While the rest of the world is absorbed in their own national teams’ quest for gold at the Bejing Olympics, waiting in suspense to know whether this nation’s athletes or some other will have its national anthem played, makes me wonder once again about the whole premise of flag waving. There are so many flags from countries that we’re hardly aware of such as Mauritania, Senegal or Ghana. Then there are countries that are hardly on the map at all, like the Maldives Islands or the Netherlands’ colony of the Lesser Antilles, who I am sure all have their own super patriots, like our very own Chuck Hawley, who flies his flag, day and night, out past Point Fermin.
The patriots of these other countries I am sure are as proud of their national anthems as Mr. Hawley is about ours, but to be perfectly honest I can hardly recognize the anthems of other countries except three and know only a few verses of the French La Marseillaise. That’s because it was in the famous American movie starring Humphrey Bogart, Casablanca. I seriously wonder about all of this flag waving, whether it’s ours or theirs and what it really means. What does the future hold for national patriotism in a world that is increasingly becoming globalized and interconnected both economically and socially and ethnic boundaries blurred by cross pollination of DNA and cultures?
What I am quite sure of is that in some future generation, this commingling of cultures, races and religions will bring about some new form of internationalism whose sole banner may simply be an image of the earth as seen from space. And whose anthem will be sung in various languages but will sing of universal suffrage, peace and unity. Seems a bit optimistic right now as Russia invades Georgia, and Bush hypocritically criticizes them for wantonly invading another country with little provocation. Perhaps it is our world leaders who should be drug tested along with the athletes. What ever happened to the Greek ideal of the Olympic truce?
The thing is, we can’t even get along side by side in our own communities, not to mention the community of the world’s nations. Here in San Pedro by the Bay, locals on both sides of Western Avenue have taken up the Ponte Vista development as some kind of home grown Olympic team sport. Banners and symbols have been made and I would suspect that soon anthems would be penned and sung if only there were enough people who could actually carry a tune. The competition, though, gets heated in this sport, with matches set up at neighborhood council meetings and public zoning hearings– the bureaucrats are the referees and the judge is ultimately the Los Angeles City Council.
Points in this sport are made not only by pointing out the deficiencies of the opponents position, and by who has endorsed or not endorsed the plan, but by tactical maneuvering of public opinion through blogs, neighborhood council resolutions, union endorsements and advertising. This is not a seasonal sport like football or baseball, but continues year round and the current contest has already lasted several years. In fact, Ponte Vista should be considered part three of the Navy land reuse game that was started in the last decade under former LA City Councilman Rudy Svorinich. It began when he appointed the SPARC committee to deal with potential land uses for this property that was made available by the Department of Defense during it base closure cut.
Not to make light of this extended exacerbation of local intramural politics, but to shed some light on the history of this former Navy property, it has been one fumble after another. When the feds originally gave priority entitlement to the homeless for use of this land, some of the same anti- Ponte Vista NIMBYS from RPV, or upper San Pedro as I call it, got all up in arms and eventually the two homeless groups designated to be beneficiaries were paid off. Next LAUSD had the rights to purchase the Ponte Vista site for a mere fraction of its current value, but the school board on the advice of Mike Lansing passed on it. LAUSD considered eminent domain, but has backed down for various reasons. The issue of the Angels Gate HS15 is tangential to Ponte Vista.
Although I have concerns on both sides of the combat between the sides, I don’t believe they will be resolved. First is the sub-regional issue of traffic planning involving all developments that impact Western Avenue (Long Point, Trump, the growing number of mini-mansions along the coast and Ponte Vista) and the total lack of responsibility by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to mitigate this in cooperation with LA City.
Second is the increasing need for affordable workforce housing, which means building something other than R-1 single-family homes. The traffic versus density issue is the core problem at Ponte Vista and it isn’t going away simply because one side yells louder or the other side buys more advertising than the other. The King Solomon decision that has to be made is “what makes up half?”
Ultimately, I don’t believe that anyone is going to be happy with the decision of the City Planning Department and what the Council office refuses to address is that a political, not a bureaucratic, decision needs to be made. What I do advise to all my friends on both sides in this sport of Ponte Vista debate is that it is only a part of a much bigger issue needing to be addressed, which isn’t. The future of this community is changing like so many others in Southern California, and that future can either end up looking like Redondo Beach or we can choose to retain some sense of place that resembles our culture and our history. It has more to do with what gets built than with how much of it.
My prognostication on the final score is 1200-1500 units when all is said and done. I’m sure few will be very happy and there will be no gold medals or anthems sung for the survivors.
Do you have an opinion or comment about this article? Click here to tell the publisher.
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers, community activists, local business owners, and politicians.
Learn more about ads with our 2012 Ad and Publication Schedule.
Call our office at (310)519-1016
or email us for more information.
