BLIGHT MAKES RIGHT: HOW-LOW-CAN-YOU-GO TIPS FOR GETTING WHAT YOU WANT
By Dwight “Blight” Masters
EDITOR’S NOTE: Second+PCH developer David Malmuth announced last week that he intends to rewrite southeastern Long Beach’s zoning laws—sounding certain of a rubber stamp by city officials—to accommodate the myriad ways his massive retail/residential/hotel proposal violates regulations that have been in effect for 31 years. Many residents, eager to maximize the profitability of their properties, have expressed an interest in getting in on the action. One wrote to GreaterLongBeach.com asking how she could add four stories to her quaint Belmont Shore cottage and convert the bottom floor into a liquor store. We passed along her inquiry to the experts at Blight Masters Construction.
Hey, thanks for the shout out, but it’s Blight Masters Consulting, not Construction—after all, we have standards. And speaking of standards, we very much like your reader’s transformational vision for Belmont Shore, which, let’s face it, is mostly filled with very old homes that are unreasonably protected by zoning laws even older than the ones Mr. Malmuth is about to rewrite. Blight Masters Consulting would be happy to help her open a liquor store at her residence.
The first step is to follow the example of the landowners at Second+PCH—blight your property. There is no way around this requirement. Don’t do anything to make it look as though you’re trying your best to make a go
of it—that will only lead to the conclusion that your management of the property is competent. Shoot for something that can be described the way Mr. Malmuth talks about the current hotel at that intersection: “a failure … an eyesore, and an economic drain.”
Go Small Time in a Big Time way! Throw a plywood berry stand on your front lawn, and use smelly, unshaven men to sell some Christmas trees when it gets dark early—but only after pulling out the grass and throwing down some gravel. Make your place look like hell, like you’re chasing nickels to support a meth habit. Make it look like you have no self respect as a business owner.
Then ask Long Beach city officials for permission to build three liquor stores. Tell them the Bacardi Girls will be there for the grand opening, or maybe Captain Morgan in a Long Beach State baseball cap! Tell the Mayor he can have his picture taken with them! You’ll get your liquor store.
Of course, if you follow Blight Masters’ recommendation, you’ll be proposing three liquor stores, each of four stories, for a reasonable height of 12 stories. This will require a “new media” strategy—that is, identifying gullible people and communicating with them frequently. This is critical to your success.
For this step, follow the example of the Second+PCH developers.
Build a cool website and load it with out-of-context excerpts from the latest draft of the Environmental Impact Report and unsubstantiated claims about the tax revenue and jobs that will be generated by the project. Don’t forget to include a form letter raving about your project, something that makes it easy for people to electronically sign and send, not to mention pretend that they have reviewed the potential impacts.
Start a Facebook page and then tell your neighbors—or anybody, really—that if they “friend” you and post nice things about your project, you’ll give them an iPad. That way, when you go before the Planning Commission and City Council you can talk about how supportive your neighbors are of your 12-story stack of four-story liquor stores.
Meanwhile, refuse to engage those who point out that many one- and two-story businesses in your area are still making comfortable, non-extravagant livings for their owners. Continue to insist that yours is a “reasonable” development—until someone gets around to pointing out that it’s only reasonable if you want to score big enough to arouse the envy of Wall Street bonus-takers.
At this point, tread carefully. You’ll probably feel like saying, “But who doesn’t want to make an enormous amount of money by screwing over the neighbors? I’m living the dream, baby!” But your honesty won’t serve you well here. Many people would take a dim view of your sociopathy (and forgive us for assuming this about you, but you’re not our first client).
Instead, you should insist loudly that everything man-made is development and, therefore, to be against your development is to be against THE MARCH OF HUMAN HISTORY!!! Insist that all developments are the same and that yours is just one more of them!
Ask lots of liquor-using and iPad-starved people if they want to be against THE MARCH OF HUMAN HISTORY!!! Tell them the answer is NO!!! (Remember, they’re only with you because they’re not thinking.)
Lead them in a parade! Tell the Mayor he can front it and get his picture taken, but only if he wears a Long Beach State pennant from each ear and does the buck-and-wing while farting the school’s fight song! (If you think he won’t show, you’re mistaken.)
What a day for your liquor store empire that will be!
90 Comments
The hyperbole is entertaining but hardly necessary and not really very constructive. To the best of my knowledge, no liquor stores are planned for the project (12-story, 4-story or otherwise.)
Developers are motivated primarily by profit. This is not surprising, but neither is it inappropriate nor to any degree evil. It is that very profit motive in our nations primarily capitalist economic system that is responsible for helping us to create the greatest nation on earth and develop medical and technoligical breakthroughs that have provided benefits for and improved the overall quality of life for millions and millions of people all around the world.
Realistically speaking, a developer’s profit motive also serves the general public because the latter usually benefits, both directly and indirectly, from the project being built. Projects like the one at issue here can increase economic activity which translates to increased employment, increased product and service options, and increased tax receipts and fees which city and state governments can use to help pay for the ever-increasing government services the public demands and has come to expect. Development projects like these can be a net benefit for all concerned.
But, as we have seen, developers can sometimes suboordinate the realistic concerns of the public to the profit motive that drives them. This is precisely why we have public oversight of such projects, from the planning stages all the way through to ribbon-cutting and afterward…so as to assure that the public’s interests are considered and reasonably accomodated.
So long as traffic, parking and environmental impacts are reasonably mitigated; so long as the entire process remains as transparent as possible to the general public; and so long as all of our laws are either followed as written or properly amended as required, I just do not see a down-side to a development such as this one.
The photos of the decrepit Seaport Marina structure that this author was kind enough to provide only serve to convince me further that almost anything built there would be an improvement over what is there currently. Some take issue with the developer, claiming that he intentionally blighted the property to achieve just this reaction. Perhaps. Or perhaps like any good business person he is not inclined to continue to pour increased amounts of funds into a property that has long past reached its point of diminshing returns.
Think of it this way: When a person owns a decades-old car that requires more and more expensive maintenance and repairs to keep it on the road, at some point, the person has to make the reasonable decision to sell (or donate) the clunker and replace it with something newer and less expensive to maintain.
How is this project any different? The structure on the property has outlived its usefullness. Time to take it down and build something in its place that can attract new businesses, new products, new services, new employment, new tax and fee revenues for our overburdened state and local governments and, in so doing, perhaps help facilitate renewed economic activity in the other developments in the vicinity, which could mean still more local economic activity that our people, our city, and our state sorely need right now.
I understand the objections to development, particularly in our fragile coastal areas, but let’s be honest, the only thing fragile about this particular property is the ramshackle structure that sits upon it. At what point do we start to cut off our nose to spite our face in protesting such developments?
Approve this reasonable development concept, monitor the process closely, reasonably mitigate all traffic, parking and environmental impacts, but build it, or something similar.
Soon.
Mr. Greet: Do you really believe it is the mark of a “good business person” to stop caring for his or her property—allowing it to become an public eyesore and a physical danger—whenever that person determines the property is no longer providing enough of a financial return? This would be OK with you if it were your next-door neighbor? Probably not, and it’s the reason we have public codes that govern such things—it’s the reason the city employs code-enforcement personnel—and the condition of the Seaport Marina Hotel ought to make us wonder why Long Beach city management is not dispatching its personnel to enforce the legal codes governing the condition of hotels in this town. The owners of the Seaport Marina Hotel knew what they were buying when they purchased it and they knew the zoning. But they have preferred to pour $4 million into efforts to build something in its place that will require drastically different zoning than to respect the community that instituted the current zoning and trusted them not to turn their property into a blight. You compare the Seaport Marina to an old clunker that becomes more and more expensive to keep on the road, but there is a difference. If you continue to drive a car that you have allowed to become unsafe—no headlights, no seatbelts,a flat tire, belching smoke—you will quickly be pulled over and cited by law enforcement. And if you just let it sit and rust away on your front yard or even at the curb, you will also be cited. Why are the Seaport Marina Hotel owners allowed to continue driving their ugly and dangerous “clunker” at our expense and in pursuit of their profit?
Citizen Journalist Three Foolish Quotes Day
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” — Alexander Pope
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” — Abraham Lincoln
“A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” — William Shakespeare
(Submitted: April 1, 2011)
Baktaah Sorkabi recently laughed at the *little* unenlightened people like me who do not understand that places like Hong Kong represent REAL progress. It seems he is a world traveler (he checked in from a cafe in Hong Kong to grace us with his opinion!) and he does not think people like me understand what a gift a 12 story building is. Here is a picture of Hong Kong:
http://popupcity.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Hong-Kong-Outside.jpg
I see now how right he is!
With a little help from Baktaah Sorkabi east side LB can someday look this awesome! Wake up people, do not stand in the way of progress and JOBS!
@ Code: If the property is a physical danger, then that condition must surely represent a violation of any number of city codes. Has anyone filed a complaint? If so, has it been investigated? If so, what was the result? But if not, why not?
Since it seems you have a considerable amount of direct and personal knowledge about these allegd violations, have you called the city and complained? If so, what was the result? If not, why not?
Right now there are dozens and dozens of open Code Enforcement cases listed on the city’s website so it seems clear that they receive these complaints and act upon them.
Perhaps I can assist you, here’s the number in case you do not have it: 562- 570-2633 (CODE) I would very much like to learn the results of your call.
I hear lead developer Steve Conley contacted Sean Hitchcock to bulldoze down some of the Marina Hotel’s walls as part of Second + PCH’s new weed abatement program. DeLong promised Hitchcock that he will receive all the support from the city he needs and the developers have promised Hitchcock that soccer fields will be set up in Second + PCH parking lots on weekends.
I also hear lead developer Steve Conley has emailed a request to Long Beach Public Works Director Mike Conway on his personal home email to have Conway set up truck loads of ground up asphalt to be dumped on the Marina Hotel site to help worsen the curb appeal. In return, Conway will receive a gift matching the one developer Tom Dean gave Conway when he similarly dumped asphalt on the wetlands.
I also hear Legends owner Gene Rotondo and property owner Bill Lorbeer have hired on as consultants to Second + PCH in case the developers decide to burn down their Marina Hotel to help get the variances they need to build 12-stories high. Long Beach city codes grant commercial property owners variances without public hearings and huge concessions when their properties are torched. And who knows more about getting secret variances than Rotondo and Lorbeer who were granted variances without public hearings and city sponsored loans to rebuild Legends after it MYSTERIOUSLY burned down.
John, you sound like a “free trade” communist pary functionary with your glowing talk of all the benefits that will be bestowed with the invisible hand of the market. But, you don’t want to know where that hand has been most active. Hell, we have been the ground zero paradise of free trade for the last 40-50 years, and while 1 to 10% have done quite well, the rest have become more desperate. So, you push harder with the same knuckle-dragging dictates that are now being exposed as empty promises.
wow…I think I just fell in love with Mike Ruehle…somebody pinch me.
rin02: As mentioned, I think almost anything would be better than what is there now. I am interested in assuring that the process is as open to the public as is possible and that adverse impacts are reasonably mitigated. I do not know how much more clear I can be.
I am not interested in any gifts of public funds or in assuming any public financial responsibility for any aspect of the project. I want existing law followed or, if it is to be amended, I want that accomplished properly and in full compliance with other laws that specify how that is allowed to occur.
Feel free to continue to employ derogatory rhetoric such as “free trade communist par(t)y functionary” and “knuckle-dragging dictates” all you like. But I do not think you are serving any constructive purpose by doing so.
Simiple, have respect for the area, be creative and build within the existing zoning laws. Are these people special?
I’ve always hated the argument of ‘anything would be better then what we have there now’. It’s a dangerous way to plan and usually puts you in a worse off position then what you started with.
I think anyone wiling to risk a major devlopment project under the current economic conditions is pretty special indeed. We should acknowledge the huge finaincial risks they are willing to take and welcome the legitimate economic activity that they can help to stimulate, not condemn them or unreasonably hinder them.
In my humble opinion.
Hello Mr. Greet. Good suggestion regarding reporting suspicion of code violations … although can I say it is hard to imagine that the city is unaware of the conditions of the Seaport Marina Hotel, inasmuch as the subject has been a matter of very public discussion by both sides in the debate over Second+PCH?
John, you’re terms “current economic conditions” and “legitimate economic activity” are interactive. A big problem in our current culture is the confusion of economics and money. Economics is how we increase the productive powers of labor by using new methods into the production process to increase our standard of living. The thinking that has become dominant is how to make money. But, when money isn’t backed by an underlying robust physical economy, it’s value goes up in smoke.
You see the “current economic conditions” as being just a temporary slowdown. I see the crashing of “consumerism” in 2007-2008, from 30+ years of living beyond our means as we replaced manufacturing and production with debt, as a changed enviroment.
Maybe more condos and retail stores, if built large and beautifull, can pull people in from out of the area, and increase tax revenue to the city. But, this is about all we have done for the last years, and look around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5jnJdnQPr8&feature=related
I wonder if anyone remember the Seaport Marina Hotel originally was was the Hyatt Edgewater Hotel. It was built in 1963. Elvis Presley stayed there in 1972 while performing concerts because it was the best hotel around.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8hIQpzElZIkJ:www.seaportmarinahotel.com/thehotel/history.html+%22seaport+marina+hotel%22+edgewater&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Seaport Marina Hotel is owned by Raymond Lin’s company Taki-Sun, which also owns Peter’s Landing in Huntington Beach and Northtown Mainstreet in Santa Ana (below link). The Grunion Gazette and Beachcomber keep portraying the Lin family as the poor property owners. They are anything but that. The Lin family is extremely wealthy and only care about increasing their wealth.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A9SOkCq1-GUJ:www.takisun.com/+TAKI-SUN+INC&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
If you don’t believe approval on this development is predestined, take a look at who Taki-Sun and Ray Lin contributed to in the past election. Ray Lin contributed the maximum to the election campaigns of Mayor Bob Foster and Councilmen Andrew and Johnson. And that’s only the money they declared for legal reasons.
http://www2.longbeach.gov/efs
In 2008, Councilman DeLong was quoted in the Press Telegram (below link) saying support by the community was “a component that’s vital to the project.” I guess that’s all changed now that Steve Conley, the lead developer, is DeLong’s former election campaign manager and close friend.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Lwxuw59F7GcJ:www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology/15355642-1.html+%22seaport+marina+hotel%22+%22long+beach%22+taki-sun&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
John,
If find your points quite reasonable on this. The current use of the site is poor. However, I would pile on a little bit. Proper and adequate mitigation of the traffic and environmental impacts must be on-site (not some mitigation banking garbage). And this project must be able to stand on its own, without gifting of public funds (or whatever people are calling it these days).
To date, I don’t believe the traffic concerns are addressed. The idea of, simply, “re-timing the lights” makes me giggle.
Second, the developer cites some magical demand for urban living. When, in fact, people aren’t crazy enough about it to utilize our existing supply, let alone the projects already approved (i.e. Shoreline Gateway).
Third, LB has shown an inability to support high-end retail, even WITH “help” from the public coffers.
I agree that zoning, alone, shouldn’t preclude this project. But, in my eyes, fulfillment of the necessary provisions to skirt the zoning falls well short of passing the laugh test.
I was googling around the information superhighway this morning and came across the 2008 SEADIP survey results…remember the last time someone tried to develop the parcel where Seaport Marina lies?
Check out the area residents’ survey responses:
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2796
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2795
These are from the City’s own website! (http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_planning/seadip.asp) All of the publics’ disapproval on overdeveloping this intersection has been on record since 2008. How can anyone be so disingenious to say they have not heard one single word of dissent on the proposed development being 12 stories?
It has been reported Raymond and Amy Lin, the owners of Taki-Sun and Seaport Marina Hotel, have spent over $4 million trying to get variances from zoning codes to turn their eyesore into a monolith. Imagine how nice the Seaport Marina Hotel could have looked if they had instead used that $4 million to beautify the property.
The Lins knew what the zoning codes were prior to purchasing the property. However, it was people like Malmuth and Conley who convinced the Lins they had the stroke to get the zoning codes changed so they could ALL make a boatload of money.
Typical Long Beach maneuvering…Mayberry RFD. What a shame (or joke?).
Most people don’t realize the CITY OF LONG BEACH owns all of the Alamitos Bay Landing and Marina waterfront properties just across the street from Seaport Marina Hotel where you can find Schooner or Later, Seal Beach Yacht Club, Crab Pot, Joe’s Crab Shack, Farmers Market, McKenna’s on the Bay, Khoury’s Restaurant, Buster’s Beach House.
Guess who has had an exclusive, no-bid contract with the Cityof Long Beach for 29 years to manage ALL of those Alamitos Bay properties. That person is Steve Conley, who is the owner of BANCAP investment group and also the lead developer for Second + PCH (below link).
http://www.bancap.biz/PRINCIPALS.htm
Conley and his family have become hugely wealthy while exclusively managing these city owned properties as evidenced by the number of companies Conley owns and operates (below link).
http://www.corporationwiki.com/graphs/roamer.aspx?id=40768890
What resident taxpayers should be asking is WHY IS CONLEY GRANTED A NO-BID EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY? Why has City Auditor Laura Doud not looked into why the city does not periodically put this land management contract up for bid?
When I repeatedly hear Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong whine about how the city has no money to provide essential services, why aren’t they looking into these exclusive no-bid city contracts granted to the wealthy big boys in Long Beach. The answer is simple. It’s guys like Conley who put DeLong and Foster in office. All you have to do is look at the political contributions made by Conley, his family and BANCAP employees. Heck, Conley was DeLong’s election committee chairman for the past two elections.
AGAIN, WHY IS CONLEY GRANTED A NO-BID EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY THAT MAKES HIM $MILLIONS EVERY YEAR?
Mr. Ruehle, While I willingly acknowledge that the ongoing no-bid contract arrangement with Conley/BANCAP, if true, has the appearance of impropriety -particularly in light of the direct campaign connection with Councilman DeLong- but can you point to any laws, rules or other regulations that have been broken here? If not, what laws, rules or regulations do you feel we might amend, abolish, or enact that could prevent such adverse appearances in the future?
Is it possible that this is simply a circumstance that, if you have described it accurately, has proven beneficial to all parties involved, city government, public, and BANCAP alike?
Is it possible that no company other than BANCAP could have managed those properties as successfully as BANCAP appears to have, of for the amount that we pay them to do so?
You seem to be alleging some political shenanigans between DeLong, Conley, and Mayor Foster. Have you filed an official complaint along these lines with Cal-FPPC? If so, what was the result of the complaint? If not, why not?
Code Blues: I would suggest that we should avoid making assumptions about what “the city” may or may not know on any given matter.
Making such assumptions only leads to circumstances like that which we currently see with the property in question. We have a specific process in place through which to submit complaints on matters such as these. Shame on us if we do not avail ourselves of it, and then hold our city government responsible for effectively responding to those complaints.
John, the question here would be are we still a country of, by and for the people, or one that is all-so-common in most of the rest of the world, where inside dealing and a rigged game only benefits the few?
grammar checker
LBCityGirl~ I’ve been asking about that survey recently. It was conducted by LB Planning Dept. and thus, unfortunately, not “scientific” enough to generate relevant results. And even if it had, the city can’t change SEADIP – modernize it? – since there’s no money in the General Fund to pay for it. It takes another EIR and that’s expensive – maybe $500K. Until then, it’s each development for itself, challenging the plan and trying to get approval for higher density and building heights – just like Second and PCH.
rino2: I would answer a clear and resounding “yes.” I would say that all of the mechanisms are in place, and have been all along, for the people to assert and to retain more constructive control of their government at all levels. The degree to wich we do not do so, is a far greater comment upon our own failings, than it is upon the systems of self-government currently in place.
Here in Long Beach it’s a rigged game; insider dealing that benefits the few.
John, I appreciate your reasonableness of thinking, unlike Baktaah who is young and his brain is probably not fully developed, but let me push more. You and I both acknowledge that the Warren Commission Report is a cover up of the JFK assassination, and Long Beach and much of the world is full of inside dealings and a rigged game, so my question for you is why aren’t you working in a moral way to change it?
rino2: I work in my own ways and on my own levels to affect positive change in our nation, state and city. I trust you do the same.
Doesn’t it seem even a *little* bit presumptuous for you to A: assume I am not so working and/or B: that I am not working in a “moral” way? Can you provide an example of how you feel I am somehow working in an “immoral” way?
rino2, I can answer Greet’s question for him and have done so several times. However, lets let this link help answer Greet’s question.
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2009/07/29/will-the-real-officer-john-greet-please-stand-up/
You can hear Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong talk every City Council meeting about how essential city services need to be cut because of the budget. Yet, less than a year ago, DeLong sponsored a city council motion to pay Second + PCH developer Steve Conley an extra $46,000 per year of taxpayers money to manage the city owned Alamitos Bay Landing and Marina.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PPsEYtz2QA0J:www.lbpost.com/ryan/9394+%22steve+conley%22+%22yacht%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Considering Conley was DeLong’s campaign election chairman, wasn’t it a conflict of interest for DeLong to sponsor the motion and then vote for its approval? Shouldn’t DeLong have recused himself from voting on this issue? It’s clear DeLong takes care of people he calls his close friends and family like he did for developer Tom Dean. Its unfortunate DeLong does so with taxpayer’s money.
Is there any doubt DeLong will attempt to further enrich Steve Conley and his developer friends by pushing through the Second + PCH monolith?
Yes, Mr. Ruehle is always very accomodating in attempting to answer (and quite erroneously) on behalf of others.
Isn’t it interesting, however, that he conveniently neglects to mention that -during the Beer & Politics forum in which Councilman Garcia and I both offered our ideas and fielded questions from the audience on that topic- Councilman Garcia himself openly acknowledged that but for Prop. 8, the Long Beach City Council would have *no need* to consider an Equal Benefits Ordinance at all.
This acknowlegment was, for me, tacit admission that the primary reason the Long Beach City Councl was considering an EBO at that time was because it simply was not happy with the results of the Prop 8 vote. I get that. I wasn’t happy with it either. And I campaigned publicly and actively against it (Mr. Ruehle conveniently omits that as well.) But the EBO was simply a way to circumvent the intent and the effect of Prop 8, which was to deprive spousal rights to LGBT community members who had chosen, or who might one day choose, to marry.
Put simply, through Prop 8, Californians chose to witthold state-recognized spousal rights and privileges to millions of its own consenting adult residents while at the same time extending those same state-recognized rights and privileges to other consenting adult residents. I believe this act on the part of the majority of voters was, and remains, patently discriminatory on the basis of both religious practice and sexual orientation and, thus, thoroughly unconstitutional.
But the proper remedy was, and remains, to have that abomination of a proposition overturned on *that* basis, and not enact subservient local legislation with the intent to circumvent the intent and the effect of the law.
To me, enacting Prop 8 was a despicably amoral thing for the majority of California voters to presume to do and that is precisely why I voted *against* it. But I believe it is unwise and ill-considered to seek loopholes and end-arounds to immoral laws. I believe the proper and most moral response is to abolish such abominations so that they can never be wielded to deprive state-recognized rights and privileges from consenting adult residents who just happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. I believe Prop 8 to be discriminatory on its face and I welcome the day when it will be finally overturned.
But in the mean time, we now have an EBO that descriminates in its own way, by preventing many lawfully operating businesses from being awarded city contracts. This means that even though a qualifying business may submit what proves to be the “lowest responsible bid” for such a contract, the city *cannot*, as a matter of law, award that contract to that business. And solely because that business may choose to not extend equal spousal benefits to its employees who choose to register as domestic partners.
Mind you there is no local, state, or federal law that *requires* any business to offer benefits parity. But if it chooses to not do so, the city will not award a contract to that business. Even though it could mean that taxpayers pay millions of dollars more for the same work. I believe this practice to be discriminatory. And I believe the Council fully intends that it be discriminatory, else why enact the EBO at all?
In essence, all Long Beach does through its EBO is to answer one sort of descrimination with another. And in my opinion, discrimination is wrong, no matter what sort of mask it wears.
Now you may disagree with me, Mr. Ruehle. Many others do also. But if you are going to presume to answer questions on my behalf, at least try to get all of your facts straight.
Whoa Officer Greet. Starting to lost it a bit aren’t you. The point was NOT your stance on the EBO. Since you clearly missed it, the point is you were the one who asked for evidence of how you act in an immoral way. I just provided what you asked for from someone else’s blog.
John, I didn’t ask what immoral things you are working… My question to you of “why aren’t you working in a moral way to change it?”, it being the JFK assassination coverup, inside dealings and a rigged game, which you acknowledged true, was to turn your “words of wisdom” to others of having the bad things in gov’t they complain about because of their shirking of their responsibilities to fix it, back at you. What have you done, not what have you done bad.
Also, you seem to be providing a defense of this project, which Mike Ruehl has shown to be filled with inside dealings, based on this “complaint” of people not putting in the effort to get something better, or more honest, and therefore deserving what they get, whatever it is.
Mr. Ruehle: As you know, I am no longer an officer. Continuing to address me as such is not accurate. You know it is not accurate (because I have told you on several occasions that this is so.) Yet you persist in being deliberately deceitful. I do not believe that tactic is particularly constructive. I did not miss your point. You appear to have missed mine, which was to attempt to demonstrate why I believe my stance on the EBO was not immoral. Do try to keep up, will you?
rino2: I believe I answered you quite clearly if, perhaps, not as specifically as you might have liked. I work in my own ways and on my own levels to affect positive change in our nation, state and city. I do not intend to list my work here, because it would only seem self-serving, particularly to the hyper-critcal among us.
I do not seek to provide a defense of this project, only to advocate for its completion, or the completion of something comparable. I never denied there may be inside deals being made. To the more naive among us, I would offer that much if not most of the development in Long Beach *and everywhere else* involves what some characterize to be “inside dealing” of one sort or at one level or another. When city government offers a 10% preference point to local businesses seeking to contract with the city, is this not, after all, a form of “inside dealing?”
But what Mr. Ruehle and some others too often see as vast unholy alliances and deep, dark conspiracies, I see as very often nothing more than people developing business relationships and then taking full advantage of them to get things done.
This is not wrong. It is, in fact, lawful. It is, in fact, business. It can certainly *become* unlawful, such as when it can be proven that a business person has unreasonably influenced an elected official who, in turn, then votes in support of that business person’s proposal. But this, like any other allegation of unlawful or unethical behavior on the part of our elected officials, must first be proven. And it must be proven in a court of law, not in the blog-o-sphere.
Greet, you just don’t get it. It’s not about the EBO. The person in the blog explained how you talk out of both sides of your mouth and are a liar. Apparently you don’t see anything immoral about that.
As a former long time Long Beach Police Officer, how many times did you lie in court causing innocent people to be sent to prison like several other officer’s you worked with? How moral was it for you to sit back and say nothing when you knew fellow officers were doing something wrong or illegal? You talk awful high and mighty for someone who made a profession of looking the other way.
Mr. Ruehle it is pointless to continue to bandy words with you on this. You have your opinions about me and I believe I have sufficiently refuted them. You disagree. You have every right to do so.
You persist in leaping to erroneous conclusions about others and then presume to condem *them* for *your* own errors. You have employed such dishonest tactics for as long as you and I have been discussing issues on fora such as this one. I do not expect you to ever change, to avoid these tactics and begin to consistently deal with others in a more honest, courteous and respectful manner.
So just keep doing what you do, sir. You have become quite adept at it.
Greet, you always change the subject rather than answering the questions on your morality. In case you have a hard time comprehending, the questions are those sentences followed with a question mark (?).
Mr. Ruehle, what part of “…it is pointless to continue to bandy words with you on this” did you not understand?
Mr. Greet:
As a Long Beach Police Officer, did you ever lie in court?
As a Long Beach Police Officer, did you ever remain silent when you knew fellow officers were doing something wrong or illegal?
Panglonymous: No. Not once. Ever. Can you enlighten me as to what you feel that has to do with this story?
Greet, I don’t recall you speaking up when Police Chief Batt’s multiple domestic violence complaints were covered-up by the entire department. I don’t recall you speaking up when Officer Roberson continued working as a Long Beach Police officer AFTER twice being found to have lied in court resulting in two different innocent people being sent to prison and later being awarded huge settlements of taxpayers money. I don’t recall you speaking up when Officer Turley continued to work as a Long Beach Police officer AFTER being found to have lied in court, resulting in an innocent person sent to prison for years and later awarded a huge settlement.
I can list many more officers names and can provide the case numbers where police officers continued to work for the Long Beach Police Department AFTER having been found in a court of law to have violated the law and the civil rights of individuals. I don’t remember EVER hearing you condemning your former Police Chief and those officers who every police officer in the department knew had broken the law. That’s what I call remaining silent.
2nd Try: Mr. Ruehle, what part of “…it is pointless to continue to bandy words with you on this” did you not understand?
Greet, why snivel after provoking a response from me? You’re like a spoiled little kid. Whaaaaa, I’m taking my ball and going home.
If you choose to respond to one of my arguments, then you best learn how to take the heat. Otherwise tell DeLong, your handler, that you are tired of sticking up for DeLong’s buddy projects.
Mr. Greet, I’ll try.
In a genuine representative democracy, the power of government is derived from the level of trust it establishes between itself and those it governs.
The governed will always question the trustworthiness of those it invests with the power to represent them, and well they should – the seductions of power and privilege are manifold.
So long as the great majority of the transactions between a people and its government are demonstrably guided by principle, genuinely uncorrupted, and when instances of obvious malfeasance once discovered are quickly and directly rooted out, then the level of trust will be sufficient for government’s power to continue and even grow.
When trust declines below a certain level, and government as a whole no longer possesses the motive to quickly and directly reform itself, it may choose to manage perception of its trustworthiness and legitimacy via propaganda/public relations. This is destructive of a people and its culture and is not sustainable.
We are there. We have been there quite a while.
If you are part of an in-class, the PR may be easy to rationalize as reasonable: after all, it feeds you.
If you are part of an out-class, the PR is transparent: it feeds off you, and it hurts.
The actual subject regarding BLIGHT was an interesting topic for discussion. Too bad the egocentrics had to ruin it… again…. but what’s new?
3rd Try: Mr. Ruehle, what part of “…it is pointless to continue to bandy words with you on this” did you not understand?
So, in a way, Greet and Ruehle have blighted the thread. On-topic after all!
Ms. Nancy Wride makes a good point over at the local AOL Patch franchise:
“…I happen to find it interesting how busy that hotel is, despite what people may think of the appearance, whether it is intentionally being unmaintained to help the bid to replace it, etc. To me, that speaks to the need people have for more moderate hotel prices, and I think that has long been under $75 a night…”
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/2nd-pch-draft-eir-says-project-needs-further-air-quality-study-to-move-forward-and-will-worsen-traffic
Commenter Jeanine at LBReport article:
2nd+PCH — Fool the Eye to Fool the Brain?
http://www.lbreport.com/11ops/aley/2ndpchop.htm
promises informed evidence of 2nd+ photo tweakery:
“I took a course in rendering perspective as part of my BFA requirements. I guarantee you they are visually misrepresenting the height by cleverly manipultaing the perspective points. I am preparing a demonstration of this. It should be available on youtube soon.”
LBPost, Gazettes (PT subsidiary), and Press Telegram have been quiet on this subject thus far.
Thanks for your comments, Panglonymous. And for your routine attempts to remain civil and respectful in your discourse.
I agree completely when you state “The governed will always question the trustworthiness of those it invests with the power to represent them, and well they should – the seductions of power and privilege are manifold.”
I have said much the same, many times, on this forum and others. Except to say that not all who are governed bother themselves to ask such questions. In fact, far too few of us do so. On the other hand, in my opinion, some over-question…leaping to erroneous conclusions based on little or no direct evidence and ascribing the most sinister motives possible to every single thing some of our elected and appointed officials achieve or even attempt. Questioning is healthy and productive. Hyper-questioning is not healthy and thoroughly unproductive.
I have no interest, whatsoever, in government’s “power” growing any greater than it already is. In my view government has already grown far too large, intrusive, costly and powerful. I believe this has happened because we have allowed it. And it will continue to happen unless and until we stop it.
In my opinion, government neither can nor will “reform itself.” Ever. Because government, at least in this greatest of nations, is wholly and entirely a construct of the people it serves, it is the people who must impose reforms upon it, routinely and often.
As an institution, our government is thoroughly self-serving, self-aggrandizing and self-protecting (e.g. Congress enacting laws regulating the rest of us from which it conveniently exempts itself.) Left to its own devices government grows and expands exponentially -virus like- at every opportunity. The only effective check or balance against this self-expansion is we the people. The voters. But fewer and fewer of us vote. And fewer and fewer of those who do vote, spend any time becoming educated about candidates and causes.
But I believe you describe this challenge in the reverse of what it truly is. Government and its actions are not “destructive of a people and its culture.” I would say that the people’s own growing culture of political ignorance and apathy are destroying them and that sometimes the people are misusing government to facilitate that. I say this -and have been saying this for some time- because in this greatest of nations it is the people who hold the ultimate *authority* and, so, it is the people that have the ultimate *responsibility* whenever things go awry in our society.
The recent beating at Dodger Stadium was facilitated by a growing culture of permissiveness and of tolerance toward incivility and lack of mutual respect among a growing number of people in our society.
The recent mortgage crisis was facilitated by a diminshing sense of personal responsibility for one’s debts and obligations and by a growing sense of entitlement among a growing number of people in our society.
As a society we have been moving gradually and incrementally away from some basic understandings and requirements like hard work, personal responsibility, respect for others and for their property, tolerance, civility, courtesy, consideration, and a sense of something larger and greater than ourselves.
Because our government is our construct, it necessarily reflects these adverse societal changes and often even facilitates them. Government isn’t doing this to *us,* we are doing this to *ourselves” and sometimes misusing our government to do so.
As you say, we are there. We have been there for a while.
And I think we will be there *forever* if more of us do not start taking a good hard look in the mirror, making some serious changes within ourselves, and then finally begin to re-direct our government accordingly.
What was the topic again?
John, aren’t the zoning laws the will of the people? And, so why are you defending the changing of the law and the working of inside deals which is contrary to what you just elaborated as the just rewards of the efforts of the governed?
rino2: All of our laws, not just those of zoning, can be considered to be “the will of the people.” But that will sometimes necessarily changes (as it did, for example, with slavery, and with voting rights for women, and civil rights legislation, etc.), That is precisely why we have mechanisms in place to amend or abolish laws that no longer accurately reflect the will of the true majority of the voters, as rightly constrained by the rule of law. Perhaps some of our zoning laws need to be amended. If so, I think they should be. Perhaps they do not. If not, I think they should not be. The trick is to accurately assess the will of a true majority of the voters. This has become ever more difficult as fewer and fewer people bother to vote. Because of this, we often see examples of candidates being elected not by a true majority of the people, but by a majority of people who could be bothered to vote. This is why I keep encouraging more people to not only vote, but vote responsibly, based upon a clear understanding of the facts, rather than the numerous fictions often spewed by one special interest group, or one extremely vocal minority, or another.
Ghost of ancestor appears to property owner as he walks the grounds of his blighted but profitable hotel late one night. “Discover the will of the people and act in accordance with their vision of community harmony,” says he. “But, Grandfather,” says the one with property rights, “this may affect your grandchildren’s future. Mustn’t we temper our community spirit with enlightened self-interest?” “Yes, my son, but temper, not obliterate. Self inflates by its very nature and seeks a radiant distinction it may not deserve.” “But Grandfather, didn’t you die broke?” “Yes, my son, but rich in spirit. Now plant some grass, for heaven’s sake.”
The project went forward as planned.
Which class do you identify with, John. And for which class is this development designed? -Pan
Pan: I identify with the citizen class. The class of people in this nation that retain the ultimate legitimate authority over, and responsibility for, our government.
“All of our laws, not just those of zoning, can be considered to be “the will of the people.” But that will sometimes necessarily changes (as it did, for example, with slavery, and with voting rights for women, and civil rights legislation, etc.), That is precisely why we have mechanisms in place to amend or abolish laws that no longer accurately reflect the will of the true majority of the voters, as rightly constrained by the rule of law”
Mr. Greet:
The results of the SEADIP survey indicated the majority of respondents do NOT want the 2nd/PCH redevelopment project as proposed.
Care to answer for your apparent contradiction?
And spare everyone another generic Civics 101 lecture.
LBer: If you dislike the manner in which I choose to respond to direct questions, please refrain from asking them, or, once you have chosen to ask them, please refrain from reading my responses.
I see no apparent contradiction between my quote that you excerpted and your assertion that a majority of respondents to the SEADIP survey do not want the 2nd/PCH redevelopment project as proposed.
I hope you can agree that the “majority of respondents” to a SEADIP survey is a far different segment of our community from a “true majority of voters.”
Nor does it necessarily follow that the same majority of survey respondents who you claim do not want the 2nd/PCH redevelopment project as proposed, would automatically be averse to amending SEADIP. Many, if not most or all of them, may in fact be very open to amending SEADIP in one way or another. Understand that we might seek to amend SEADIP to make it *more* restrictive, rather than *less* so.
Was that question also part of the survey? If so, what was the precise wording of the question and what were the specific response results of the question?
Surveys can be an effective way to attempt to assess the desires of a community. However, the methodology used to conduct such surveys is as critical to consider as the responses received.
Do you disagree?
“I hope you can agree that he “majority of repsondents” to a SEADIP survey is a far different segment of our community from a “true majority of voters.” Isn’t the survey, and you say about surveys, “the methodology used to conduct such surveys is as critical to consider as the responses received” – 10:4, filled out by people “voting” on the project. And, the “true majority of voters” are those that haven’t “voted” on the project by filling out the survey, whom you don’t have kind words on your soapbox, and now want to embrace? Or, did I miss something?
rino2: It is difficult to accurately discuss either the survey in question or its results, without having seen the survey, seen its results, and studied the methodology used to conduct the survey. I have done none of these.
That said, you seem to be using the term “vote” in a context that is different from mine. Yes, a person who answers a survey question might be said to have “voted” on the question he or she is answering. However, that is not the sort of vote to which I am referring, which is the exercise of one’s individual political franchise during a city, state or national election.
My only point is that survey results are different from election results. It is not reasonable to compare (as LBer attempted to) the results of a survey, with the results of a governmental election.
SEADIP represents the will of the people of Long Beach at the time it was enacted, insofar as it was passed by duly elected representatives of a majority of voters in the city. SEADIP, like all such plans, is subject to periodic review and, if deemed necessary, amendment.
If after due consideration, the Council decides to amend SEADIP, in whatever manner, then those amendment(s) must also be seen as the will of the people of Long Beach, and for the very same reason. If it is your position that any such amendments would *not* be accurately reflective of the will of the people of Long Beach, then the disconnect is not to be found in the amendments, but in the people that the elected representatives who voted to approve the amendments.
If that proved to be the case, there would be a much larger challenge to deal with than merely the amendments to this or that city plan. But that challenge, too, is appropriately dealt with through a city election, wherein the voters can either choose to remove elected officials through the Recall process or, barring that, make better choices of representatives the next time they have that opportunity.
The developer cannot amend SEADIP. He can only lobby our Council to amend it. Nor can Mr. DeLong, operating entirely on his own, amend SEADIP. He can only attempt to convince a simple majority of his colleagues on the Council to also agree to amend it. If a majority of the Council agrees with Mr. DeLong, they will amend SEADIP accordingly. If not, they will not.
It just seems to me that bashing the developer and bashing Mr. DeLong serves no constructive purpose. In addition to Mr. DeLong, a majority of our Councilmembers would have to agree to any SEADIP amendment(s).
If a sufficient number of voters oppose whatever SEADIP amendments are proposed, and if it seems clear to them that Mr. DeLong supports those proposals, then they should try to convince Mr. DeLong to change his mind.
If Mr. DeLong will not do so, then perhaps the opponents’ energy and effort would be better spent in attempting to convince the *others* on the Council of their position, so that Mr. DeLong would not be able to get the majority of votes he needs to amend it.
This seems, to me, the best, most productive, and most constructive way in which to proceed on this matter. But perhaps it is I who is missing something.
@Panglonymous check it out, I uploaded it this morning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWuttHNIfqM
@Jeanine: That was really informative! Seriously. Thank you.
But all it has done was teach me something about how perspective can be tweaked in artists renderings. Does anyone look at an artists rendering and believe that what is depicted is precisely how it will appear in reality?
Even better educated as I have now become about perspective in artists renderings, I still really like what I see. Perhaps even more than I did before.
Again, thanks!
Well done, Jeanine, first rate! I’ll post the link on a couple Patch threads as background:
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/2nd-pch-draft-eir-says-project-needs-further-air-quality-study-to-move-forward-and-will-worsen-traffic
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/los-cerritos-wetlands-land-trust-comes-out-swinging-on-2nd-pch-condo-hotel-complex
Greet, you are such a putz.
Can I second Mike’s comment!
lull or changed world?
http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=183802
John, why aren’t you concerned that you realize that you are being swayed by a misrepresentation? It is like you are saying you are choosing to look the other way. You are saying, “yeah they are distorting the truth and I LIKE it!”
The notion that “anything is better” than what is there now is downright silly when you consider the vast array of “anything.” For example, a nuclear power plant–which conceivably falls into the “anything” category– would not be better, but it would provide jobs!
People need to stop being sheep, especially in the face of falsehoods.
Mr. Ruehle, your persistent tactic of offering offense to people who have positions with which you disagree, serves no constructive purpose. Author Charles Simmons once said that “ridicule is the first and last argument of fools.” This may explain why you often choose to open and close your arguments with ridicule.
Wonder if the area residents and business people feel closer to being like Seal Beach or LA?
http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-295489-beach-million.html
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day – Meaning of Putz
“A stupid, ignorant person; someone who doesn’t pay attention to anything going on; one who makes stupid remarks.”
“Literally, vulgar slang for penis, not to be used lightly. More offensive than the schmuck, which can be used affectionately or teasingly. “
“A putz is a numb nuts who hasn’t a clue that s/he is very dumb or clueless. A true putz is not only stupid or completely ‘out of it’, but s/he is also aggressive or combative about his/her totally inept decision-making.”
(Source: urbandictionary.com)
Hi Jeanine: I was sold on this project or, as I have said repeatedly, “something comparable,” long, long ago. The artists renderings are pretty, but they do not tell the whole story. Neither does blatant hyperbole and misrepresentational rhetoric such as “smelly, unshaven men” and “12-story stack of four-story liquor stores.”
So perhaps we should put away the affectations of outrage about some pretty pictures and try to use our own good sense a bit more. Most all of us can look at a 12-story building and then picture something that height on the proposed location. Some do so and dislike what they envision. Others, like me, do so and actually like what they envision very much indeed.
Regardless of how or why the property got that way, it is a mess and an eyesore and I would very much love to see it gone and something newer and more business and recreationally invigorating erected in its place.
You and others disagree. I get that and I very much respect your opinions.
Ok?
I like the notion that “most of us” can envision a 12 story building. I just wonder how accurately. In fact, thank you so much for the idea. I think I will go use the navigational skills that my father taught me while I was growing up to figure out exactly how that will look in the landscape and depict it.
Ahh…good ol’ Dad. He taught me how to sail. He used to make use triangulate our course every hour on the hour. Which also meant I learned how far out to sea you can see things.
Did you know for every foot about sea level you are you can see one mile? and vice versa?
John,
Yes the property looks terrible–I realize you don’t care why it looks terrible.–you just want it gone. But John-here’s the problem–the landlords, and OWNERS the Lins have let it go to hell, along with their other property, Peter’s Landing. Ok? IF Second and PCH does became a reality,
the Lins will STILL be managing it…..obviously you trust them…I don’t–two wonderful land properties laid to waste. Too bad you weren’t at the Planning Commissioners meeting last night. Disgusting!
Jeanine: I think your idea is a good one. Depicting for yourself and others what the 12-story structure in the current plans might look like, looking back at our coastline from sea could be very informative! Thanks!
Gary: I do not trust most people as far as I can kick them. Which -cranky old guy that I am rapidly becoming- isn’t very far any more. But I have a hard time believing that anyone would sink millions and millions of dollars into a construction project of this type, particularly in this economy, and not intend to maintain it as well as may be possible. We have many laws, codes and other regulations in this city that have been enacted with the intent to prevent and mitigate blight and unsafe property conditions. If we would but properly enforce these, perhaps structures like that currently present on the site would be less likely to become so run down. So, to my mind, the answer to the current challenge is not to resist allowing the replacement of old, run-down structures with newer, more modern ones, it is to renew our commitment to enforce our various laws, codes and other regulations.
Yep, Mr. Greet, I disagree.
’nuff said for now.
Thank you.
Wow, a quick glance at the comments section and I see my name, used negatively, twice on an article that I am just now commenting on for the 1st time. Please, continue wasting your time bickering back and forth on an irrelevant online forum. I spent my time a little more wisely by writing my comments to the EIR report for this project, which, despite the fears of all the NIMBYs on here, should help get this project built.
To the comments of my ‘young, undeveloped mind’, please, tell me how spending all your time on pointless online debates in the comment section of some blog make you any smarter, or developed than me? Most of the comments on here are built entirely on fear and a jaded mindset from shady dealings in Long Beach in the past.
I have yet to hear a SINGLE point made negating WHAT I am saying about the actual development, second+PCH, but instead attacks on my age and personal life. Or even better, when lbcitygirl takes a side comment of me saying I was in Hong Kong, and then attacking that by finding a very urban and dense shot of the city, and somehow drawing asinine conclusions that I am suggesting that Long Beach should look like said picture. Are you that simple-minded to believe developments only come in two sizes-sprawled out low density or very compact high density? Do you really think second+PCH is going to somehow set some precedent to make east Long Beach look like the streets of Hong Kong Island, that mind you, has a population 14 times the size of Long Beach? LB could never, will never, and should never, be like HK, and vice versa. That is comparing apples to oranges.
What I am saying is that a development like second+PCH can help make Long Beach a more urban city. A development that creates a unique place for people to live and shop and recreate. Somewhere that is more special than the typical car-oriented strip malls that are ubiquitous in Southern California, and will soon be a sad relic from a car dependent past. I fully support the second+PCH project as it was originally envisioned, in all its 12 floors glory.
“When a low-density neighbourhood fends off potential development, it may be seen as a win by the people who live there, but it’s a loss for everyone else. There is definitely a price to pay, but it isn’t paid by the groups that get together and go to public hearings to stop any change. It’s paid by the community, by the planet, by the wilderness areas that will be taken over by sprawl. And by the young people who can no longer afford the prices in the city where they want to live.” Former Vancouver, Canada mayor Sam Sullivan. A city that for several years has been ranked one of the most livable in the world.
Please read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Opinion+want+density+Perhaps+should+that+right/4599494/story.html
Young Baktaah,
Mike Ruehl posted something earlier that said you work for a company that is linked in some way to this project. Is that true?
Hello, Baktah.
Which class do you identify with? And for which class is this development designed?
Would you commit to making one of its condos your primary residence, your legitimate home within the community, for a minimum of 20 years?
-Pan
An interesting aspect of the precedent Second + PCH will be setting.
http://www.lbreport.com/opinion/jensen/jen11c.htm
Where oh where has Baktah gone, where oh where can he be?
Mr. Sorkhabi,
I totally agree that time is spent on useless bloging. People should arm themselves, you too, with real information. That means reading the EIR and showing up at the Planning Commission meetings.That means the opponents too—where were you on April 7–blogging??? If Second and PCH– and the demise of our lifestyle REALLY means that much to you-get off your a—— and show up!! You are needed!! The next study session at the Planning Commission is May 5th. Be informed-read the EIR-and
SHOW UP–help us!!!
Baktaah,
First of all, I find it highly entertaining that you even grace this “irrelevant online forum” with your mind-blowing jet-setting super-relevant self. I mean, maybe, just maybe the fact that you are so worried about what we are saying means you are afraid someone might listen! You are guilty of one of the most basic of all fallacies: i.e., if you have no idea better to refute your opponents’ statements with then you should just call the entire debate meaningless.
And then reviewing your statements I understand what you are saying to mean this: You have made the statement that the people who live here should not decide what is best for our part of town! Seriously!? wow….I just cannot even get my head on that. Like wow…why even have a democracy if people are not supposed to decide what is best for their own community?!
and then you called us NIMBYs. Had the thought occurred to you that this is not our “back yard,” it is our “front yard!” We are gonna have to look at these tall buildings EVERYDAY forever more if they get built.
Honestly if you believe so strongly in this project being good for “everyone else” why not find a community that shares your vision and bring the project to that community? They will give you the gratitude and homage that you feel your greatness deserves.
Obviously, I was making fun of you with my Hong Kong picture, but you basically set me up for that one (probably owing to your ‘young, undeveloped mind’)… so for that joke at your expense you have only yourself to blame. While it is true I doubt the east side would ever look like Hong Kong, I do believe allowing one 12 story building sets the precedent for more, and before you know it developers will have ruined the lovely quality of life on the east side of Long Beach. Their track record here in LB iis so mixed, you can’t blame the people for being a bit gun shy.
Also, some of us have a different vision of what “green living” and sustainability means than you do. In my mind our planet is more sustainable and green when we see to the preservation of the wetlands. Most major cities do preserve green and natural spaces.
Maybe for once in your life you do not think about yourself and making money but instead consider the incalculable value of nature for future generations: our descendents–those who will someday be our great-great grandchildren– these are the people who this decision really affects. Because like you someday I will be “outta here.” I am very concerned with what I leave behind in this world. It’s called the campsite rule.
According to Councilman DeLong, whose close friends are the developers of Second + PCH, the 12-story 2nd/PCH project isn’t precedent-setting despite a current zoning maximum height of 35 feet.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr11/nia2.htm