|
Robert Conte Letter to the Editor: Approximately 2,150 signatures have been gathered in a petition drive to slow down the proposed downtown project. That’s not including the signatures that were stolen from Lucia Wiltrout’s store. Two thousand one hundred fifty is a lot of signatures – City Council elections swing on far fewer votes. The petition drive was the only way that the opponents of the proposed downtown project could slow down the project and have their concerns taken seriously. Unfortunately, Decoma and the CRC have not listened to those of us who have raised legitimate concerns, instead labeling us as “nay sayers.” Ms. Ford likes to boast that the CRC held more than 60 public meetings on the project – but most of those meetings were not widely attended. Only recently has the community started to focus on the project. Decoma and the CRC have also consistently mischaracterized the results of the now outdated Community Survey to justify their plan. As Mr. Cacciotti pointed out, that survey showed that only 30% of the community wanted any additional residential downtown. Why the CRC didn’t develop several alternatives is beyond me. No false claims were made by the supporters of the petition drive – that’s just sour grapes. The proposed project is too dense. There should be far fewer condos – more parking – and more open space. And the Rialto should not have been cut out of the project so quickly. I’d like to see the City, Decoma and South Pasadena Citizens for Responsible Development (and the other opponents of the current plan) sit down and negotiate a smaller – right sized project. Personally, I’d like to see no more than 30 condos and more open space. The City is contributing a lot of land and millions of dollars to the project. Let’s get it right. Hope St. and Mound Ave. should be developed into a one and one half story City parking structure with no condos or shops. Easy, accessible and available parking will benefit current and new merchants, and the community at large. We need some real leadership on these issues now before positions become too hardened. If Decoma is not willing to negotiate for a smaller project – something more in line with what was suggested at the beginning of the process, I’m not sure where we will end up. It would be a real shame to have the project tied up in court or at the ballot box. I have been impressed with Decoma’s creativity. A solution can be found that preserves South Pasadena’s “small town” heritage. Robert Conte |
Ernest Arnold Letter to the Editor: There is no question that we all have the constitutional right to seek redress through a petition to put an issue such as the redevelopment process on the ballot. We need that right to protect us from flawed government process. The project (its size of the project, number of condos, parking and size of the plaza) is not the issue. We all have different opinions, and all of those details are differences of opinions. The issue is what was flawed about the process that brought the Downtown Redevelopment Project? The Community Redevelopment Commission was charged by the Community Redevelopment Agency almost six years ago to find the vision for downtown redevelopment for the city of South Pasadena. Over the next 3 ½ years this seven member commission held numerous public meetings and sent out questionnaires to every household in the city. The outreach subcommittee reached out to every property owner in the project area, plus numerous community groups. The commission studied small infill developments around the country, our General Plan and every record to arrive at a consensus for the vision of downtown South Pasadena. The project vision was drafted and approved unanimously by the CRA (City Council). With that vision the commission made a Request for Qualifications, to find a qualified developer to build South Pasadena’s vision for South Pasadena. The City or Agency does not have the $50 million needed to develop our vision, so we sought a partnership with someone who would risk their capital to build our vision. Decoma was unanimously recommended from a group of five developers vetted by the commission as the most qualified to build vision for downtown South Pasadena. The Decoma selection was unanimously approved by the CRA. More outreach, public forms, “town talks,” and architectural talks followed until the project took place with the current group of property owners willing to participate in the Downtown Redevelopment Project. Everyone had the opportunity to give their input, and their concerns heard and considered. At that point the project size, scope and scale was set, and the city entered into an agreement with Decoma to start the design process for environmental review. Now after nearly six years we have a project approved with an approved Environmental Impact Statement. How was the process that ended with our Downtown Redevelopment Project flawed? What process is being corrected by these petitions and what process did those who circulated the petitions use? The CRC held more than 88 open sessions. The commission meetings were televised. The commission gave every interested party the ability to see the process and provide opposing opinions. A small group, without study or time committed to the process feel, circulated a petition because their opinion is the only one that is important, and they did not like the results. A small group circulated petitions with unsubstantiated, irrelevant and false claims to confuse our neighbors. There was no open forum, or chance for opposing ideas or even the chance to address their false claims. When I compare the two processes, any vision of the redevelopment project designed by the open process used by the Community Redevelopment Agency over a five year period will always be a better for the city than a project dictated by a small group of self righteous individuals without an open forum in a one month period. Everyone has the right to circulate a petition, but it is unfortunate when that right is abused to obstruct the type of fair and open government we seek. Ernest Arnold Commissioner, Community Redevelopment Commission |
|