Angels Gate parked?

How to interested locals help this good plan along? Count me in!

The master plan steering committee wrapped up its recommendations in January! No action publicly in more than six months, I think that’s a good indication that the project is either stalled, or the steering committees recommendations were so out of line with Rec & Parks policies that the process was flawed. One question I would like Janice’s “task force� to answer…“What happened to the two-million dollars that was earmarked with a deadline from (I think they said Prop K)? Did the mismanagement of AGCC as the project lead cause this money to evaporate?�

Angels Gate Cultural Center is worse than Mr. Bisno and his Pointe Vista Development. They seek to develop this very historic piece of real-estate to fit their needs and make money off public property. They have been on the site for more than thirty years already, but have done nothing to improve or even upkeep the structures they have… I’m going to Santa Barbara to support the guys from Fort Mac, they have the better plan and the support of Rec and Parks.

I think the money would be better spent cleaning up the city.

Okay, let me see if I understand. We have big turnouts at the community meetings and both the dog park and some youth sports area has been a huge issue in town. So Rec and Park's response to this is "we don't know if there is a lot of community support." Really? What, exactly, do we have to do to prove to Rec and Parks what it is that we want? We want a sport field. Not the whole area, just a part of it. We want a dog park, again, not the whole thing, just part of the area. What is the problem? Why does some LA city department think that it can dictate to San Pedro when we have made it clear? What part of the last 3 years did they not understand?

really wrote:

Okay, let me see if I understand. We have big turnouts at the community meetings and both the dog park and some youth sports area has been a huge issue in town. So Rec and Park's response to this is "we don't know if there is a lot of community support." Really? What, exactly, do we have to do to prove to Rec and Parks what it is that we want? We want a sport field. Not the whole area, just a part of it. We want a dog park, again, not the whole thing, just part of the area. What is the problem? Why does some LA city department think that it can dictate to San Pedro when we have made it clear? What part of the last 3 years did they not understand?

I attended EVERY single meeting of the task force in support of the dog park. Beside Joe Marino's group and a few Ft Mac supporters, EVERY meeting was filled with supporters who want a dog park. All we need is fencing and some running water. That's iT! And we fundraise and can pay for our own upkeep. It's win-win. The town's politics are a joke. Janice doesn't want us so she'll make sure we're off the table. I just spent a week in San Diego where there's a 24hour off leash area that is filled with people Day and Night. We're so backwards in this town it makes me sick. But yes, let's put a fountain along Harbor Blvd. and wonder why it's filled with people? Becuase we have NO RECREATIONAL facilities to match what the town WANTS and NEEDS! UGH

I also love how Donna Littlejohn claims to know what the supporters want. She never can call and get a direct quote from PDPI to help get a positive message out. She only reports what she wants to and ALWAYS puts the dog park issue in a negative light. ALWAYS. But she was sure has no problem using the dog park. Can't we get an unbiased reporter to cover this issue???

Right on wrote:

<quoted text>
I attended EVERY single meeting of the task force in support of the dog park. Beside Joe Marino's group and a few Ft Mac supporters, EVERY meeting was filled with supporters who want a dog park. All we need is fencing and some running water. That's iT! And we fundraise and can pay for our own upkeep. It's win-win. The town's politics are a joke. Janice doesn't want us so she'll make sure we're off the table. I just spent a week in San Diego where there's a 24hour off leash area that is filled with people Day and Night. We're so backwards in this town it makes me sick. But yes, let's put a fountain along Harbor Blvd. and wonder why it's filled with people? Becuase we have NO RECREATIONAL facilities to match what the town WANTS and NEEDS! UGH

Oh, don't worry, San Pedro has too many parks, according to the city and county. That's why they are going to take one and make it the access point for the new sewage line. So we must already have plenty of recreational space, right? That's why it's okay to have 100 truck trips a day for the next 10 years rumbling through town, to build a new sewer line that won't even serve us.Because we already have too much park space.

Right on wrote:

<quoted text>
I attended EVERY single meeting of the task force in support of the dog park. Beside Joe Marino's group and a few Ft Mac supporters, EVERY meeting was filled with supporters who want a dog park. All we need is fencing and some running water. That's iT! And we fundraise and can pay for our own upkeep. It's win-win. The town's politics are a joke. Janice doesn't want us so she'll make sure we're off the table. I just spent a week in San Diego where there's a 24hour off leash area that is filled with people Day and Night. We're so backwards in this town it makes me sick. But yes, let's put a fountain along Harbor Blvd. and wonder why it's filled with people? Becuase we have NO RECREATIONAL facilities to match what the town WANTS and NEEDS! UGH

The problem with the dog park and many of the other options presented is that this is a historic site and subject to restriction on what you can do with it. Janice Hahn has publicly agreed the site is historic, so has Rec and Parks. Now its time for the state of California to agree with what the Federal Government knew in the 1970’s. The leaders of the steering committee led the public to believe they can have anything they want, when in fact we really should be working within the guidelines set forward for managing this kind of site. The personal of the museum have told me several times that they would help find another suitable location for a dog park… just not on the historic site. Don’t forget that when this was an Army base, athletics would have been a big part of Army life. No reason that we can’t re-integrate some of the historic athletic areas back into the plan.

Cliff Dweller wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with the dog park and many of the other options presented is that this is a historic site and subject to restriction on what you can do with it. Janice Hahn has publicly agreed the site is historic, so has Rec and Parks. Now its time for the state of California to agree with what the Federal Government knew in the 1970’s. The leaders of the steering committee led the public to believe they can have anything they want, when in fact we really should be working within the guidelines set forward for managing this kind of site. The personal of the museum have told me several times that they would help find another suitable location for a dog park… just not on the historic site. Don’t forget that when this was an Army base, athletics would have been a big part of Army life. No reason that we can’t re-integrate some of the historic athletic areas back into the plan.

Exactly. It's historic status is not incompatible with having the recreational uses the community has asked for. Historic status mostly applies to the built environment in this case;it's not a battlefield. In this case, the entire site is not yet a state HCM in any case, so that argument doesn't fly.I'm all about preservation, believe me, but there has to be some balance.

Anyone remember what Beacon Street used to look like? How many times have we said “We should have kept that” The old Fox Theatre and many more buildings would have completely changed the look and atmosphere of downtown Pedro had we thought ahead. So now it’s Angels Gate Cultural Center and LAUSD looking to take away another important piece of our community for more big development. A theatre, café, 1200 seat high school… we need to have all the tools possible in place if we want to control the development and I think the state historic district they are seeking will help.

They say the park is under used, perhaps it is because of the mentality of the "Security" at the park. We were having a first team meeting for our t-ball team, no balls, no bats, just children and parents meeting the rest of the team when the security guard came over and told us to leave. He stated that we could not meet or play at the park, he then threatened to call the police if we did not leave. I have lived in San Pedro over 50 years and I always thought that parks were to play in, guess I was wrong. Oh by the way, the security guard wrote down our license plate numbers and said if he ever saw us again he would call the police. We went down to point fermin park and didn't have any problems.

While I certainly believe we should preserve some of the most intact and pertinent parts of the park, to designate the ENTIRE park a historical park is a load of crap. There has to be balance to serve the community. How on earth is that little strip of grassland of Joan Milke Flores historical? Because it butts up to the fence? Good grief. It is already and has always been an off-leash area that doesn't interfere with other parkgoers. Their argument is crap. Where does the military think they can relocate us to? LAUSD property? As for downtown, my mom worked on 6th & Front and I've always bemoaned the loss of those buildings so I'm very aware and sensitive about maintaining some integrity in this town. But EVERY park in San Pedro can't be a PASSIVE use facility and that's what's becoming the trend in this town. It's all such a bureacratic mess and the community's wants and needs mean NOTHING.

Not buying it wrote:

How on earth is that little strip of grassland of Joan Milke Flores historical? Because it butts up to the fence? Good grief.

Well.... For example in 1938 and 1939 that area was used by the CMTC program to train African American soldiers in the use of machine guns. This program was the first if its kind in the United States to give African American soldiers the same training as white solders. Fort MacArthur was one of a handful of military facilities to offer this program… You should take a moment to think about that while you watch the sunset and your dog is running around being crapping all over the lawn.

Well that's wonderful but what does that have to do with our needs today? Do we need to memorialize the ENTIRE hill to pay tribute? I think not. Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with the thinking in this town. There is a great history there but we are living in 2008 and need to plan for our future and what we can do to maximize space use while honoring our past. Dogs have to crap somewhere Cliff, just like humans. We're not asking the world, just a small strip of grass. A memorial plaque explaining the significance would be a wonderful tribute to the program and our honorable soldiers.

Whatever Cliff wrote:

Well that's wonderful but what does that have to do with our needs today? Do we need to memorialize the ENTIRE hill to pay tribute? I think not. Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with the thinking in this town. There is a great history there but we are living in 2008 and need to plan for our future and what we can do to maximize space use while honoring our past. Dogs have to crap somewhere Cliff, just like humans. We're not asking the world, just a small strip of grass. A memorial plaque explaining the significance would be a wonderful tribute to the program and our honorable soldiers.

I hate to disappoint you, but preservation isn't high on the City's priority list. You can hardly complain that the Councilwoman who gave our chapel to RPV because Rec and Parks was too incompetent to care for it is too protective of our historic resources.In fact, it's just the opposite.

really wrote:

<quoted text>
I hate to disappoint you, but preservation isn't high on the City's priority list. You can hardly complain that the Councilwoman who gave our chapel to RPV because Rec and Parks was too incompetent to care for it is too protective of our historic resources.In fact, it's just the opposite.

I only want to see a practical balance. There is so much history there. I believe in preserving and honoring what's there but we have to get real and share what precious little resources are there as best possible. The City doesn't give diddly squat about what the community wants. It sucks being a part of the City of LA. At least LB seems to have some forward=thinking and manages to get projects done.

No Kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
I only want to see a practical balance. There is so much history there. I believe in preserving and honoring what's there but we have to get real and share what precious little resources are there as best possible. The City doesn't give diddly squat about what the community wants. It sucks being a part of the City of LA. At least LB seems to have some forward=thinking and manages to get projects done.

High time we leave the city, then, isn't it?

San Pedro is a shith*le in such a nice area. Too bad the scum have taken over the city. I think they should do anything possible to drive up rents and property values. Then maybe we might see the trash head east.

really wrote:

<quoted text>
High time we leave the city, then, isn't it?

Sampson wrote:

I think they should do anything possible to drive up rents and property values. <quoted text>

Working on that increasing property value thing, but the real estate market is kind of a drag lately.