Momentarily Scuttled - rising from the depths, covered with seaweed
No - us editors are not dead, nor were we shanghied and then subjected to backroom brainwashing by Steve Bisno and the Ponte Vista PR team (must support development at all costs...). I just had to slip out for a bit after the B2B meeting/catharsis-a-thon the other week. Being astoundingly busy planning two back to back festivals for AGCC, wrangling our annual juried exhibition and being newly carless (had to bury my ride) have all conspired to keep me away from the business of updating this blog. Or of course, this being Pedro, I could have been on a drunken bender of Bukowski-esque porportions.
I've been trying to put some "deep thought" into what is happening around town, thinking about the direction of my posts on this blog, thinking about local planning, dialogue and other important whatnot. No matter how much I turn my mental crank on the local issues, I can't seem to come to a position that jives with what I see going on outside my windows. There's a debate a ragin' all over town and I'm not on either side of it, and I don't think either side is anywhere close to being right. I'm still not capable of articulating my position at this point, perhaps my inability to reconsile my perspective with the developments going on is reflective of the total lack of control or planning that I see going on. I'm shaking my head here, but not sure why.
I'd like to thank you guys for the varying perspectives and issue discussed in my last post, it's awesome to see the readers keep the lights on when we're not home here on the Edge.
I've been trying to put some "deep thought" into what is happening around town, thinking about the direction of my posts on this blog, thinking about local planning, dialogue and other important whatnot. No matter how much I turn my mental crank on the local issues, I can't seem to come to a position that jives with what I see going on outside my windows. There's a debate a ragin' all over town and I'm not on either side of it, and I don't think either side is anywhere close to being right. I'm still not capable of articulating my position at this point, perhaps my inability to reconsile my perspective with the developments going on is reflective of the total lack of control or planning that I see going on. I'm shaking my head here, but not sure why.
I'd like to thank you guys for the varying perspectives and issue discussed in my last post, it's awesome to see the readers keep the lights on when we're not home here on the Edge.
30 Comments:
You kind of summed up my feelings with this line, "There's a debate a ragin' all over town and I'm not on either side of it, and I don't think either side is anywhere close to being right."
On the bright side, the company I work for (not in Pedro) has been sold out from under me. This is the second time this has happened in my illustrious career, and oddly enough, it's not any better the second time. Can you imagine?
So if any of you latte swilling Macintosh hippies have a secret internet business operating out of San Pedro, stop dicking around and hire me already.
Thank you, goodnight!
Macs are for yuppies, New Yorkers, and people from Orange County.
"I," of course, is my newer, hipper, shorter, more jump-cutty, MTVish nickname. Either that, or I forgot to type the whole thing. One of those.
Sorry to hear about your job, MJP. I will keep an eye out for you, although I don't have many Mac-platform, bohemian connections left in the immediate area. Perhaps you could make a bid to re-do the SanPedro.com homepage. I shared it with a friend of mine in London whose reaction was:
I particularly liked their proud boast that: “When you come to SanPedro.com you are actually visiting San Pedro. You aren't going to a server located in some other state or country.” I have to say I’d never even considered the fact that other, less scrupulous, towns might actually locate their servers in another town, state, or even country altogether. The scoundrels.
Sorry, also, to hear about your ride, Calamari, but you know what they say: "Car-free is carefree."
At the risk of being booed for citing an academic piece published in a massive corporate paper, there was an interesting piece in the NY Times on 3/26 which I graciously point to as one that makes I's (imbg's)point in his previous argument against me. The "Dionysian trap" idea the author introduced was an interesting alternative to conventional explanations which apparently don't work to explain issues of poverty, violent crime & illiteracy/"innumeracy". Most importantly, the article implied the dangers of using said explanations to justify the building of a business campus or megamall.
I'm curious, if the poverty/crime/blight debate were kept out of the waterfront discussion altogether, what would we find about what the people instinctively prefer? What if we just based the decision on Pedran's tastes, letting the majority decide what they want? A mixed-use retail/green area or one big park? I’d be happy if they build according to the wishes of the public (the real wishes, and not the ones made up by some nut speaking for the silent majority).
That piece in the New York Times isn't making any point for me, or any argument that I'm very impressed by. There's nothing new about it, either. It's basically the same complacent bullshit I used to read in the mid 1990s in National Review magazine--those ungrateful Negroes bring it on themselves, what with the hippety-hop and the Malcolm X tee shirts and the shower caps and the house shoes--but respectable now, because it's coming from a black man at Harvard. A facile argument is a facile argument, no matter who is making it.
Also, I never meant to contend that environment doesn't affect a young person's perception of her own possible future. I just suspect that importing professional jobs to that kid's neighborhood without changing anything else (education, prejudice, a general atmosphere of despair and ugliness) in that environment simply reinforces the message that the kid is already getting from the media and from her own two eyes: "There are good jobs out there, but they're not for you."
IMBG, the NY Times piece in one place echoed the thoughts you'd expressed earlier, that "socioeconomic factors are of limited explanatory power", which is why importing professional jobs would be insufficient as solitary solution. I agree with you on that point.
The author anticipated your argument "It's basically the same complacent bullshit I used to read in the mid 1990s in National Review magazine--those ungrateful Negroes bring it on themselves, what with the hippety-hop and the Malcolm X tee shirts and the shower caps and the house shoes--" and made a point to distinguish between wholly blaming the individual and, on the other hand, holding him responsible while sharing the blame with his environment/situation (you choose the word in this instance).
Patterson: "First is the pervasive idea that cultural explanations inherently blame the victim; that they focus on internal behavioral factors and, as such, hold people responsible for their poverty, rather than putting the onus on their deprived environment. (It hasn't helped that many conservatives do actually put forth this view.)
But this argument is utterly bogus. To hold someone responsible for his behavior is not to exclude any recognition of the environmental factors that may have induced the problematic behavior in the first place. Many victims of child abuse end up behaving in self-destructive ways; to point out the link between their behavior and the destructive acts is in no way to deny the causal role of their earlier victimization and the need to address it."
Anyway, perhaps it's a facile argument to assert that an individual is solely to be blamed for bringing his social situation on himself (and I didn't read the piece as reaching that definitive conclusion). However it's equally facile to do the opposite, and blame it on the government, general atmosphere, or society for causing the individual's situation. As usual, the truth lies in the middle. Society needs to pony up the resources AND the individual needs to seize his opportunities.
On a side note, the notion of "good jobs out there, but not for you" is often self-inflicted. Even if the message were institutionalized to the point of being broadcast on billboards, it would cause despair and resignation in some, mobilization and effort to prove the notion wrong in others. What varies is the individual perceiving the message, and what's in his character to cause him to respond a certain way to the message.
We're reaching the age-old debate of personal responsibility versus the obligations of the government/society here - a topic which I lack the energy or incentive to debate. Anyway, my main point is that I still essentially agree with Giant on the need for better schools, heightened cultural awareness, and an atmosphere conducive to hope right here in San Pedro.
Hasta luego.
Don't worry, I don't want to debate it either. I just wanted to distance myself from any association with the argument being put forth in that New York Times piece, as it's not one that I make or endorse. It's an argument that was barely worthy of the third-rate Gingrich Revolution hacks who employed it in the 90s, let alone an Ivy League sociology professor.
How would Patterson explain the self-destructiveness of lower-class white American culture, which can't possibly stem from past racism and which has no support from mainstream corporate pop media? What's the major factor in their "disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream"? Is it really that hard to believe that it could be, well, socioeconomic?
Oops, I'm debating it again. I'll stop now. To reiterate: this guy doesn't make my point. And I do think that socioeconomic factors are useful explainers of crime and blight, along with a whole lot of other factors. Cities and suburbs that don't work being one of them.
Anybody see the last issue of San Pedro Magazine? I know some of you avoid it, but you might find it interesting.
I'm talking about the "State of the Port" issue...
Yeah, I saw it on Friday but I didn't want to post about it on Saturday in case anybody thought I was playing an April Fool's prank.
I couldn't believe my eyes: it actually had a little bit of balance to it! They interviewed Noel Park, for crap's sake! And nobody even called him a flea! Good for them, if they've finally figured out that they don't have to be a nonstop mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce.
The Park interview was interesting--interesting in that I have some really strong reservations about some of things he says. But I'll save that for when he comes back here.
The interviews with the Harbor commissioners were even more interesting. David Freeman comes off sounding downright reasonable. Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza makes an intriguing offer to sit down with anybody who wants to talk to her. Joe Radisich makes a few thinly veiled calls for pro-developer people to pack the meetings.
And Mylah de la Rosa, chirpy as ever, issues a call for peace, love, and understanding between the warring camps. Pedro folk should stick together, Pedro folk should all be pals! Treehuggers dance with the merchants' daughters, merchants dance with the activists' gals! Which is fine, as far as it goes.
Where she gets it wrong is when she says that compromise should be the goal. A compromise between the competing proposals could be worse for everybody than either proposal alone, with haphazardly placed parks acting to the detriment of isolated retail islands and vice versa. If we're not very careful--and since when are Port authorities or environmental activists experts on urban planning and the creation of inviting public spaces, anyway?--we could end up inadvertently creating something like the doomed urban renewal projects of the 1950s, with unappealing buildings isolated from each other by useless "green space," offering people no continuity or sense of place.
And what if both sides are wrong?
IMBG you can't let anybody be positive without casting some sort of negativity on it. Says a lot about you. Maybe she is not saying take bits and pieces of the two plans and sew it together like a frankenstein's monster. She just talking about how people should approach one another ready to let go of a few things off their wishlists. And they should. Jeesh. The frankenstein's monster is just your hysterical interpretation of words because you want to say something mean. I'm gonna keep an eye on you.
Twice in this thread - once for Patterson and once for Mylah - IMBG made up arguments for people by putting words in their mouths and started debating his imaginary points and not their real ones. Hmmm... It's easy to be right when you're making up what's wrong.
If anyone expressed willingnness towards a Frankenstein's monster plan (and kudos to Letty for not misnaming the monster "Frankenstein")it was Noel Park at the end of his interview with the 'Do either one of these or add them up and divide them by two, we don't care, just do it'.
What words (besides the words from my upcoming musical "Pedrohoma"--look for it this summer!) did I put in Mylah's mouth? She said that compromise should be the goal. I disagree.
Letty, here's what I'm trying to say: The goal should be something that makes the waterfront better. The goal should not be compromise for the sake of compromise.
We have a problem. What we need is a solution.
What if one proposal (either one) is right and the other is wrong? Then it would be better to go with the one that is right, even if one side gets its feelings hurt. What if both sides are wrong? Then it would be better to scrap both plans and go with a third option that actually works.
People approaching each other, willing to give up a few things from their wishlists, is a good thing...if the thing being negotiated only affects them. Say, if it's you and me negotiating the sale of a house, or a company and a labor union negotiating a contract. If our house deal ends up being a better deal for you than it is for me, then at least 50% of us are still happy.
But that doesn't work when you're talking about two groups who are trying to make a decision that affects hundreds of thousands of people, none of whom actually elected either group to represent them. If both of their ideas are lousy, then no matter which side "wins" 99% of the people affected will be unhappy. And that will still be true even if both sides reach a compromise.
The pro-development and the pro-parks crowd should start talking and listening to each other. But they shouldn't be looking to hammer out a compromise between their two visions, as though those were the only two visions in the world. They should be open-minded enough to listen to other ideas, and each should be willing to significantly alter or even abandon its plan, if necessary, for the sake of a solution. Solution, not compromise.
And if anybody is still confused about what I'm saying here, just take a deep breath and read that last paragraph again.
Once again, you've constructed an argument against one that wasn't made. I didn't read it explicitly stated anywhere that the goal was compromise between *just two* competing interests.
Look, even getting the multiple groups that disagree to acknowledge one plan as a solution for everyone will require compromise.
You seem to have fixated on the word "compromise". One word, man. You've blown it out of proportion.
She also seemed ok with the project happening or not happening at the end there, whether it "is or is not to be". Doesn't sound like a push to complete the project for the sake of getting it done to me.
What I wanna know is - who's the fat cat, the schoolmarm, the girlfriendless loser and the bitter old man?
pedrochix said...
"who's the fat cat, the schoolmarm, the girlfriendless loser and the bitter old man?"
They're all characters in IMBG's new off-broadway musical.
Dave: I think the Giant's point was that compromise shouldn't be the goal no matter how many groups are involved. A solution to a problem should be the goal. To take his argument further--what if none of the factions involved has hit upon the solution yet on its own? I agree with you though, that a sort of compromise will be necessary if that's the case. It would be the compromise of admitting that one's idea was not really the solution and it's time to start fresh. But then it's more of a prerequisite than a goal, isn't it?
Nice name, by the way!
Letty: I'm starting to wonder if you're not just looking for things to get mad at. Disagreement is not a bad thing, it's how democracy works. You probably have some good ideas, so let's hear them, instead of complaining about how mean everybody else is. Maybe you and me and the Giant and the Squid and Dave and Noel can reach a....no, I'm not going to use that word...
Yeah, I'm really excited about the musical. I hope to complete it in time for summer, so that it can be performed at the Taste of San Pedro as an alternative to lame cover bands. I can't give you too many details, but it will also have Janice Hahn singing "I'm Just a Girl Who Can't Say No (To Real Estate Developers)" and John Papadakis singing "It's A Scandal! It's An Outrage! It's A Plot Against Me, Personally!"
Also featured will be Noel Park and Tom Politeo in a duet, performing a showstopping version of "People Will Say We're In Love (With Dirt And Twigs)."
I hope to convince all the characters to play themselves in the first run of the show, but otherwise I'm open to suggestion as to which famous actors will play the main characters. We can all participate! It's fun! Whee!
...
I'd like to teach you all a little sayin'
For true San Pedrans blusterin' big and proud
I don't say that I'm smarter than anybody else --
But I'll be damned if I can't yell as loud!
Pedro folk should stick together
Pedro folk should all be pals...
I'm not complaining about how mean everyone else is. Just IMBG. He's the one stretching to find something wrong. Insults and ridicule are his M.O., so that's why he have to disagree with the article.
The vision of all San Pedrans opening their minds and understanding each other is a good thing. And he dresses it up in prairie costumes as though s a ridiculous notion. Compromise is something that they (we) obviously have been incapable of up to now. So why not make it the goal? This group in this town are not gonna reach an agreement without a compromise. What's so wrong with that?
IMBG, I can laugh at your idea of a musical, but I firstly pay respect to the concept of peace and I not going to let you ridicule the idea that Pedro folk could and should get along without objecting. You been a contributr of hostility and insults in conversations about the project. You been like the kind of guy too busy trying to demonstrate his superiority to check back to see if he actually persuaded anybody.
Pedro folk don't all have to stick together and be pals and socialize. They just have to learn to work together better than before and yes, learn how to COMPROMISE.
Giant's never been wrong on this angle. A compromise between the two polarised groups doign the loudest yelling about development is not necessarily in Pedro, or Los Angeles' best interest. Compromises are often plague by an incomplete vision, a dumbing down of the project that would not generate the amount of attention or interest that its elements are intended to generate. A solution could be generated by the two factions working together with those of us in the middle, but a compromise between the squeakiest wheels will only create a project that is flawed and of vastly lesser value that we deserve.
The question - "What if both sides are wrong?" is the best damn question asked in this whole debate. I feel in my gut that both sides are wrong.
The open space side doesn't seem to have much of a vision for the role of that open space, for how it will benefit the users and the environment - they want open space because that's what they want. There's no real thought on that side for the regional role of this project, and no real attempt to serve many of the various aspects of the community that this project needs to serve (low-income, business, tourists, the City of Los Angeles as a whole, etc...).
The business first side of this debate has been rendered so desperate by the 30+ year decline of Pedro's downtown and the zombification of Ports O' Call that they want to see the maximum capital investment, regardless of the planning or design of the project. It's not that they are all greedy, money hungry fat cats, most of them are small businessmen who have been working extremely hard for a very long time and have seen only small returns on their investments of labor and capital. In their impatience and rush to get this thing moving, they've abandoned vision in favour of brute force.
As for IMBG's attitude - it's his own, he's welcome to it. Besides he keeps us on our toes.
Dave's right. IMBG does distort people's arguments to make his point. The evidence is right here in this thread if people scroll up to what he did to Patterson's argument. I'd say from now on we call the practice of distorting your opponent's arguments an IMBG (if it weren't such a lame name).
Naturally IMBG is free to his attitude. Just as Letty is free to call him on it. If he's gonna be the Simon Cowell of this blogger community, then readers are going to eventually notice it and point it out.
Calamari, if you think you are exempt from the charge of contributing ugliness to the development debate, go back to some of your comments in this very blog and see what you've said about John Mavar, John Papadakis and the "Euro shills". Today, you act as though you've had no part in the polarisation or heatedness of the discussion and that's flat out disingenuous of you.
When did I claim that I was exempt from contributing to the "ugliness of the development debate"?
Every one of us who has been in this debate has in some way contributed to the situation we are now in. My comments were about two polarised sides of the debate. How many important voices have stayed out of the dialogue because they had no desire to become part of what is now an ugly process that divides the community into two camps? Nothing is more intellectually false than a conflict between polar opposites. The world is not black and white, but once you have a battle of ideologically opposed opposites, the issues being debated divorce themselves from the reality of the situation and mold themselves to serve the two opposing factions needs.
I still believe that the "Shilling" of the debate by some of those in the business community and their allies was absolutely pathetic. Rather than rely on real community support (which they have some degree of, obviously), they chose to bolster their case by attempting to astroturf the meeting. I called them on it - it was lame then and it's lame now. There is more than enough real support for commercial redevelopment of the waterfront for the pro-business advocates to have great, positive community support, they've just failed to organise it.
The one thing I'll say for the various "open space" advocates is that as a group they don't use ringers to pack meetings. I've been around a lot of "meeting oriented processes" in this town, and there are a variety of groups and individuals who have a reputation for making their case with a mob of ringers. That alone has been a big turn off for many people wanting to involve themselves in this process and others.
I'm not keen on John Mavar's positions. I've never liked the "cut of his jib" and I've found his ideas to be imitative and short sighted. Like all young people (myself included) he's a little rough around the edges. That being said, my comments on him were a little harsh, but they were meant in good fun. I've got no ill will towards the guy. I think it's great to not always be "the only other guy under 30" in the room - more young people should be as interested and involved in public policy as he is.
Like many, many San Pedrans I find John Papadakis endless self-promotion to be tiresome. He has a way of disrespecting public process by using both demagogy and backroom muscle that is to the detriment of our community process.
Letty, has it occurred to you that sometimes I'm just screwing around? Based on my limited dealings with Mylah de la Rosa, I'm 99% certain that she can take a joke. I'm also pretty sure that the concept of peaceful coexistence among neighbors will survive my poking fun at it. Really, I just wanted to show off my madd parody-songwriting skillz.
Traveler, you have wounded me deeply with your mockery. I will hunt you down and kill you if it is the last thing I do; my sense of honor demands no less. I mean, this is me you're making fun of. Me!
Calamari wrote:
The open space side doesn't seem to have much of a vision for the role of that open space, for how it will benefit the users and the environment - they want open space because that's what they want.
I'm starting to have my doubts about this myself. Even while I'm emotionally on their side, I can't help but wonder whether they've really thought this thing through. The Port's proposed plan is monumentally stupid and greedy, but that doesn't mean that any counterproposal is therefore brilliant and appropriate.
I'll tell you something...I'd feel a lot better about it if the designers of the alternative plan would make that plan more available to the public. Then we could pick it apart right here, like we do the Port's plan, and see how well it holds up. Maybe some of us could even find something in it to make fun of. (Except Letty, that is...I'm sure she would never do anything so hurtful.)
P.S. Who the hell is Simon Cowell? Is it good or bad that I'm being compared to him?
The biggest problem with the low density alternative is the total lack of study on the economic and environmental impact of that proposal. Although it seems appealing because it's an alternative to a plan that at first glance appears based on a retail model that might already be out the door, and which is tied to the continued success of a single industry (What happens if the curise industry goes into the toilet on the basic or maximum plan?), it doesn't promise much more than parks for parks sake. I'm more sympathetic to parks for park's sake than I am for retail square footage for retail square footage's sake, but that doesn't mean that it's a great idea, it points out that all of the plans lack the kinds of attractions that are necessary to make the L.A. Waterfront development truly successful (stop thinking mall - start thinking Guggenheim Bilbao).
Simon Cowell is the jerk from American Idol. He's known for tearing down the contestants with harsh critisism. I wouldn't consider being compared to him a good thing - he seems pretty pathetic to me.
Stop thinking mall or Guggenheim Bilbao. They're both fantasies that fail to account for the kind of surroundings they would be in.
The museum in Spain sits on a waterfront that cuts right through urban Bilbao. Walk out of the museum, and you walk right into a big, dense, bustling city, with more of the same for miles in every direction.
We all love Pedro, but it ain't Bilbao by a long shot. It's a bedroom community with a small downtown, twenty-five miles south of the urban core of LA. The Bilbao Effect won't work here, and this "Sydney Opera House envy" thing that some of us have just isn't healthy. Let it go, guys.
I humbly suggest that we start thinking "waterfront public gathering place." Not a big, boring, featureless park or a giant ecotopia, but a patchwork of fields, lawns, piers and boardwalks that can be used by locals every day (jogging, dog-walking, informal sports, picnicking), by people from other parts of LA on weekends (enjoying the scenery, getting away from it all), and occasionally by people from all over the region or the world (concerts, festivals, and whatnot).
There's no reason why such a place couldn't be intricately linked with amenities for its users. That means moneymaking businesses, folks. People get hungry and thirsty and are looking for diversions. Why not start with adaptive reuse of the existing warehouses and Ports O'Call buildings etc. for restaurants, ice cream stands, bars (yes, bars--let's not be prissy), and whatever else the users of the gathering place feel like patronizing? Preservationists would be happy, which would eliminate a lot of the opposition right there.
Later on, if demand starts to outstrip supply, THEN build new stuff as those needs pop up. The Port/EEK/Gafcon vision for this is ass-backwards.
Properly planned by designers who understand how people actually use public spaces and who understand what makes a place like Pedro unique, we could have ourselves a real gem. Something that:
*Looks good to everybody
*Is available to people of all income levels
*Is useful to locals and visitors alike
*Still can create prevailing-wage jobs for the people who build it
*Gives merchants an opportunity to make money
*Wouldn't overwhelm the character of the area
*Still has room for wetlands restoration (which would only enhance the scenery) and boat launches and that sort of thing
*Wouldn't suck business away from downtown Pedro because the emphasis of the new businesses wouldn't be major retail.
Every day spent defending OR trying to fix the EEK/Gafcon plan is a day spent throwing good money after bad. We need fresh eyes on this problem. The Project for Public Spaces comes to mind. Meanwhile, maybe we can hash it out here and hope somebody with clout is reading...
Great work!
[url=http://buwkvaec.com/bkaf/uyun.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://rzxwxdmp.com/yosg/gycm.html]Cool site[/url]
Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
Great work!
http://buwkvaec.com/bkaf/uyun.html | http://kkoeitop.com/maol/ldwn.html
Post a Comment
<< Home