Even More California Non-sense

[caguy]

At MDR we have had a close to perfect launch ramp for years. . They made it even better by replacing the old wooden fingers with fake wood. That along with the mono-filament line that keeps the birds from pooping on it, it is now perfect.
Now they want to tear it down and move it to the main channel with the channel cop and a 90* wind. The original site was chosen for the 0* wind angle.
All so that the land developers can make a fortune building more condos and shopping centers.
There is a meeting Wednesday at 6pm so that the board can make the proposal. This is the first meeting that is being held for public viewing at a convenient hour. This has been in the works for several years. There should be a pretty good turn out although I spoke to a dozen people today who had no idea this was coming. One of the guy I spoke to was an off duty coast guard retired service man who has a bot in mast-up. He lays that there would be quite a few of his fellow Coasties there. Here is an article from the Argonaut.

If you are in the area stop by at Burton Chase Park and make some noise.

http://argonautnews.com/rough-waters-ahead-for-boat-launch-relocation-plan/

 

[Joe]

Well, it is certainly an important issue for MDR folks.... but I don't see the "California non-sense" connection... This kind of developer/planning commission/residents battle is common any place there's a shoreline.

 

[caguy]

Well, it is certainly an important issue for MDR folks.... but I don't see the "California non-sense" connection... This kind of developer/planning commission/residents battle is common any place there's a shoreline.

Does that make it right? The harbor was paid for by tax dollars and the people who live their should have a say in how it is developed. This should all be kept above board and not behind closed door meetings or meetings held in the afternoon when most are at work.

In Goolgling Don Knabe, it turns out that his son and his Lobyist firm is being investigated for granting contracts where competitive bidding was faked. I'm sure there are many contracts being handed out for the Marina redevelopment project to companies who are clients of Knabe.
Here are just a few of his transgressions that are being investigated. (Copied from Wikipedia)

Controversies
Knabe's son, Matt Knabe, is a partner at a major Los Angeles lobbying firm, Englander, Knabe & Allen and is a registered County lobbyist.[7][8] Despite the family ties, Knabe routinely votes on board matters involving clients that his son and son's firm represents (including the award of government contracts), instead of recusing himself.[9] Because of the father-son relationship, local media, in particular, Los Angeles Times, have regularly raised ethical concerns over perceived or real conflicts of interest.[10][11][12]

Board matters that Knabe has not recused himself from voting include contract awards that circumvented standard government procurement processes and other actions that had a financial impact on Matt Knabe's firm:
March 2005: A $7.4 million contract award with Global 360 BGS Inc. that Knabe voted to approve.[13] The said company paid $72,000 to Matt Knabe's firm.[13] Later that year, J.D. Knabe & Associates, the firm owned by Knabe's wife, Julie, arranged an event for Global 360.[13]
June 2006: Knabe voted to approve the expansion of a controversial air park in Agua Dulce, California. The firm paid Matt Knabe's firm $32,800.[14]
June 2006: Knabe voted to approve a permit for Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), a landfill operator in Sunshine Canyon. BFI had paid Matt Knabe's firm more than $83,000.[11][14]
February 2011: Knabe voted to award a $1.5 million contract to TRC Solutions, a client of Matt Knabe's firm.[15][16]
December 2011, May 2012: Knabe voted twice to award American Golf Corporation lease extensions to run the County's golf courses.[17][18] American Golf Corporation is a client of Matt Knabe's lobbying firm.[16] From July 2012 through January 2013, AGC paid Matt Knabe's firm a total of $67,500.[19] The company also sponsors the Knabe Cup, an annual golf tournament for high schoolers held by Knabe.[8][20]
March 2012: Knabe voted to award a $1.75 million no-bid contract award with Enterprise Rent-A-Car, a client of Matt Knabe's lobbying firm.[21] Following a SoCal Connected broadcast on the nature of the contract award, Supervisor Antonovich held a motion to investigate the contract award.[22] In January 2013, the Department of the Auditor-Controller published its findings to a limited investigation regarding the Enterprise Rent-a-Car no-bid contract award, concluding that the solicitation had been conducted improperly.[23][24][25] From July 2012 to January 2013, Enterprise Rent-a-Car paid Matt Knabe's firm $97,500.[19]
July 2012: Knabe voted to award a $22,305,549 contract with Maximus Inc., a client of Matt Knabe's firm.[26] From July 2012 to January 2013, Maximus reported paying Matt Knabe's firm a total of $48,000.[19]
January 2013: On a motion initiated by Knabe, Knabe voted to waive the 15% gross receipts fee (typically applied for use of County facilities), for Los Angeles County Lifeguard Association (a client of Matt Knabe's firm), which sponsors United States Lifesaving Association National Lifeguard and Junior Lifeguard Championships, for the company's use of the Manhattan Beach Pier.[27][28] From July 2012 to January 2013, the said company had paid Matt Knabe's firm a total of $45,000.[19]

Knabe has been criticized for his use of taxpayer-funded discretionary funds (each supervisor is allocated a $3.4 million spending account), including the employment of an armed driver earning an annual salary of US$90,000.[29][30]

 

[jimmcgee]

Yeah it smells but I have to agree with Joe it's not all that unusual. Carl Hiaason made a career out of writing about this stuff in Florida; and I knew it was California and not Jersey because not once did I see the phrase "shallow grave" or "mob associate"...

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Well, it is an interesting topic. Who owns the land, who gets displaced, how will they be compensated? (Who gave the municipality this power to begin with?) Redevelopment is always a very tricky business. How is it possible to make everybody happy? Is it all municipal land? Obviously, the municipality wants to maximize revenue just as any private developer wants to. There will always be those people who have it good (under-utilized facilities) at the expense of somebody else for awhile, until other people start squawking that they want some benefits, too.

Attend meetings and find a better way to design the site, that's the way to be useful.

 

[Benny17441]

Yes, I do not see California's exclusivity in inept and self serving administrators and legislators.

 

[Joe]

Does that make it right?

No... I didn't say that. No need to get all huffy. I read the article.. the proposal sucks and will probably fail, this time... but it doesn't have anything to do with "California non sense". This is a very common real estate development strategy. Big money wants that land and they'll keep submitting proposals until the resistance fades...

 

[caguy]

No... I didn't say that. No need to get all huffy. I read the article.. the proposal sucks and will probably fail, this time... but it doesn't have anything to do with "California non sense". This is a very common real estate development strategy. Big money wants that land and they'll keep submitting proposals until the resistance fades...

Sorry Joe, didn't mean to direct my frustration and anger toward you. People like Knabe make it difficult to protest what they are doing. Even posting my concerns here exposes me to retribution. I was asked to sign a petition the other day and I hesitated to do that out of fear that I could be cut from the list of mast-up users when the storage facilities are cut by 20%. I can only hope that the news media picks this up and runs with it. Some of the videos at KCET have been removed. I have seen no follow-up by that reporter as well. These are powerful people with seemingly unlimited funds. It is one of the biggest concerns I had when real estate developer Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor.
I am a native Californian who as a surfer, diver and now boater spent my life in or on the water. I love our coastline, as I know you do, and hope to preserve it.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

What is your objection? Is it the re-location of the ramp, is it the overall development, or is it your perception that the people behind it are sleazy?. Unfocused objections are easily dismissed. You won't accomplish anything if you can't articulate specific objections because people who rant and rave about anything and everything are usually ignored. Developers only have to deal with rational objections. That's where you can make progress. It sounds like there may be a coalition of folks who understand that the ramp is properly located where it is. If you simply want to block development, you will be attempting to step on the toes of people who may have the legal authority to proceed as they wish. It is probably better to preserve your interest by working with the developers than by spitting in their face like a raving lunatic.

There are a lot of people who love your shoreline and also want access to it. Just because you are a CA native and lifetime surfer, diver and sailor, makes you special? Not in their eyes.

 

[caguy]

Scott, I agree there may be better ways of redeveloping the area, but as stated earlier relocating the ramp to a location where 15 mph cross winds are not uncommon along with the chop from the main channel and the wind waves is not one of them. In addition I have learned that the area serving the ramps will not be big enough to turn your boat around to approach the ramps. I have also come to find out that Mast-up space will be cut by 20% and will now include motor boats. I am also concerned that they will want to raise fees again. Are those concerns specific enough for you?
I am all for revamping Fisherman Village. Over the years they have let it deteriorate. This is another technique not unique to California or Los Angeles where they allow a section to become blighted so that it can be bought up cheaply and redeveloped later. With the 1.8 million dollars they plan on spending to move the ramp Fisherman's Village can be rejuvenated.

If the notion that a Donald Sterling like, photo opportunistic scum bag thief wants to use my tax dollars to feather his personal empire make me a lunatic then so be it.

Yes, I do believe that most sailors are more sensitive and share a special bond and concern for their environment.

 

[shemandr]

Carl Hiaason made a career out of writing about this stuff in Florida;

Remember the "Drive By building inspection?"

 

[jimmcgee]

Remember the "Drive By building inspection?"

Also figured into a Hiaason novel "Stormy Weather".

The sad part is real people get hurt by these shenanigans...

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Scott, I agree there may be better ways of redeveloping the area, but as stated earlier relocating the ramp to a location where 15 mph cross winds are not uncommon along with the chop from the main channel and the wind waves is not one of them. In addition I have learned that the area serving the ramps will not be big enough to turn your boat around to approach the ramps. I have also come to find out that Mast-up space will be cut by 20% and will now include motor boats. I am also concerned that they will want to raise fees again. Are those concerns specific enough for you?
I am all for revamping Fisherman Village. Over the years they have let it deteriorate. This is another technique not unique to California or Los Angeles where they allow a section to become blighted so that it can be bought up cheaply and redeveloped later. With the 1.8 million dollars they plan on spending to move the ramp Fisherman's Village can be rejuvenated.

If the notion that a Donald Sterling like, photo opportunistic scum bag thief wants to use my tax dollars to feather his personal empire make me a lunatic then so be it.

Yes, I do believe that most sailors are more sensitive and share a special bond and concern for their environment.

caguy, there is so much left in between the lines with your statements. I don't mean to be argumentative or insulting. I just find redevelopment a very interesting topic. It stimulates so many emotions in people and the statements that are usually made are often so emotionally charged.

I understand that the ramp is currently located in a favorable position for boaters and you want to continue to enjoy everything as it now stands. It sounds like you don't mind that the area is somewhat blighted, because it keeps the price of usage low and for some reason you get to exclude a group of people who would otherwise compete for your space (motor boaters). But you don't own the property, so you can't control the destiny.

How is allowing property to deteriorate a "technique" and who is "they" that you are referencing ? I don't understand that concept. How is a blighted area being neglected by the City for somebody else's gain? Are you suggesting that there are illegal activities that are taking place?

Few people are going to spend $1.8 M to rejuvenate the property if there isn't a financial basis for earning a return. But who knows, maybe you can find a benefactor who will buy land, make improvements and leave everything just the way you like it. It's a nice dream.

 

[Joe]

Sorry Joe, didn't mean to direct my frustration and anger toward you. People like Knabe make it difficult to protest what they are doing. Even posting my concerns here exposes me to retribution. I was asked to sign a petition the other day and I hesitated to do that out of fear that I could be cut from the list of mast-up users when the storage facilities are cut by 20%. I can only hope that the news media picks this up and runs with it. Some of the videos at KCET have been removed. I have seen no follow-up by that reporter as well. These are powerful people with seemingly unlimited funds. It is one of the biggest concerns I had when real estate developer Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor.
I am a native Californian who as a surfer, diver and now boater spent my life in or on the water. I love our coastline, as I know you do, and hope to preserve it.

My neighborhood in Riverside is dealing with a similar problem with a developer. You must be persistent in your opposition. You must counter any proposal with a logical argument that will allow the developers and planning commission to find an alternative solution. Satisfactory to all.... good luck. Keep the faith, my brother.

 

[Stu Jackson]

My neighborhood in Riverside is dealing with a similar problem with a developer. You must be persistent in your opposition. You must counter any proposal with a logical argument that will allow the developers and planning commission to find an alternative solution. Satisfactory to all.... good luck. Keep the faith, my brother.

I agree. PPPPP, and all that. Good luck, but you HAVE to put together a reasonable alternative, rather than just shouting NO WAY. It's a bummer, but it's reality. Study the "anti" movements and how they succeeded. Or else you'll be doing what these forums try to help to avoid: Reinventing the Wheel.

Good luck.

 

[caguy]

Hooray the Lunatics Ran the Asylum!

Went to the meeting tonight where the proposal for the Marina Vision proposal was presented. Present were the Harbor commissioners, Regional Planning commission and Noble Consulting (marine consultants who designed the proposed crossed wind ramp). Also present were about 80 "lunatics." It was interesting to watch the woman in charge of revitalizing the marina present her slide show ' She sounded as chipper as she could possibly be despite occasional jeers from the lunatic assembly.
After they presented the Vision Plan they took statements from the from the lunatics. Speakers included residents, shop keepers, mast-up users, several launch ramp designers, sailors and lawyers all who live in the area. They all presented their case that the ramp show stay where it is. They also included the environmental impact that would encroach on the wet lands and affect the Heron population. One of the senior lunatics presented the original vision for MDR presented in 1954, where there be no commercial enterprises other than marine service related businesses.
With all of the lunatics logically presenting their cases the meeting went on for 3 1/2 hours. Finally the Harbor Commission moved to vote on the proposition and unanimously rejected it forever. The ramp will stay where is at and the moneys used to improve Fisherman Village and leave it where it is as well.

Gotta love my fellow lunatics.

 

[justsomeguy]

Yay, lunatics!

 

[Rick D]

Re: Hooray the Lunatics Ran the Asylum!

Good result. As a former 34 year MdR tenant, I think this result was appropriate. I am no foe of development and MdR really needed rehab, but the stewardship of L. A. County was sorely lacking. They ran this thing into the ground. Sucked the money out and invested nothing. Without attention to traffic in the area and ready parking availability, the proposed development would have been a zombie.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

caguy, you're funny!

I'm happy for the lunatics! I did a little reading on this subject and it sounds like the County went thru a process that worked as they intended. They put together some plans and asked for input from various groups. A coalition of people organized and logically opposed aspects of the plan that weren't good. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? Perhaps the Commission did a poor job by not getting the right input first. As is often the case, the people who thought they had a good vision where probably out-of-touch.

I'm not sure where the acrimony comes from. But people do tend to get excitable when their self-interests are threatened. It sounds like there is consensus that something needs to be improved, so development is not entirely unwelcome. Who is Pacific Ocean Management? Are they well perceived or not? I can understand the disgust over the way the County appears to have absorbed the revenue from leases without re-investing. It sounds more like mis-management to me (isn't that what we expect from government?) rather than a tactic to benefit anybody in particular.