More Port Updates - From Others
Rather than get another long blabbering post from me along the lines of the first two this week ( 1 and 2), I figured I'd just point you in the direction of some other voices weighing in on the issues...Meeting The Opposition, Head On - Phoblographer*
A Radical Shift in Tone for L.A. Harbor Panel - LA Times
Biology Schmiology - Blogging.LA
Your Chance To Pipe Up - Blogging.LA
Actually, 40 Years Of Experience Does Make You, Um, Experienced - Phoblographer*
The News from Pedro - life on the edge
Posted by Anonymous @ 9/16/2005 05:15:00 AM
22 Comments:
Love David Freeman. he is a shi- stirrer, which is what is desparately needed in LA. But...I still think that the Harbor, like the DWP, will do whatever they want to do.
Privatize, privatize, privatize
Writing in the July 11, 2002 Long Beach Press-Telegram, the well known author D.J. Waldie said:
"In fact, Los Angeles is park-poor."
"By one common measure, the city has only 1.2 acres of city parkland for every 1,000 residents. (The average for the 12 densest cities is 8 acres.)"
"Los Angeles also has one of the lowest ratios of public open space to land area among big cities. The city of New York sets aside nearly 26 percent of its area as open space; Los Angeles residents have a meager 10 percent, according to a 2001 study by the Trust for Public Land."
Come on, Noel, we can't have parks here in the harbor area. Don't you know that we're, like, totally in the wrong biome and stuff? We'd have to water them, which, unlike (say) the construction of Pier 400, is way majorly expensive! And it's not like there are such things as wetlands (I mean, can you imagine...parks that water themselves!) or drought-resistant plants, right? We've got to have a giant mall by the sea and a six-lane traffic artery if we're to have any parkland at all in the harbor, and that's all there is to it. And if you disagree with me, you are a big fat meanie who hates San Pedro. And freedom.
Jeeze, you blew my cover!
The only real pollution that is going on in San Pedro is Noel Park's mouth and ass, which are interchangeable because he loves to talk out of both.
By the way I'm going to give a book reading to little kids in San Pedro and let them know that Noel Park means Douche-bag in Latin.
Well Dick, you were an ass as Mayor and I see you're still an ass. Crawl back into your bed and sleep off your drunken stupor.
Why thank you for your honesty. Admire that, but in the end, I didn't give a rats ass then and I'm not going to give a rats ass now. So now (Sticks out tongue)
I'm still mayor of Los Angeles, think about most of my staff is back in office and my holdings with Tetra-Tech are still raping taxpayer dollars.
I may still be a drunken fool, but you still have to "Kiss my old wrinkly ass"
Funny, I made the biome comment at the meeting last week.
Yes, parks can be landscaped with native plants, low-water plants, succulents, etc.
Who, however, is going to go and spend a day leisurely rolling in the . . .scrub?
Take, for instance, Crissy Field in San Francisco - a lovely area where much effort has been put into restoring natural coastal habitat. Of course, you aren't allowed to walk on it. They constructed a jogging path. And the part where folks hang out? Either the beach or on the water-intensive grass planted around the fenced off plants.
If we really want to restore San Pedro to its natural state, we'd need to start by ripping out most land along the coast - Whiskey Flats, a lot of existing downtown, etc. It's all fill. Fine with me - but might be a tad tough on the economy.
Realistically, you need development to support the plants and fabricated ideals of nature we're so keen on importing.
And - personally - I'd never say Noel Park hates San Pedro or freedom. I do think he has a rather limited view of the town's potential, though. And, perhaps, a limited knowledge of the town's history.
Unfortunately, Park allows his allies to speak ill of many people who have contributed tremendously to San Pedro. It's okay to disagree about policy - but ad hominem attacks kinda muck up the whole process, don't they?
Also - While I like D.J. Waldie's writing a lot, I didn't know he was a statistician, demographer, scientist, etc. I'm sure he's done his research however - so if anyone has the source of his statistics, cited here, it might help the discourse if we could all look at the same data.
"By one common measure" doesn't inspire confidence in the statistics that follow.
And, without knowing more about the TPL study, there are a host of factors that would make comparing New York and Los Angeles, at best, difficult, and at worst, misleading.
To cd - You go girl. Also, to Noel while L.A. may have lower percentage of parkland that some other cities, San Pedro-Wilmington have, for LA, a high percentage of the city’s parkland. The rich get richer and East LA, the 9th and 10th get the shaft. But wait, the people elsewhere from the city can drive to San Pedro to visit our parkland. No wait that means traffic, which you hate, and “those people”, whom some in the community do not like, coming to San Pedro. Wait, do the maximum development and take the increased taxes from the development that will go to the general fund and buy parkland in other areas of the LA that do not have the same percentage of parkland as San Pedro-Wilmington. Would that not be a better solution to LA’s lack of parkland?
CD:
My point in mocking the comments you made at the meeting (that "biome" nonsense) is that your argument about open space is specious. As I pointed out on another blog, there are trees and plants growing at Sunken City that have been there for years without anybody from the Port of Los Angeles sprinkling a drop of water on them. Perhaps on your way back to San Francisco, you could stop by and inform them that they shouldn't be there, this being the wrong biome and all.
Furthermore, you make the exceedingly odd assumption that the only alternative to a conventional, high-maintenance park is some sort of fenced-off native plant reserve. Nonsense. Some drought-resistant plants and trees, rock gardens, a few trails, and voila: a low-maintenance passive park that is substantially more attractive than the vacant lot or paved expanse that it replaces, and that shouldn't need acres and acres of soulless new big-box development to "support" it.
For that matter, since you're so keen on numbers and statistics and such, can you provide some that establish that the Port, with all the revenue it brings in from multinational shipping and cruise lines, can't afford to water a bunch of grass for a mitigatory public project without saddling San Pedro with a huge, and hugely speculative, Marina Del Rey-style sprawl of commercial development?
As for ad hominem attacks, you're right: they do muck up the process. Perhaps, then, you would care to stop making them in your blog and in your public comments at meetings (if you want to be disingenuous about it, I'll be happy to provide specific examples upon request; but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about).
When some of us worked on the Proposition K grant process a few years ago, preference was given to so-called "impacted" census tracts. These were defined as:
"Above aveage youth in poverty (>36%) and
Above average persons 18 and under (>26%) and
Below average acerage in parks (<2%) and
Not adjacent to major parks or National forest land."
All of San Pedro east of Pacific Ave. and almost all of Wilmington were shown on the map as "impacted".
I have the map in my hand if anyone would care to see it. I gave a copy to the Harbor Commission at their meeting last week.
Giant - wait, some guy talks about installing giant concrete bald eagles and I'M talking nonsense? I never said no plants grow in our natural terrain, but what does won't be lush parkland that most people think of when they think "park."
I think the type of park you describe - the "passive" park - would be easy to install and make sense. Except that it doesn't provide children somewhere to play and it's just not the kind of park that gives much back to the community without a well-staffed interpretative center to nature-walk visitors through it. Now that's fine - in fact, it would be great - but it only helps San Pedro so much. Not as much as other plans could and not in the way that it needs most.
If I have ever made any personal attacks - which I don't believe I have, period or in a way as public as published letters to the editor, etc - they were only in response to personal attacks against me or my father. Of course, any such attacks, if they exist, would have been clearly associated with me since I don't believe an opinion shrouded in a pen-name carries much weight.
I don't recall saying anything bad at the meeting, but we can check once the transcript is posted.
(Oh - and while there may be trees in sunken city - happily growing there for years - who knows where they came from. I don't. You probably don't either. A seed dropped from a bird? Something planted by whoever took care of the property before it sank? Who knows. Since you mention, in what is probably an intended poke, that I currently live in San Francisco, it's interesting to note that their prized Golden Gate Park, adored for keeping a natural, undeveloped haven in the midst of a dense, ubran city, is completely fake. Imported trees, imported grass, all of it - placed their by man to represent an ideal park. Keeping it alive costs more than the city can pay. Just for the record....)
So far, I like Freeman. I only hope that there is muscle behind the rhetoric. If there is, things are going to get veeery interesting. Let's hope he proves to be a breath of fresh air (pun intended!).
Ms. Dominguez - I'm sure you are very proud of your sarcastic tone and your efforts at mischaracterizing what others say and write. To thinking individuals, however, these tiresome tactics are wholly unimpressive.
It is never my intention to mischaracterize anyone's words.
And, of course, at least I sign my name to what I say. As does Mr. Park, for which I sincerely thank him (and, yes, I really do).
The world has enough anonymous commentary - it's what is owned that has the potential for productive discourse and real change.
CD said:
"They want a park that, in 10 years, won't be watered because California will be bone dry."
(source:Phoblographer)
I Might Be Giant said:
"can you provide some [statistics] that establish that the Port, with all the revenue it brings in from multinational shipping and cruise lines, can't afford to water a bunch of grass"
My understanding is that CD's point focuses on water resources rather than funding. If the water is not there then whether or not it can be paid for is moot.
It surprises me that in one breath people are complaining about the proposed shops and restaurants on the grounds that they spoil the natural water-side environment of San Pedro, and in the next breath they are championing the inclusion of unnatural foliage in an idealized park-space. Surely it's just a matter or keeping the balance and including something for everyone. Which I seem to remember is exactly what the plans do.
CD said:
"They want a park that, in 10 years, won't be watered because California will be bone dry."
(source:Phoblographer)
I Might Be Giant said:
"can you provide some [statistics] that establish that the Port, with all the revenue it brings in from multinational shipping and cruise lines, can't afford to water a bunch of grass"
My understanding is that CD's point focuses on water resources rather than funding. If the water is not there then whether or not it can be paid for is moot.
It surprises me that in one breath people are complaining about the proposed shops and restaurants on the grounds that they spoil the natural water-side environment of San Pedro, and in the next breath they are championing the inclusion of unnatural foliage in an idealized park-space. Surely it's just a matter or keeping the balance and including something for everyone. Which I seem to remember is exactly what the plans do.
CD said:
"They want a park that, in 10 years, won't be watered because California will be bone dry."
(source:Phoblographer)
I Might Be Giant said:
"can you provide some [statistics] that establish that the Port, with all the revenue it brings in from multinational shipping and cruise lines, can't afford to water a bunch of grass"
My understanding is that CD's point focuses on water resources rather than funding. If the water is not there then whether or not it can be paid for is moot.
It surprises me that in one breath people are complaining about the proposed shops and restaurants on the grounds that they spoil the natural water-side environment of San Pedro, and in the next breath they are championing the inclusion of unnatural foliage in an idealized park-space. Surely it's just a matter or keeping the balance and including something for everyone. Which I seem to remember is exactly what the plans do.
CD:
I think I understand now; you're not necessarily being disingenuous, you just literally don't know what an ad hominem attack is.
Half of your written output so far on this issue is one big ad hominem attack. You said in so many words in your blog that opponents of the proposed Bridge to Breakwater plan "seem to wish financial stagnation on our small port community" and that "they don't care about anyone but themselves." Then at the scoping meeting on the 15th, you facetiously thanked the opponents of the project for keeping property values low, again implying that those opposing the project wish economic harm (or at the least, no economic good) on San Pedro.
The very crux of the ad hominem fallacy is an attack on the person making the argument--in this case, imputing vile motives to that person--rather than addressing and refuting his or her points. Get it now? Do you need in big, flashing red letters? You were making, and continue to make, ad hominem attacks in your writings on this issue. Kindly do not accuse others of doing so if you are not willing to stop doing it yourself; it's unseemly.
Anyway. Yes, the giant bald eagle guy was pretty out-there. So was the wingnut who wants to build a casino in San Pedro, and who holds up Hong Kong as an example for us to follow in our future development. A few people like that show up at every public meeting, as you ought to know if you have the political experience you claim. Trying to make it look as though the bald eagle guy represents the views of the mainstream of the anti-B2B crowd is dishonest at best, just as it would be dishonest if I tried to accuse you and John Papadakis of wanting to build a strip of casinos down Harbor Boulevard or some such nonsense. Do yourself a favor, then, and quit pretending that the bald eagle guy speaks for what you call "the opposition" (hey, at least you didn't call us the "insurgency").
Now, as for those trees and plants at Sunken City. May I ask you what earthly difference it makes where they came from? Need I remind you again that I'm not the bald eagle guy, and neither is the rest of the anti-B2B crowd? I couldn't care less whether the trees, plants, or grasses in any of the proposed new open spaces, barring any wetlands restoration, are native. I told you: drought-resistant plants trees, and grasses; trails; and rock gardens. Inexpensive, and unquantifiably more beautiful than a parking structure and a hotel/timeshare. We're in the wrong biome, you say? Explain Griffith Park, for crying out loud.
One last thing. I was going to let this slide, but I have to admit that my curiosity has gotten the better of me. You wrote: "I don't believe an opinion shrouded in a pen-name carries much weight." May I ask just what you're studying up there in San Fran? Please--please--tell me it isn't history.
"Ad hominem" in its current, rather than purely historical form, refers to an attack on a person, rather than on the merits or substance of an argument. So "John Doe is a dummy" is an ad hominem attack as is "John Doe is lazy and hasn't done a thing for this town." "John Doe's policy proposal is faulty and will result in lower property values which may, or may not be his motivation" is not an ad hominem attack. It is, rather, one person's analysis of a situation given the available facts. I've never called anyone any names, never called anyone stupid. I have - and will continue to - question the policies advanced by certain members of the community because I believe they are economically unhealthy, etc.
I never said they were "vile" motives. They are natural motives. One camp doesn't want economic growth. That camp may argue that positive growth can and will not come from the proposed waterfront development. When it comes to property interests, most are self-interested. It is that self-interest, in fact, on which the Founders based our republican system of government.
Now: we find common ground on the bald eagle proposal. I think the Casino idea was merely a rhetorical device employed by someone else who would like to see something happen along the waterfront. It's dangerous when we can no longer identify irony when used as a debate tool.
I didn't claim the bald eagle guy speaks officially for the opposition. I just thought he was funny. And at least it broke up the meeting's monotony.
I did discuss the bald-eagle-r in the same post in which I used "opposition" (tell me, is that really an unfair term to use? you believe one thing, I believe another, therefore we have opposing views, no?), but I don't say he's the front man, do I?
As for the trees - of COURSE it matters where they came from. It matters every bit as much as where natural habitat goes. It's all connected. We should have parks in this waterfront development. These parks should be beautiful, beneficial, not harmful to the environment now (even restorative, if possible), and sustainable. And they should be balanced with smart economic development - shops, hotels, tourism, cafes, restaurants, and attractions or a reasonable nature.
Explain Griffith Park I cannot - I don't know that much about its current, nor its historical ecology. Griffith Park is dispositive of nothing here.
As for pen names - You, Might Be Giant, might be, for all I know, however, Publius you are not, nor the Federalist Papers are these blog comments. Nor the founding of a country is this dispute. You aren't facing charges of treason or hanging should you stand up for your own opinions.
I will, however, give you a tad more credit for at least putting some effort into coming up with and using a nom de blog rather than using the auto-created, confusingly repetitive "anonymous" option.
But mostly, just stand up for your words. Nothing here puts you or anyone else in actual danger.
As for the two most fun rhetoric devices in your latest entry - the quips about my political experience and current course of study - neither would be in any doubt even to my blog's most casual readers. But I know you weren't looking for an answer - so it's cool.
If anyone is still interested, the transcript of the meeting in question is now available on-line:
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/Transcript_Scoping_Meeting_09-15-05.pdf
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home