Staff Infection

COMMENTS

1. 1

   Great. Now instead of improved landscaping, tax revenue, and shopping convenience we get to look at a bunch of empty oil tanks. I’m all for restoring the wetlands but this property is not and it is a visual blight. Amazing how a few bird watchers can ruin a development that would have benefitted the entire city. If they would have negotiated instead of fought with the developer they probably could have gotten some money for the wetlands restoration. Now we are stuck with no money for it and a bunch of degraded swamp land.

   [report]

   Posted By LB Resident on February 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    

2. 2

   so lemme get this straight, you’re against bird watchers, nature and would rather see development because you think the tax revenue will save this city. sheez, you should run for city council. there should be a law against people like you living in the city. or you should be taxed for having lame ideas.

   [report]

   Posted By Gunther on February 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    

3. 3

   Someone’s head should roll. This court ruling cost Long Beach taxpayers several million dollars in city staff time, as both the EIR lead agency and also the city attorneys who stubbornly represented this attempted sham. Not to mention the millions of dollars the developer applicant lost. It is important to note that the court did not rule that the property could not be developed. The court ruled that the City of Long Beach did not fulfill their lead agency responsibility to address questions identified in the EIR process.

   This case never should have gone to court. The only reason it did is because serious EIR questions were ignored by city staff, Commissioners and Councilmembers who were focused only on the sales tax revenue that Home Depot would generate. Residents and Environmentalists were left no choice but to file suit. Before doing so, they tried emailing, phone calling and voicing their concerns to the deaf ears of the responsible city staff and councilmembers who ignored their pleas for help. After millions of dollars, it took an impartial judge in Norwalk to throw the EIR in the garbage because our Long Beach leaders had not fulfilled their sole responsibility as a lead agency.

   The city leaders of Long Beach constantly whine about budget constraints. Meanwhile, I observe taxpayers money going down the drain to pay $4.1 million to police whistleblowers, multi million dollars for the Queen Mary debacle and millions of dollars of city staff time spent approving an invalid EIR. Are the Councilmembers receiving bad advice from city staff, or are they too indignant to listen to what their constituents are saying? I believe this is a question that everyone should be asking. No matter what the answer is, the continuing loss to taxpayers is too great to go unaddressed. Someone’s head should roll.

   [report]

   Posted By Mike Ruehle on February 21st, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    

4. 4

   Gunther, you should be taxed for being shortsighted. I’m not against bird watchers or nature. I support restoring the wetlands. This property however is not wetlands. It is a tank yard with empty tanks at that. The geniuses who sued should have gone down the route of negotiation with the developer. Let him build the design center (which would beautify the area) but require a $5M donation to wetlands restoration across the street where the real wetlands are. The wetlands group once again takes an all or nothing approach and gets nothing. It happened 10 years ago with Bixby, and now it’s happening with this project. Those of us who just want to see improvement in the area are left funding lawsuits with our tax dollars and getting nothing in return.

   [report]

   Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 am

    

5. 5

   It is now time, to finally implement the 2004-2006 City sponsored, and staffed, award winning SEADIP rezoning effort, entitled ; “The Los Cerritos Wetlands Study Group SEADIP revision study.” All candidates for Mayor and Council publically supported the effort while campaigning , and any help in finally implementing the community based work, seems societally, environmentally, legally, and politically wise. If not, why? To please a few investors ? and big campaign funders? Do the residents and taxpayers have any say ? How about the facts? and the law ? We have spoken for years, in droves, will the right people finally listen ? A judge says so ? The Law and The Coastal Act agrees ? Will fiscal wisdom and wise tax resource expenditure finally come to bear fruit ? We call upon the wisdom and experience of all wise City Staff, and others, to finally act of the people, and for the people. Some of the recent changes give us hope, and a Global Settlement, in the public interest, is long overdue. We won a 4 plus year battle deservedly. A few people who have sought to marginalize the masses, should simply get over it, and do the right thing.

   To remind a few investors, and occasionally deaf Politicians, Community Leaders from throughout District 3, produced a fair, inclusive, objective, lawful and learned Doctoral level public study, which included experts from all relevant disciplines, directed by Planning and Council, to revise SEADIP. This fine work need no longer gather dust.

   In fairness, over 7500 residents signed petitions or letters in support of this documents goals and findings, and to oppose Big Box retail where it makes little sense.. Wetlands acquisition, restoration, and preservation was desired by 94 % of the thousands of residents contacted. Less, rather than more density was favored for neighborhood preservation, safety, and sanctity. Clean air, and quiet, safe neighborhoods were rightly prioritized, along with less, rather than more traffic flow, and it’s deliterious consequences.. This is, and , always was, our communities key concern.

   Those lamenting the profound wisdom, fairness and objectivity of Norwalk Judge John Torribio, need only study the CEQA law, and the Coastal Act, and the huge file, to realize that justice and the rule of law, and common sense, have finally prevailed.

   Also, the Press Telegram, Grunion, and Beeched W(G)eek(LOL), were as correct in their flawed and biased conclusions, as they were about Dan Baker, Norm Ryan and so many others. Oh ya, put the Home Depot on a commercial corridor,or in a Commercial zone, maybe at Douglas Park for instance? Duhh !!

   And to those who think a few speculators will easily place a Truck or container yard, in the most ecologically sensitive part of Southern California, and with the ocean on 2 sides of the parcel, 300 feet from Million Dollar homes, prepare for a well funded, well researched, well litigated battle, that we will gladly advocate, gratis, for a Decade.

   It is time for 400 N. Studebaker, to be zoned for a Wetlands related research campus, or a Scripts style extension campus, or a Coastal centered, Coastal related community and environmentally enhancing use. Alternatively, the well maintained adjoining tank farm, critical to our infrastructure, should be allowed a chance to simply keep the parcel functioning as originally permitted, as a quiet, non traffic inducing, non polluting, functioning storeage area, rebuilt to simply hold, and safely dispense oil product, not years of contentious, poorly reasoned acrimony, by a few guys, who apparently have never actually built a dog house !!

   A few wealthy people do not own this town, though at times they seem to act as if they do. It is incumbent upon all of us to never let them forget that we are a Democracy, governed by The Consitution, fairness, majority rule, and the rule of law.

   And those who finally feel a priority for clean, safe, quiet Neighborhoods, equal justice, fairness, and the rule of law …again shine brightly upon our beloved Long Beach, well, …right on with your Bad Self. It is as simple as Love Thy Neighbor….and…Be good stewards of my land…

   Congratulations, you worked very hard for it !!

   [report]

   Posted By Passionate friend of his neighbors on February 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am

    

6. 6

   “well maintained adjoining tank farm”? You’ve got to be kidding…

   A research campus? Right. Why don’t we just ask the property owners to put in a park. I’m sure they would be open to that.

   A bit of realism might actually get us to good compromise.

   [report]

   Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 am

    

7. 7

   “a bit of realism”?

   Seems like that’s why the EIR was rejected. A Home Depot is an “improvement”? The tank farm is better looking to me than a Home Depot parking lot, and it seems like the wildlife that hangs out there agrees.

   But, if the one 3 miles away from you is too far to drive, hey, I feel your pain.

   [report]

   Posted By Andy on February 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am

    

8. 8

   To LB resident , your Property Rights trumps mankind, nature, and reasonable Urban Planning,, Manifest Destiny Creotenism ..belongs in the John Birch Society, not wonderful, well Master Planned , enlightened and socially responsible East Long Beach. Read the Court ruling, learn, and move on. You have always had, a dumb, idea, and by the way, AES International sued and won too. Bless them for listening too. Also, let’s finally tell the public how contaminated the site, and the adjacent land really is? Like the DTSC, and AQMD directed?.

   It is sad to see that a few of you are so blind, that you fail to see the writing on the wall? The Wetlands is priority, and both side channels defining this lot, are statutorily defined, and protected Wetlands. All negative impacts related to any proposal at 400 N. Studebaker, have serious Environmental consequences.

   Feeding tons of commercial debris into storm drains from 400 N. Studebaker, to the Wetlands and Mothers Beach..and sending about 10,000 more cars down deadly Loynes Drive a day, or fatally into the Los Cerritos channel, tragically, is also not so bright.

   The landowner got the land for nothing, because it poses huge development challenges. It was, and is, a gamble. You win some, and you lose some. I am told they can easily afford it, so take the big write down, and reasonable deductions, and try again elsewhere.

   Recall, that zoning law derives from the law of Nuisance, and the adjacent residents right to demand that all owners act reasonably, and respectfully to the community, common sense, and the law.

   The Natural Resource values in and around this parcel, are also protected by the State, and the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission wrote a scathing 13 page memo, recomending rejection of this bad idea, I suppose they too, are less wise than a few of you?

   You are not only wrong, but wrong headed. Your arguments are intellectually vacant, and specious, at best.

   We are not going away, merely gaining momentum, and victory after victory…for our Estuary…our children….and our childrens children.

   Please also join us in making the new owners of the main wetlands remove that disgusting barbed wire recently placed along Studebaker Ave where the Dump entrance gates still stand. It is not proper for this area, and similarly distasteful and unsightly.

   [report]

   Posted By Passionate friend of his neighbors on February 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 am

    

9. 9

   Personally attacking me won’t get the wetlands restored. Compromising will. If we’re unwilling to do that then we can all look at the swamp land, trash, and empty oil tanks for the next 50 years. Congratulations. You win.

   [report]

   Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am

    

10. 10

    Look, PFOHN seems a little too intense and, yes, there will always be compromises, but we surely don’t need more big box development in that spot. Let’s agree on that. But again, I’d rather see swampland there than a Home Depot or Lowes or Pinkberry. Which seems a fundamental difference between me and LB Resident.

    [report]

    Posted By Andy on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm

     

11. 11

    Like it or not, that property is going to be developed in a way that makes a developer some money or it’s going to remain unchanged. If we agree the current blight is unacceptable then the framework we have is what will we accept that still allows a developer to make a profit? If not a design center then what? Houses? Department store? What?

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

     

12. 12

    I vote for unchanged.

    Developers always live near their projects, so we shouldn’t be really be concerned.

    [report]

    Posted By Andy on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm

     

13. 13

    Well that’s where we disagree. It’s an entry way to East Long Beach and should be improved.

    The Bixby’s were a LB family and Tom Dean (the current owner) lives in Naples. Consistently that property looks like dog doo doo. I’d like it cleaned up.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm

     

14. 14

    I’ve met the Bixby family and they’re really nice folks. And they try and do the right thing with their properties. But they’re not the developers, so I’m not sure what your point is.

    Again, how a Home Depot is “cleaning up”, I still don’t get.

    [report]

    Posted By Andy on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm

     

15. 15

    LBR. I hope that we’re all reasonable people here. But as you can see this is definitely not a polarizing issue on this site. So you’re fighting for “improved landscaping, tax revenue, and shopping convenience”. Nobody in their right mind except for a shortsighted politician and their economic development team would ever agree that a home depot/shopping center would be the best bet in that area.

    Ideas like that continue to rob long beach of the character that it still has. I like others am happier looking at swamplands and empty tanks and would rather have that be my visual then looking at at another homedepot mega complex designed in the latest irvinesque motif.

    [report]

    Posted By Gunther on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

     

16. 16

    Andy, the Bixby’s tried to sell the land but the coastal commission and enviro folks would let them consolidate the drilling. Unwilling to compromise. Another example of how the people who most want restoration are the ones most responsible for it never happening.

    Gunther, actually, my main goal is wetlands restoration and improved asethics for surrounding properties. The tax revenue is a bonus and the convenience is not an issue for me. As I said a Home Depot isn’t my first choice.

    I want that area to look nicer. I don’t want Irvine but I don’t want an unused tank land either.

    I believe the choice is it remains the same or something gets developed. If you like it how it is, we disagree. If you agree it will be developed with something, my question still stands.

    What would you like to see there?

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm

     

17. 17

    LBR:

    First off, it’s a gross simplification to blame the coastal commission and “enviro” folks for blocking a land sale. That’s a frequent refrain from Chambers of Commerce and developers when they’ve got a deal set and pesky regulations get in the way.

    Despite your denials, these are still wetlands and are still home to a great deal of natural migratory and non-migratory species. At a certain point, development reaches a tipping point, where further development irreparably affects environmental sustainability.

    That’s the point where we’re at with these lands. In this case, public interest should trump private development rights. Land owners should get a fair price for their property, but if you’re the last man out of a shrinking open space area, you take your chances at being told you can’t stick a Wal-Mart on the lot.

    [report]

    Posted By Andy on February 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm

     

18. 18

    I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying. That doesn’t mean that approach will lead to anything but status quo however. I find the satus quo unacceptable.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm

     

19. 19

    Point of fact, The 1990 acquisition attempt found, according to top experts, that the oil operations could not be consolodated to a pad, due to the San Aliso slip fault running diagonally accross Studebaker. This fault line, triggered the devastating downtown earthquake and widespread destruction.

    Also, Signal Hill Petoleum, our partner in acquiring the Bryant Wetlands, and an Environmental good steward, was not even allowed to present an Offer to the Bixby’s, nor were others.

    Serious questions for our Councilman obtain as to why he tacitly approved of this quiet, inside deal, and never prioritizing the application of Port of LB/LA mitigation funds to a purchase in the public interest? By simply looking the other way for a big campaign supporter, and friends, this may be another unwise example of handing property, to a developer, for about 22 Million dollars less than the recent posted asking price of 56 Million. To those in the know,, this raises many eyebrows. We shall continue to investigate and pose legitimate questions. The Bixby’s are being criticized for choosing a developer, over Coastal Preservationists all over. It is so obvious that the new owners, want to use the Wetlands as leverage, or a fulcrumk, to attempt to develop an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, as defined by law. Good luck…you will need it.

    This land was also found to hold the most dangerously polluted soil in town. This is where City Dumps 1 through 6, sat, unregulated, for decades.

    There is deadly Benzene in the groundwater, 30 times the non potable standard according to recent tests. Heard about this in the PT, or Grunion?

    Some of the best lawfirms around state…”You would have to be crazy to touch that land.”…and..”.It could never be cleaned up to residential standards”. Many of the best developers around, have taken a pass for decades. But, some peoples huge ego, and hubris, and borrowed money leverage make many think,,,I guess they are just smarter than all the rest of us. We are relieved that a wise Court, the Law, and many rulings argue otherwise.

    Also, upon investigation, the adjacent tanks have been completly rebuild, cleaned, updated, and are full, functioning, and profitable. Ask the Principals there, they are not going anywhere and connect to the port, and refineries as far North as Bakerfield. They recently lamented, that they would have liked to purchase 400N. Studebaker had they had any chance. Yhis is because all of there distribution network is connected, on this lot. Such tanks are now impossible to site, so they are there and making money.

    If the owners want to remove blight, return the tall, screening trees, they illegally cut down without a Coastal or other permit, to again hide the tanks as originally designed.

    Did you guys ever notice that Studebaker doesn’t have curbs and sidewalks too? or a sewer? This is not a Commercial corridor gentlemen. Should the wheelchair bound and kids, just ride on the street next to speeding trucks and cars to visit this white elephant?

    Also, this lot was never legally subdivided under the Coastal Act. Have you considered that carving a little piece out of an Industrial complex is often nearly impossible under current Coastal Protections? Absent far more time, expense, and litigation, do not chill the champagne yet.

    [report]

    Posted By Passionate friend of his neighbors on February 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm

     

20. 20

    PFOHN, how do you suppose we get the developer to put the trees back? Or clean up the trash? How do we convince the developer to clean it up and leave it as open space? We’re going to be stuck with that blight for 50 years unless we lose the all or nothing approach I’m afraid.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm

     

21. 21

    Are you telling us that routine trash removal and a dozen trees are beyond the budget of guys wasting Millions to negligently waste 4 years of our time and City resources? The community will do a 4 hour clean up if they are suddenly so impoverished. And dozens of us will gladly supply some trees. By the way, a few of us have no problem buying it for cash, to hold it for the uses approved with pollution mitigation credits.

    Bolsa Chica is gorgeous, we deserve a little postage stamp of wetlands as a bio filter and respite, and on behalf of the 112 protected species, many endangered back there.

    If the City wants to lower it’s deficit, trim some fat from the sprawling beaurocracy, as they did in the 70’s with City Manager, Deaver the Cleaver.

    Also, our fine Mayor is attracting quality jobs, for the levi’s guys like us, could you afford the priveleges that these roll up speculators flaunt, doing a roof tile price check on Isle 9 ?? This vendor is also NON UNION, as are it’s builders, is that also what Long Beach needs ? Count the Democrats on Council and ponder another….not really ?

    Also, this is not a redevelopment area, with a loosly defined ‘blight’ standard. It is a quiet, thriving affluent, safe community, that most of us broke our backs to get into, and live in. How dare you begrudge us the Quiet Enjoyment of our respective neighborhoods? And since when are Ancient Wetlands, tracing back centuries, so easily impinged upon for those that lust only for money, at the expense of far too many?

    You have nothing to fear from reasonable urban planning which puts neighborhoods and our Coastal Resources first. That is our main support for our individual property rights, and VALUES.

    Also, tell Ms Frick, we want to know what is so bad about ”Short Squatty Buildings?” Who issues that priority ? Lennar ? Marina Del Ray..Gary?

    Sorry, just satire….but please….leave our nice area alone…..we have enough construction venders already ! Site some quality jobs at a minimum. I vote for a huge row of Environmental Lawyers , their Offices, and workshops.!! LOL

    When you talk about Doug Carstens, and Jan Chatten Brown, and all the free legal help around this case….now that….is a QUALITY JOB…

    [report]

    Posted By Passionate friend of his neighbors on February 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm

     

22. 22

    “Are you telling us that routine trash removal and a dozen trees are beyond the budget of guys wasting Millions to negligently waste 4 years of our time and City resources?”

    No, I’m not. But just because they can afford it doesn’t mean they’ll do it. They won’t.

    What I am telling you is that the developers are motivated by money and they own the land whether you like it or not. Unless you have a way of enabling them to make money, you are not going to get the wetlands restored, and the surrounding properties will remain wastelands.

    You’ve ranted and complained but have come up with no viable solution. My solution is to compromise. Let the developer develop some of the surrounding properties in exchange for the wetlands and a financial contribution to restoring them.

    What is your solution? Or do you want to just keep ranting and suing for the next 50 years so nobody wins…

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm

     

23. 23

    Having just read all the above posts, all I have to add is ”free speech and the First Amendment is still alive and well” in Long Beach thanks to The District Weekly.

    [report]

    Posted By Dwight K. Snider on February 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm

     

24. 24

    I suppose anyone who sheds light upon your specious contentions, by overwhelming your position with the facts, the law, and common sense born of broad based community support.. is on a rant? Are you so priveleged and elitest that you are simply not used to hearing from us simple, hard working Homeowners? Or is you obstreperous conduct simply another a aspect of those with more money, than sense, and greed which exceeds the best interests of their neighbors, our environment and Democracy? Boy do we sound like we always get our way….or we whine…as we hear a few have you have done in City Hall lately?

    We shall see how well you do trying to entitle, or develop a single foot of Bixby A, or B, because it is well documented, that it is ALL, an ESHA, or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Again, and for the record, this area is well under Coastal Jurisdiction, ,and thus protected. We shall probably soon file to have a proper delineation study done, this alone, takes 2 years after a wet Winter.

    Yes a few guys bought the land for nothing, but we the residents, and the law, control the zoning looking forward. Our community’s future need not profit a few who sought to purchase influence, and coin fast and dirty profits, to gun and run. Justifiably, they failed, and ran into thousands of opponents

    As for suing ? You asked for it for trying to extort the residents with a bullying ploy……to build a truck center…..Do you really thing we residents will stand for a smelly slice of the City of Industry out East? and Studebaker turned into Santa Fe Avenue, but worse?

    As for ‘nobody wins”, thousands of us did, yesterday, and we are a long way from folding our tent, or going away.

    What have you gained for losing Gentlemen? The respect and trust of a majority of us. This our way…or no wetlands ruse..is but another ploy aimed at spinning the truth. We all have to obey the law, and respect our neighbors, and you guys got off on the wrong foot, drank the coolaid, and went from bad to worse, with htis poorly reasoned, illogically sited, dangerous and unpopular idea.

    Don’t blame us for helping you learn your business a little better, this was a bad idea, ask the Judge, and read the Coastal Opinion also invalidating all of your approvals.

    And for those who think that they will expand the MarketPlace all the way North, to the Golden Sails , as rumored, don’t hold your breath.

    We bear you no ill will , but our area suits us fine big shot….., and LB resident, quit playing President ! of the connected, skewed but vocal …few …reprehensible Wetlands Developers !

    [report]

    Posted By Passionate friend of the Birds and the Law on February 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm

     

25. 25

    You’re missing the entire point. I am a homeowner, just like you. That’s it. I’m not rich. I work everyday for a living. I have no financial interest in any of those properties. I’m not trying to entitle anything. All I care about is improving the area. I want it prettier now and ultimately hopefully a nice restored wetlands.

    Great, you won a lawsuit yesterday. Our wetlands aren’t restored and have no chance of ever being restored as long as we approach this with your perspective.

    Throw all the irrelvant statistics, data, rulings, blah blah blah at me you want. I’m not your enemy. I guess the developers are. But at the end of the day, you are your own worst enemy because you’ll never achieve your goals of restoring the wetlands due only to your unwilligness to compromise. What you’ll get is 50 years of status quo and lawsuits. Hurray…

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm

     

26. 26

    You have no point which resonates with the majority, the law, and wise Urban Plannig.., just the circuitous supposition that was roundly chastized by the Judge yesterday. This ‘We need not obey the rules’ reasoning caused him to say…”With respect to your arguments and environmental documents…you have done a bad job….twice ”

    Have you spent decades surveying and studying these pristine Wetlands as many of us have ? The perimiter has been purposely uglied up for years to attempt to claim…’We need to clean it up”. Walk back there and marvel at the beauty some day. Let’s act as a community, to pass perimeter beautification ordinances, compelling a natural visual asthetic. A Wetlands boundry, like we see up and down the coast ? Watch our people supply the plantings for free, and help us set aside all of the remaining 1 1/2 % of our Coast. The rest is fully developed, and last we checked, they aren’t making any more?

    If you want clean air and water, rebounding fish stocks , birds , mammals, and all the related species , build you concrete tilt ups inland, where they make sense, money, and far less acrimony.

    Oh Ya, and in front of the Environmental Law Offices, full of good folks watching the Wetlands like endangered hawks, we need a tall statue of Don May !!
    LOL

    [report]

    Posted By Passionate friend of the Birds and the Law on February 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 pm

     

27. 27

    OK, you youngins. It’s time to turn off your computers, brush your teeth and go to bed. Let’s all get some well deserved shuteye. Then tommorrow get up bright and early to continue the mighty task of solving all the world’s problems. Goodnight.

    PS, don’t forget to say your prayers. We need all the help we can get.

    [report]

    Posted By Dwight K. Snider on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm

     

28. 28

    I think if you got outside of your own group you’d find that I’m not the only one that has opinions like mine. Regardless, stop selling me on the benefits of a restored wetlands. I’m already sold. I want them restored for the 10th time. Stop telling me you’ve worked for 10 years on restoring the wetlands. We’re not any closer today than we were 10 years ago. (Given the new land owner we’re probably further away.) So your approach isn’t working.

    The first constructive thing you have said in all of this is “pass perimeter beautification ordinances”. I would totally support this and actively campaign for it in my neighborhood. If you have any other good ideas, I’d love to hear them.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm

     

29. 29

    Re: PERIMETER BEAUTIFICATION
    In my old home state after years of waiting for the politicians who were still “working on it” and the developers to finally “do the right thing” the hard-working grand-mothers, home-owners, mothers, teen-agers and wives decided if the city doesn’t have the money or the staff to pick up the garbage and pull the weeds from the part of the property around the wetlands, that they own and are responsible for, because they don’t have the budget or the man-power, surely they don’t have the tax-payers money to waste arresting us for doing it for them, so we all took turns every time we drove or walked by to fill up a bag or two of garbage and weeds and sprinkle a handful of colorful native wild flower seeds that attract beautiful birds and pretty butterflies that wouldn’t cost the city any money to water or maintain– like the television commercial says “Just Do It!”

    [report]

    Posted By Venus on February 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm

     

30. 30

    Venus. that’s the best advice on this board. the rest is really just an entertaining waste of time. i deploy the same tactics in my neighborhood and it’s the only thing that keeps my sanity that i would otherwise lose if i sat around waiting for politicians, budgets and all that other crap to do things officially.

    LBR, you want ideas. Here’s mine. Get the city to draft an ordinance that says you can’t develop anything commercial in that area. Create no value in the land except for value to the people. then buy out the land from whoever owns it and spend some money to beautify it, create some walking paths, bike paths, nature centers, etc. Screw the short term homedepot money, collect the money in the long run by creating demand for a city that believes in its people and its environment and puts them first for a change. stand up for yourself do things for the right reasons and that will create demand in this city that can be leveraged into the right type of developments that make sense and provide true value. stop taking damn shortcuts.

    power to the people, hoohah, fsu!!

    [report]

    Posted By Gunther on February 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 am

     

31. 31

    Venus, good ideas.

    I still think trying to get a perimeter ordinace passed is worth a try as well. Probably can’t make them plant trees but trash pick up I would think is a possibility. Who wants to ask Gary to write the ordinance? I actually think he might be open to that if it’s legal.

    Gunther, I love the vision but since the land is currently zoned industrial, rather than sell it the owner will just keep it an industrial wasteland.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am

     

32. 32

    Gentlemen,

    I just love how Venus gets it! So many of us have long shared this goal ..

    We have proposed perimeter improvement since 2004. Frank Colonna loved the idea.. We now raise the plan again to build consensus with Gary, but we do have some codes, and we are working with other Officials and Agencies too.

    We just surveyed Bixby A today, and there is more unpermitted habitat destruction going on day by day, and this, along with so many other things, requires Gary to finally show any leadership in this area, or on this issue.

    Colonna would have never just looked the other way to allow a developer to quietly take over, and tolerate, befriend and enable a ‘ team press’ for Wetlands entitlements. He was not so politically naïve, he fought for our Wetlands, he heard the vast preservation desire of the area, and.he was realistic about the Legal protections in the area.

    This battle has simmered, then boiled, then simmered again, since 1969, and it will not soon go away. But we have cause for some encouragement. Two parcels are now in public hands over the last 1 ½ years, due to much prior work.

    So for now, with reference to all other media than this fine forum, the LB Report, The LA Times or higher…recall that 60’s quote….aahh….’The Revolution doesn’t talk to the media “

    Again, it’s Saturday and you gotta be a little satirical. Thanks LBR for kind of coming around a little? I was raised to pass forward a better world than I was born into, as best I can.

    ,

    [report]

    Posted By Passionate friend of his neighbors on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm

     

33. 33

    Re: PERIMETER BEAUTIFICATION
    Thank you Gunther (”Power To The People!”), LB Resident (”The Negotiator!”) and Passionate Friend of His Neighbors (”The Legal Eagle!”) for caring, and for your kind acknowledgments of my comment (#29)!

    [report]

    Posted By Venus on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm

     

34. 34

    I don’t think I really changed my position. I think we’ve always had similar goals. Maybe just different strategies for achieving them. Certainly we share some approaches like a perimeter ordinace. I have asked Gary for help on stuff before and if an ordinance is feasible I would bet he’d help.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on February 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm

     

35. 35

    BIRDS ARE DUMB… They drink water, like from the toilet! Home Depot good cause it paves the toilet water!

    [report]

    Posted By oliver miller on February 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

     

Leave a Reply

DISCLAIMER: We do not screen comments in advance, but we do reserve the right to delete or edit any we find inappropriate. Please note that commenters are free to use whatever name(s) they choose.

UPCOMING EVENTS

DTV

Watch This Video on Youtube

Loading Vector video...

If Video does not load, you might need to Install the Adobe Flash Player

PROJECT: MAKE MCCAIN EXCITING - Jul 21

PREVIOUSLY ON DTV

CHARLTON LANCASTER
› BUTTOCK CLEFT CONFIDENTIAL
› DTV BOOK CLUB: VOL. II
› MORE DTV VIDEOS

 

POST YOUR OWN, FREE!

• GET A LIFE TIME CASH GENERATING WEBSITE FROM AT WWW.365JOBS4U.COM
• Blac label, christian audigier, polo, locaste, g-star, coogi, bape t-shirts wholesale
• Hot sell jordan 9 jordan 23 fusion, ato matsumoto, af1 jordan fusion sneakers on mysneakerworld.com
• Hydraulite Hose
• LIFE TIME INCOME FROM GOOGLE ADSENSE. MONEY BACK GUARANTEE AT WWW.365JOBS4U.COM
• Hot blac label, affliction, ed hardy, polo, christian audigier t-shirts for sale
• www.mysneakerworld.com hot sell nike jordan, dunk sb, max 90, locaste, puma, af1 jordan fusion shoes
• CONTENT WRITER JOBS
• GLOBAL AD POSTING JOB
• Click here for more