. As I am being objective and stating only facts, I cannot be considered to have any civil action taken against me.
I will also limit comments being posted as to this issue. If I receive filthy comments or threatening comments, I will surely post them to defend my position.
If I name names and provide objective and factual information about individuals who turn out NOT to be "Tom Field" but consider themselves harmed in any way, it is NOT my fault. The fault will rest squarely on the limp shoulders of "Tom Field". He or she is willing to use their friends and acquaintances in order to keep their true identity secret, and if "Tom's" friends get suggested, then "Tom" is the only one to blame.
Now, I do believe that "Tom" is connected in some way with Ponte Vista at San Pedro. I feel that ignorance of his or her identity by everyone at BDC was a disservice to them and Bob Bisno needs to know the identity, too. Bob may be liable for some of "Tom's" writings.
I also believe that "Tom" may have been somewhat a victim of Bob's. There were quite a number of folks who have been sold a bill of goods by Bob and there are many of Bob's supporters who were not and are not pleased with Bob's actions and his complete denial of any sort of discussions for real compromises at Ponte Vista.
There are individuals who I have not identified in any post on this or any other blog that I may name as possibly being "Tom Field". If I do mention names you have not read in the past, I will objectively and factually identify them as best as possible. There are several individuals who I know for a fact are NOT "Tom Field" and I will probably mention those names, too.
I am also going to wait a bit to begin suggesting names. I would like to give "Tom" a chance to come forward so as to not put any of his or her friends on the spot by suggesting they may be "Tom" when the real "Tom" knows they are not. I want to give "Tom" a chance to keep folks he knows out of the spotlight, if he does not wish to have their names mentioned.
I will also suggest names of individuals who MAY be the creator of the fake R1 blog and Foul Mouth fellow, if I feel they are different people from "Tom".
Other than attempting to identify who "Tom Field" really is, I have no wish to go beyond that issue. I am more that happy to not deal with "Tom" on my main blog, now and in the future, unless "Tom" gets nasty. I would like finding out who "Tom" really is to go smoothly, quietly, and with the least amount of trouble being created for those folks who are not really "Tom".
It is time to move on and there are many more important issues to deal with, but I do believe, after reading what I have read for these last many months, "Tom" should buck up and provide the information he promised at the beginning of the year.
Friday, August 10, 2007
I Need to be Nicer, I Guess
Attacking "XXX" and her potty-mouthed friends, all of whom are emotionally and socially retarded, we are all coming to find, is something I should continue easing up on, I feel at this time.
She is still attacking me with posts and everyone is becoming more informed about her many troubles dealing with just about everything.
She also has resorted to not providing us with her "true wisdom" concerning Ponte Vista lately, so it seems she only wants to continue attacking somebody that really means nothing in the big picture.
I guess when the words "Kennedy Dead" appeared above the fold on most newspapers in the U.S., "XXX" thought that was just something the newspapers had to do on November 23, 1963.
I guess "Challenger Disastor" and "PEACE" were just stories and headlines that newspapers put on the front page, above the fold, as a gimmick, according to Ms. "XXX".
I am very sorry that I am using the feminine pronouns and description for "XXX" as I know it attacks women by considering that "XXX" could actually be a female.
Wouldn't we all want to see what "XXX" might come up with now that the CAC, and thousands and thousands of members of OUR community have recommended a residential density equal to the density of R1 at Ponte Vista? How about "XXX" getting back on topic?
Wouldn't that be a unique switch?
Oh, by the way, there is absolutely no way for "Tom Field" or anyone else supportive of a large development at Ponte Vista, to provide any rational grounds to suggest that the residents at Ponte Vista will add more to the L.A. tax base, both in property taxes and sales taxes from purchases within the five-mile radius AND in the City of L.A., to make up for the added costs to all taxpayers in the City of Los Angeles for the goods and services which must be provided to all the new residents of Ponte Vista.
Simply put, the more folks who live at Ponte Vista, the more all the taxpayers in L.A. are going to have to pay to keep everyones' goods and services from being diminished.
The more folks get at Ponte Vista, the less folks get everywhere else in the City of Los Angeles, including the rest of San Pedro. And this fact can be proven.
She is still attacking me with posts and everyone is becoming more informed about her many troubles dealing with just about everything.
She also has resorted to not providing us with her "true wisdom" concerning Ponte Vista lately, so it seems she only wants to continue attacking somebody that really means nothing in the big picture.
I guess when the words "Kennedy Dead" appeared above the fold on most newspapers in the U.S., "XXX" thought that was just something the newspapers had to do on November 23, 1963.
I guess "Challenger Disastor" and "PEACE" were just stories and headlines that newspapers put on the front page, above the fold, as a gimmick, according to Ms. "XXX".
I am very sorry that I am using the feminine pronouns and description for "XXX" as I know it attacks women by considering that "XXX" could actually be a female.
Wouldn't we all want to see what "XXX" might come up with now that the CAC, and thousands and thousands of members of OUR community have recommended a residential density equal to the density of R1 at Ponte Vista? How about "XXX" getting back on topic?
Wouldn't that be a unique switch?
Oh, by the way, there is absolutely no way for "Tom Field" or anyone else supportive of a large development at Ponte Vista, to provide any rational grounds to suggest that the residents at Ponte Vista will add more to the L.A. tax base, both in property taxes and sales taxes from purchases within the five-mile radius AND in the City of L.A., to make up for the added costs to all taxpayers in the City of Los Angeles for the goods and services which must be provided to all the new residents of Ponte Vista.
Simply put, the more folks who live at Ponte Vista, the more all the taxpayers in L.A. are going to have to pay to keep everyones' goods and services from being diminished.
The more folks get at Ponte Vista, the less folks get everywhere else in the City of Los Angeles, including the rest of San Pedro. And this fact can be proven.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Another very funny post
Well "XXX" did it again and created a post specifically attacking me, again.
Why oh why does he spend so much time when he can't even supply us with his real identity?
If he read back to the very beginning of my posts, he would read that my fist blog about Ponte Vista was an experiment and I had absolutely no idea where it would lead. I also wrote that I knew almost nothing about blogging (something he claimed he knows much more than I do about).
When something is the about something dealing with a person whos last name ends with an "s", it is "s'" and not anything like Well's. I think "XXX" made the mistake deliberately, rather than using "Wells'", which is correct.
Where has anyone recently been able to view comments about "XXX" on my primary blog for Ponte Vista? If nowhere is your answer, then you are correct. I don't tend to waste any time attacking "XXX" on the primary blog because he has made it such an old thing to do, continuously attack me, that it is only fun to deal with him/her on this particular blog. It seems he reads this one as well.
I guess the worst thing I do when I rebut "XXX" is take on an emotionally challenged individual. I know I probably shouldn't pick on someone as weak as a person who will not correctly identify himself or herself. I do wish he/she would just ignore me. Every time he/she writes and entire post dedicated to attacking me, well, I feel I need to challenge that post.
I have been looking for a correction from "XXX" for his improper use of one of the four "Rs" but I guess owning up to such a big error is something he/she is incapable of doing.
It looks like "XXX" and I share something in common. All of the compromise proposals we both have thought about will probably not be near what the Planning Department might suggest. So it looks like we both tried and we both failed to get our compromises seriously considered. What the heck, we gave it some shots.
I guess we all won't be sitting on pins and needles while "XXX" is taking a break and coming up with a redo for his blog.
I will stipulate one thing right here and right now. If "XXX" discontinues attacking me on any of the blogs he writes or writes for (the FAKE R1 blog) or any other new blog I find on the Internet, I will do my best to ignore anything and everything he/she writes about.
Don't you think that is fair?
Why oh why does he spend so much time when he can't even supply us with his real identity?
If he read back to the very beginning of my posts, he would read that my fist blog about Ponte Vista was an experiment and I had absolutely no idea where it would lead. I also wrote that I knew almost nothing about blogging (something he claimed he knows much more than I do about).
When something is the about something dealing with a person whos last name ends with an "s", it is "s'" and not anything like Well's. I think "XXX" made the mistake deliberately, rather than using "Wells'", which is correct.
Where has anyone recently been able to view comments about "XXX" on my primary blog for Ponte Vista? If nowhere is your answer, then you are correct. I don't tend to waste any time attacking "XXX" on the primary blog because he has made it such an old thing to do, continuously attack me, that it is only fun to deal with him/her on this particular blog. It seems he reads this one as well.
I guess the worst thing I do when I rebut "XXX" is take on an emotionally challenged individual. I know I probably shouldn't pick on someone as weak as a person who will not correctly identify himself or herself. I do wish he/she would just ignore me. Every time he/she writes and entire post dedicated to attacking me, well, I feel I need to challenge that post.
I have been looking for a correction from "XXX" for his improper use of one of the four "Rs" but I guess owning up to such a big error is something he/she is incapable of doing.
It looks like "XXX" and I share something in common. All of the compromise proposals we both have thought about will probably not be near what the Planning Department might suggest. So it looks like we both tried and we both failed to get our compromises seriously considered. What the heck, we gave it some shots.
I guess we all won't be sitting on pins and needles while "XXX" is taking a break and coming up with a redo for his blog.
I will stipulate one thing right here and right now. If "XXX" discontinues attacking me on any of the blogs he writes or writes for (the FAKE R1 blog) or any other new blog I find on the Internet, I will do my best to ignore anything and everything he/she writes about.
Don't you think that is fair?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sometimes I Like to Have Fun and Giggle
"XXX" has provided me with many laughs over the months. Sure he has written vile, name calling posts that I have allowed myself to sometimes become irritated. I did get a bit upset when, trying as I did, I couldn't get him to budge from his plan that took months for him to finally create and post on MY blog.
"XXX" finally weighed in on the CAC's actions and he really doesn't care what anyone other than himself thinks, and doesn't give a crap about how OUR community feels about the Ponte Vista issue.
But sometimes it is good, I feel, to continue to illustrate the rage and pathetic writing of someone who maybe in league in some way with Bob and Bob should know about it, but wishing to remain blind to some truths has been obvious for some time with Bob and he has published some of those untruths for all of us to read, and keep on file.
Below are three comments, one from "XXX" himself, about what the CAC was supposed and what it did. We get to see "XXX" correct himself, something he rarely does because he probably believes he know everything about everything.
Let's take another look into the raging mind of whoever this person really is:
Anonymous said...
It is not a committee's job to come up with a development plan. They rejected the number of units proposed and said that they advise keeping the current zoning of R-1. They are not developers, planners etc. Now it is the developers job to go back to the drawing board and submit a plan within those guidelines, allowing the number of units that adhere to the current zoning. I believe they did their job whether you agree with the outcome or not.
July 28, 2007 10:31 PM
Tom said...
Anonymous July 28, 2007 10:31 PM Yes, you are correct.
It was not the committee's job to come up with a development plan. What they WERE supposed to do was come up with suggestions on what they would like to see built.
Check the record, you'll see that is exactly what Janice Hahn said.
But the R-1 gang and their intimidation tactics succeeded in hijacking the process.
Look at some of the actions the committee took early on, recommending senior housing, recommending a shuttle-bus service, etc. They were headed in the right direction.
Until, that is, the R-1 thugs bullied them into believing something else.
Shame on them, and shame on Janice Hahn for letting it happen. She wants so much to be like her Daddy. But she'd better realize that to do that, she needs to start acting like him.
The only reason you believe they did their job is because you want R-1. I can guarantee if they had come out with a recommendation for something else, you'd be screaming your head off.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with the outcome. The process was contaminated and mis-directed by the R-1 thugs.
Therefore any result which came out of it would be contaminated.
Tom Field
July 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...
"What they WERE supposed to do was come up with suggestions on what they would like to see built."
That's exactly what they did Tom. They want to see single family homes built. So are you saying that the CAC could have come up with suggestions of what they want to see built as long as it did not include R1? Also, the R1 folks "bullied" nobody. Maybe it was the bullying, arrogance or tactics of Bob Bisno or the attacks by Joe Donato that turned the CAC and Janice Hahn against the pro-development side. The R1 folks just helped legitimize the R1 stance.
One thing you don't seem to understand about this town, Tom, is that it's filled with allot of folks with a deep amount of pride in what San Pedro represents. Bob Bisno is not welcome here, and I think the community and our representative have spoken loud and clear. It would/will be great to see Bisno and Ponte Vista pack their bags and get out!!
P.S. - I was not a Janice Hahn fan prior to this, but what I am seeing in some of her actions (not just Ponte Vista) is that she does listen to the majority of the community. Good for her!!!
July 30, 2007 8:33 AM
_______________________________________________
Now if anyone would like to debate or discuss with me what the CAC was supposed to do and what it actually did during its tenure, I would love it. You see, between "XXX" and me, only one of us was present at public and some closed meetings for the entire tenure of the CAC, starting before each public meeting and after the end of every single public meeting. I was never late or absent from any public and some of the closed meetings the CAC had.
If "XXX" doesn't remember the three sets of illustrations, the long drawn out discussions about what individual members would like to see at Ponte Vista, my comments regarding my wish for some senior housing, and many of the members real struggle to find a set of numbers of units that a majority of CAC members might have approved of, is simply but completely wrong about the CAC and its mission.
Bob Bisno is the one and only person who constantly sat in the way of the CAC's ability to come up with a range of numbers of units. It is as simple as that. Whenever we tried our best to suggest something that mentioned honest numbers, Bob was right there telling you and the rest of OUR community exactly what would be built at Ponte Vista, as a matter of fact and not opinion.
The bottom line that cannot and must not be ignored is that if "XXX" is not in league with Bob, he certainly acts like and agent for Bob's plans. We may even see Bob "compromise" to attempt to get through the Planning Department as 1,700-unit plan, after all.
"XXX" just can't seem to stop name calling. It appears that this individual has some real emotional and social problems, I believe. If he can't be civil to others, what does that say about what he really thinks about himself? Perhaps he doesn't like himself and he wants everyone else to feel as bad as he does. Oh yeah, I forgot. "XXX" knows everything about everything and he is a perfect person and the rest of us are only worth attacking.
And another thing, The thirteen-member CAC was compromised of four, as in two-plus two, members who supported R1 strongly. One individual was on the R1 side for a spell, then considered compromise, then back to being and R1 supporter.
So there were only five of the thirteen members, "XXX" that is NOT a majority, who finally were strongly supporting R1.
Two members were supportive all along for a much bigger development than the majority of members thought about. In looking back at the voting, one of the members represented business on the CAC, and the other represented a whole area of business community members.
The remaining six individuals struggled mightily to find some range of unit numbers that they felt OUR community could live with.
In the end, it was Bob who demonstrated that providing a reasonable compromise in total number of units, the six great members of the CAC who worked so very hard at finding compromise were left out in the open and without any good reason to further attempt to find some number Bob would object to, anyway.
The CAC's decisions came from Bob's actions and inaction, nothing more. Al, Sal, Jerry, John, Dan, and Jack worked their butts off trying to find some compromise range of numbers. Nobody on this planet can say those six great members of OUR community didn't try their best or work their hardest and they did the best they could do under incredible conditions.
OUR community should stand up, applaud eleven of the thirteen members of the CAC who voted the way they did and thank the two other individuals for the hard work they did supporting Bob's plans for a really big development. At least they tried, too.
"XXX" finally weighed in on the CAC's actions and he really doesn't care what anyone other than himself thinks, and doesn't give a crap about how OUR community feels about the Ponte Vista issue.
But sometimes it is good, I feel, to continue to illustrate the rage and pathetic writing of someone who maybe in league in some way with Bob and Bob should know about it, but wishing to remain blind to some truths has been obvious for some time with Bob and he has published some of those untruths for all of us to read, and keep on file.
Below are three comments, one from "XXX" himself, about what the CAC was supposed and what it did. We get to see "XXX" correct himself, something he rarely does because he probably believes he know everything about everything.
Let's take another look into the raging mind of whoever this person really is:
Anonymous said...
It is not a committee's job to come up with a development plan. They rejected the number of units proposed and said that they advise keeping the current zoning of R-1. They are not developers, planners etc. Now it is the developers job to go back to the drawing board and submit a plan within those guidelines, allowing the number of units that adhere to the current zoning. I believe they did their job whether you agree with the outcome or not.
July 28, 2007 10:31 PM
Tom said...
Anonymous July 28, 2007 10:31 PM Yes, you are correct.
It was not the committee's job to come up with a development plan. What they WERE supposed to do was come up with suggestions on what they would like to see built.
Check the record, you'll see that is exactly what Janice Hahn said.
But the R-1 gang and their intimidation tactics succeeded in hijacking the process.
Look at some of the actions the committee took early on, recommending senior housing, recommending a shuttle-bus service, etc. They were headed in the right direction.
Until, that is, the R-1 thugs bullied them into believing something else.
Shame on them, and shame on Janice Hahn for letting it happen. She wants so much to be like her Daddy. But she'd better realize that to do that, she needs to start acting like him.
The only reason you believe they did their job is because you want R-1. I can guarantee if they had come out with a recommendation for something else, you'd be screaming your head off.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with the outcome. The process was contaminated and mis-directed by the R-1 thugs.
Therefore any result which came out of it would be contaminated.
Tom Field
July 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...
"What they WERE supposed to do was come up with suggestions on what they would like to see built."
That's exactly what they did Tom. They want to see single family homes built. So are you saying that the CAC could have come up with suggestions of what they want to see built as long as it did not include R1? Also, the R1 folks "bullied" nobody. Maybe it was the bullying, arrogance or tactics of Bob Bisno or the attacks by Joe Donato that turned the CAC and Janice Hahn against the pro-development side. The R1 folks just helped legitimize the R1 stance.
One thing you don't seem to understand about this town, Tom, is that it's filled with allot of folks with a deep amount of pride in what San Pedro represents. Bob Bisno is not welcome here, and I think the community and our representative have spoken loud and clear. It would/will be great to see Bisno and Ponte Vista pack their bags and get out!!
P.S. - I was not a Janice Hahn fan prior to this, but what I am seeing in some of her actions (not just Ponte Vista) is that she does listen to the majority of the community. Good for her!!!
July 30, 2007 8:33 AM
_______________________________________________
Now if anyone would like to debate or discuss with me what the CAC was supposed to do and what it actually did during its tenure, I would love it. You see, between "XXX" and me, only one of us was present at public and some closed meetings for the entire tenure of the CAC, starting before each public meeting and after the end of every single public meeting. I was never late or absent from any public and some of the closed meetings the CAC had.
If "XXX" doesn't remember the three sets of illustrations, the long drawn out discussions about what individual members would like to see at Ponte Vista, my comments regarding my wish for some senior housing, and many of the members real struggle to find a set of numbers of units that a majority of CAC members might have approved of, is simply but completely wrong about the CAC and its mission.
Bob Bisno is the one and only person who constantly sat in the way of the CAC's ability to come up with a range of numbers of units. It is as simple as that. Whenever we tried our best to suggest something that mentioned honest numbers, Bob was right there telling you and the rest of OUR community exactly what would be built at Ponte Vista, as a matter of fact and not opinion.
The bottom line that cannot and must not be ignored is that if "XXX" is not in league with Bob, he certainly acts like and agent for Bob's plans. We may even see Bob "compromise" to attempt to get through the Planning Department as 1,700-unit plan, after all.
"XXX" just can't seem to stop name calling. It appears that this individual has some real emotional and social problems, I believe. If he can't be civil to others, what does that say about what he really thinks about himself? Perhaps he doesn't like himself and he wants everyone else to feel as bad as he does. Oh yeah, I forgot. "XXX" knows everything about everything and he is a perfect person and the rest of us are only worth attacking.
And another thing, The thirteen-member CAC was compromised of four, as in two-plus two, members who supported R1 strongly. One individual was on the R1 side for a spell, then considered compromise, then back to being and R1 supporter.
So there were only five of the thirteen members, "XXX" that is NOT a majority, who finally were strongly supporting R1.
Two members were supportive all along for a much bigger development than the majority of members thought about. In looking back at the voting, one of the members represented business on the CAC, and the other represented a whole area of business community members.
The remaining six individuals struggled mightily to find some range of unit numbers that they felt OUR community could live with.
In the end, it was Bob who demonstrated that providing a reasonable compromise in total number of units, the six great members of the CAC who worked so very hard at finding compromise were left out in the open and without any good reason to further attempt to find some number Bob would object to, anyway.
The CAC's decisions came from Bob's actions and inaction, nothing more. Al, Sal, Jerry, John, Dan, and Jack worked their butts off trying to find some compromise range of numbers. Nobody on this planet can say those six great members of OUR community didn't try their best or work their hardest and they did the best they could do under incredible conditions.
OUR community should stand up, applaud eleven of the thirteen members of the CAC who voted the way they did and thank the two other individuals for the hard work they did supporting Bob's plans for a really big development. At least they tried, too.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Here's Another Thought
I know that Bob Bisno has an advisor who knows a whole lot about computers, computing, and probably Web hosting and/or blogging.
Why don't I allow Bob and his advisor to ferret out the three cowards?
If Bob won't ask his advisor to assist all of us in finding the offending trio, perhaps that would be a sign that Bob and his gang see not need or wish to ferret out dishonest folks.
It would make my job a whole lot easier and I wouldn't have to imagine and create a post dealing with my imagination.
Bob has a friend who probably knows how to find this fellow or this trio. Perhaps "XXX" doesn't know what I know about one of Bob's advisers. Either way, if "XXX" is a friend of Bob or not, he is doing a wonderful service for all of us in demonstrating how pathetic, desperate, and ruthless some supporters can be and how Bob and his bunch probably wish to keep plausibly deniable left on the table. Shame on Bob and his bunch if that is the case.
Why don't I allow Bob and his advisor to ferret out the three cowards?
If Bob won't ask his advisor to assist all of us in finding the offending trio, perhaps that would be a sign that Bob and his gang see not need or wish to ferret out dishonest folks.
It would make my job a whole lot easier and I wouldn't have to imagine and create a post dealing with my imagination.
Bob has a friend who probably knows how to find this fellow or this trio. Perhaps "XXX" doesn't know what I know about one of Bob's advisers. Either way, if "XXX" is a friend of Bob or not, he is doing a wonderful service for all of us in demonstrating how pathetic, desperate, and ruthless some supporters can be and how Bob and his bunch probably wish to keep plausibly deniable left on the table. Shame on Bob and his bunch if that is the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
