While the general public is not allowed to comment, the Parking Commissioners and Travis Brooks, their city liaison, again today openly discussed agenda items with Commission advocates in the crowd. However, anyone who may have questions about the Parking Commission decisions is not allowed to speak.

For example, residents were not allowed today to ask questions about the proposed gateway sign that will be installed in the residential area on Livingston nor the survey that will be conducted to select its design. It was approved by the Commissioners without allowing comments or questions from the public.

The Parking Commission meeting lasted an entire 32 minutes. Apparently there wasn’t enough time for public comment.

Per your challenge to me, when are you going to meet with Dave W. to review the evidence? You constantly expound on how you always keep your word. Don’t disappoint everyone again.

Think this one may be flying below the radar.

http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=20...

Soooo SAD!!!! (shameful)

For all those in opposition to the 5.7M$ bond for Belmont Shore… ONLY A FEW went in front to the City council to share their compelling constitutionally protected arguments.

Your comment scribers preach democracy. I too, preach the same virtues.

The business owners were strongly represented and their collective tone was; “we run the shore. we bring the city tax money and revenue. let us run our street as we see fit. don’t worry about what the neighborhood malcontents think or say.”

Action speaks the loudest. CHANGE IS NECESSARY

Dave Wielenga, Keep doing what your doing… In time, more people will not only listen and read, but ACT.

Cool!

Unfortunately, even groups with the best of intentions sometimes have unintended and adverse impacts on others. For example, your group “represented the majority will in your neighborhood” as you so aptly put it, and advocated for a moratorium on check cashing businesses…in your neighborhood…so far, so good. Unfortunately, what your group advocated for somehow got changed from a neighborhood moratorium to one that was artificially declared an “urgency” (it was not) and then went into affect citywide. This was *not* what you advocated, nor what should have happened under these circumstances.

Extending this moratorium citywide impacted many, in fact all, of the other neighborhoods in the city, none of which were given much of a chance to exert whatever may have been their own “majority will” in “their own neighborhoods”.

I personally disagree with moratoria on otherwise lawful businesses. If businesses are operating unlawfully or somehow contributing to blight in a neighborhood, then take steps to bring those specific businesses into compliance with existing law and if they do not do so, then revoke their license to operate. But artificially suppressing the number of otherwise lawful businesses really only has a few direct, and adverse, effects: it reduces choice for the public, it limits opportunities for lawful commerce in the area and it limits the generation of tax and fee-based income for the city. Income that increases our general fund which, in turn, assists us with structural deficits like the one we are currently experiencing.

The next check cashing businesses that wanted to open somewhere else in the city might have proven to be the best corporate citizen possible, brought a much needed or much desired service to those who lived in *that* neighborhood and provided desperately needed income to our city. Now, unfortunately, that business is not allowed to open; not only in *your* neighborhood (which is fine if that’s truly how a majority of you who live there feel) but in *all* neighborhoods.

Thus your “neighborhood moratorium” grew to directly impact *all neighborhoods* and I rather doubt that your interest group either intended or wanted that to be the case.

The Local Coastal Plan (page 405 of LCP Appendix 58) states that existing use shall be required to maintain existing parking. The Colonna Park parking lot (which the Parking Commission wants to buy) has been there for 50 years. Since Colonna owns business property right next to the lot how can he take away parking and proposed to build residential homes.

Seems to me that he is required to “maintain existing parking. ” Has the BS Parking Commission offered to buy any other private parking lot on 2nd street or only Frank Colonna’s parking lot. Why not buy the Farmer’s & Merchants Lot? And has the BS Parking Commission gotten a new appraisal for the parking lot since the real estate market has melted down or are they still going to pay top dollar for the property?
Just asking….
————————————————————————————-
Local Coast Plan Appendix: DETAILED POLICY STATEMENT AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Specific Parking Requirements Recommendations:
Established Use Shall be required only to maintain existing parking (this
shall apply even where an existing structure is destroyed or
torn down and replaced).
New Use Shall be required to provide only 50% of the required
parking for use. Credit shall be given for off-site parking
created by the user in the parking lot/R-2-S zone area or
thru payment of in-lieu fee.”

I was meaning to ask you a question about a comment you made above. You mentioned the special interest group that pushed through a check cashing moratorium in their part of town. I was part of that group…but i don’t consider us to be a “special interest group” so much as just a group of residents.

My question is off topic but why were you so opposed to the moratorium against check cashing? I think it was a great example of what you espouse. Basically your comments about the power being with the people. In our case with the moratorium, that was exactly what we did. We represented the majority will for our neighborhood and our councilmember went to bat for us. Perhaps you have other reasons why you don’t like this specific moratorium but it was a great example of democracy in action

keep up the great work