Political tensions simmer in Montebello City Council race

ytw wrote:

The Los Angeles Times did an excellent article on the Taylor Ranch back in 1993:
Home to an Old Dream - Dilapidated Taylor Ranch House, Built in 1885, Likely to Be Razed
By PSYCHE PASCUAL, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES|December 30, 1993
According to this story, the Taylor Ranch was the "first structure in Montebello equipped with electricity."
The story goes on to say:
"Mayor William M. Molinari said the Taylor Ranch house would have been torn down long ago if the voters had agreed to it."
Please note the phrase, "If the voters had agreed to it."
More from the L.A. Times:
"In 1984, a Montebello newspaper columnist summed up the community's divided sentiment about the ranch house: "To some, it is an eyesore and financial liability to the community," he wrote. But, he joked, the house was widely known as the home of a stray dog named Tuesday, and a stray cat that thrived on pancakes discarded by the Montebello Breakfast Club."
"Who in their right mind," he wrote, "would want to destroy something which allows Tuesday and that cat to exist?"
***
"But Parks and Recreation Manager Pilar Alcivar said city officials do not believe the house should be preserved at any cost."
"We don't put a lot of money into maintaining it. It's a useless building. It's not big enough. The ceilings are too low. The acoustics are horrible," Alcivar said. "It would be great if we had the facilities and funds to maintain it as a historical site. But there's a point where you have to look at your priorities."
----------
If city officials felt this way about the Taylor Ranch in 1993, then why was it's inclusion in the city's general plan conservation policy not resolved back then?
Remember, the conservation policy states:
Policy 8: The Juan Matías Sanchez Adobe, the Rio Hondo monument, the Viejo Mission,Taylor Ranch, and El Camino Real should be preserved and restored as necessary."

Good point...

Theolona Ranger

Did the City prosecutor investigate those responsible for demoloshing Taylor Ranch house without a General Plan ammendment and without a demolition permit?
could a demolition permit been be issued in violation of the general plan?

42 yr North Mtb resident

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

920

ISP: Los Angeles, CA

Thin Lady wrote:

That is the question many of us were asking. It is not even known if there were still artifacts inside the building when it was torn down. The crew was ordered to show up and start demolishing by someone. After it was partially destroyed it was noticed and by then it was too late to save it.
There are more articles written at the time.
Someone must have thought the plaque for a new building was more important than saving a Montebello landmark at least partially. Maybe someone with their name on the plaque? Maybe someone who held a news conference for glory? I don't know.

It is known if there were still artifacts inside the building. There weren't. The Southland Art Association removed all it's artwork, the Historical Society removed everything is could, and the Engineering Department removed the rest. The building had been refurbished a couple of times in the last few decades, and each time old things (plumbing, doorknobs, fixtures) were replaced by more modern ones. By the time the building was demolished, only the walls were original, according to the Engineering Department. I tried to get the city to allow preservationists to be present during the destruction, in case artifacts were uncovered during the demolition, but they stalled in giving an answer until the demolition was completed.

The demolition was voted on and passed the previous year, but no date was set at the time. Why engineer Melendrez signed the demolition order at the time that he did has never been satisfactorily answered, as far as I know.

42 yr North Mtb resident

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

920

ISP: Los Angeles, CA

ytw wrote:

I have a question about the Taylor Ranch.
According to page 4.5-6 of the Southern California Gas Company's (SCG) Montebello Gas Storage Facility (MGSF) Decommissioning and Sale Application No. 00-04-031 which was submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on March 12, 2001:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/mha/m...
"The Montebello General Plan Elements contains a conservation policy related to cultural
resources. It is as follows:
· Policy 8: The Juan Matías Sanchez Adobe, the Rio Hondo monument, the Viejo Mission,Taylor Ranch, and El Camino Real should be preserved and restored as necessary."
The City of Montebello is still in the process of revising/upgrading it's general plan. This means that officially, the city is still ruled by the old version of the general plan.
So, why was the city's conservation policy regarding the preservation of the Taylor Ranch ignored?

ytw, the city and business community have no interest in conserving any historical site in Montebello other than the Sanchez Adobe. That is why there is no parking anywhere near the Battle of Rio Hondo memorial, which commemorates the first battle to make California part of the USA and why it is almost never mentioned in our schools.

The previous city council also demolished the French Cafe, a world-wide known landmark and one that the previous Pope visited when he was fundraising for the Polish Catholic Church as a simple parish priest. The "Montebello Historical Society" is only interested in recording the history of Montebello, and its new charter actually specifically prohibits preservation of historic sites.

While Annette Ramirez was president of the MHS, it was a force for actual preservation, and the Taylor Ranch House was at the top of her list. She brought many new members, donors, and recognition to Montebello. However, her driving personality grated on many laid-back long time residents who thought of the MHS as their private club. In a close vote, she was voted out, and the fate of the Taylor Ranch House was sealed. By my observation, the average age of the MHS members is 65 years old, and all the new blood left with the departure of the MHS' preservation goals. I think that I am its youngest member, and I am in the low 50's.

Theolona Ranger

The City investigator (attorney) or the Planning commission acting as a municipal grand jury should ask Richard Torres who authorized the destruction of the historic Taylor Ranch house, who instigated the destruction
Odds on it will get traced back to the Mayor and her gang of three.

Be Happy

Bell, CA

Theolona Ranger wrote:

The City investigator (attorney) or the Planning commission acting as a municipal grand jury should ask Richard Torres who authorized the destruction of the historic Taylor Ranch house, who instigated the destruction
Odds on it will get traced back to the Mayor and her gang of three.

The destruction was intiated by the reccomendation of a community commitee created several years ago to determine in what direction the city should move regarding the taylor ranch. Although many do not agree with its demise (me included), more thought otherwise.

Theolona Ranger

Community committees may give recommendations
they do not ammend the general plan
nor do they issue demolition permits
who went from recommendation to action?
someone had to dontract with the demolition company

Be Happy

Theolona Ranger wrote:

Community committees may give recommendations
they do not ammend the general plan
nor do they issue demolition permits
who went from recommendation to action?
someone had to dontract with the demolition company

Theona, don't you think the point is moot? It's already torn down, a new one is already being built. I mean, can't you just let it go. What good is it going to do to try and place blame on any individual? Is it the committee's fault, the city administrater fault, the planning dept. fault, the demolition company's fault, etc.
Many people are happy to see it go and many people are upset that it is gone, but trying to lay blame on someone when so many people had a hand in this precess is really grasping at straws. I know we've had our differences, but don't play the blame game.

ytw

Be Happy wrote:

<quoted text>
Theona, don't you think the point is moot? It's already torn down, a new one is already being built. I mean, can't you just let it go. What good is it going to do to try and place blame on any individual? Is it the committee's fault, the city administrater fault, the planning dept. fault, the demolition company's fault, etc.
Many people are happy to see it go and many people are upset that it is gone, but trying to lay blame on someone when so many people had a hand in this precess is really grasping at straws. I know we've had our differences, but don't play the blame game.

I disagree that the point is "moot."

Yes, the Taylor Ranch house is gone but the barn is still standing. Are there any plans to preserve what's left?

The real point as I see it though is not the preservation of any particular building but what appears to be a persistent and deliberate habit on the part of the city's leaders to ignore the city's own general plan in regards to the preservation of historic resources.*

It is the city's job to enforce the general plan.

The Taylor Ranch was specifically mentioned in the city's general plan yet this was not enough to save this landmark. Instead, it was allowed to fall into decay and eventually demolished without consideration of it's inclusion under the city's conservation policy.

The reason this is not a "moot" point now is because once again the city is facing a decision involving a historical resource, the well-documented Montebello Hills Oil Field and already the wheels are in motion to dismiss any consideration of the historic value of this resource.

If inclusion in the city's conservation plan was not enough to save the Taylor Ranch house from destruction, then that explains why the city is so willing to believe the developer's false conclusions that the hills do not represent a valid historic resource.

Unfortunately for Cook-Hill and PXP, there is evidence to dispute this claim.

*42 year old: I already knew about the French Cafe along with other buildings of historic value that are now gone forever.

Be Happy

ytw wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree that the point is "moot."
Yes, the Taylor Ranch house is gone but the barn is still standing. Are there any plans to preserve what's left?
The real point as I see it though is not the preservation of any particular building but what appears to be a persistent and deliberate habit on the part of the city's leaders to ignore the city's own general plan in regards to the preservation of historic resources.*
It is the city's job to enforce the general plan.
The Taylor Ranch was specifically mentioned in the city's general plan yet this was not enough to save this landmark. Instead, it was allowed to fall into decay and eventually demolished without consideration of it's inclusion under the city's conservation policy.
The reason this is not a "moot" point now is because once again the city is facing a decision involving a historical resource, the well-documented Montebello Hills Oil Field and already the wheels are in motion to dismiss any consideration of the historic value of this resource.
If inclusion in the city's conservation plan was not enough to save the Taylor Ranch house from destruction, then that explains why the city is so willing to believe the developer's false conclusions that the hills do not represent a valid historic resource.
Unfortunately for Cook-Hill and PXP, there is evidence to dispute this claim.
*42 year old: I already knew about the French Cafe along with other buildings of historic value that are now gone forever.

I see your point and it is a valid one, yet one must wonder how long do you keep old, decayed, and yes, liabous buildings around until you say, enough is enough.
I agree with others that the building should have been kept, but how do you do it? Quite frankly, if those in the community were so concerned (as I) to ensure it's survival, why didn't someone do something about it instead of letting it sit there and decay for years like the French Cafe.
Unless someone was ready to step up to the plate and do something, it'sunfair to criticize those on the other side of the issue to be proactive and actually do something. I may not have agreed with them, but at least they did something.
I feel the same way about the Hills although it's a little different because those Hills are private property and we don't have as much say so as to what can be done with them. I still think there should be some develoment to make them look nicer.

Theolona Ranger

Even if the Taylor ranch house was in the same shape as teh Whittier Nature Center Museum there are steps to take.
A citizens committee is not the final arbitor.

Someone signed the death warrant
someone who knew or should have known that a demolition permit was reuired.
someone that knew or should have known that there were general plan issues and other issues
Who is this person?
are they still on the City payroll?
what mischief are the currently up to?

The contractor kew or should have know that a contract is not a permit.

How do they plan on compensating the Citizens for the loss of the Historic Taylor ranch house?

ytw

Be Happy wrote:

<quoted text>
I see your point and it is a valid one, yet one must wonder how long do you keep old, decayed, and yes, liabous buildings around until you say, enough is enough.
I agree with others that the building should have been kept, but how do you do it? Quite frankly, if those in the community were so concerned (as I) to ensure it's survival, why didn't someone do something about it instead of letting it sit there and decay for years like the French Cafe.
Unless someone was ready to step up to the plate and do something, it'sunfair to criticize those on the other side of the issue to be proactive and actually do something. I may not have agreed with them, but at least they did something.
I feel the same way about the Hills although it's a little different because those Hills are private property and we don't have as much say so as to what can be done with them. I still think there should be some develoment to make them look nicer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you mean "liability" instead of "liabous?"

How do you preserve an historic resource?

Well, the first thing you do is contact the California Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ . Grants are available for just this purpose.

Another place to start would be to contact the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, http://www.achp.gov/ .

Other steps would include contacting private historical societies or just putting out an appeal to the general public and private businesses to see if anyone is interested in working with the city on creating a non-profit organization.

A lack of money should never used as an excuse for not making some type of attempt to preserve an historic resource.

Be Happy

ytw wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you mean "liability" instead of "liabous?"
How do you preserve an historic resource?
Well, the first thing you do is contact the California Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ . Grants are available for just this purpose.
Another place to start would be to contact the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, http://www.achp.gov/ .
Other steps would include contacting private historical societies or just putting out an appeal to the general public and private businesses to see if anyone is interested in working with the city on creating a non-profit organization.
A lack of money should never used as an excuse for not making some type of attempt to preserve an historic resource.

Where were you two years ago?

ytw

Be Happy wrote:

<quoted text>
Where were you two years ago?

Actually, I was busy being a wife and mom in addition to my volunteer work with two different non-profit organizations.

Be Happy

ytw wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I was busy being a wife and mom in addition to my volunteer work with two different non-profit organizations.

Not to sound mean, but if you were too busy to pay attention to your community back then, what gives you the right to chastise a decision by some to better our community?
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but if you had too many things going on that kept you out of the loop with our city, it's really unfair to cry about a decision made two years ago.

ytw

Be Happy wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to sound mean, but if you were too busy to pay attention to your community back then, what gives you the right to chastise a decision by some to better our community?
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but if you had too many things going on that kept you out of the loop with our city, it's really unfair to cry about a decision made two years ago.

I have always been very involved in "my community" but nobody can do everything. Choices have to be made and for many years I chose to focus my attention on helping the young people of Montebello.

Mr. Be Happy, you may not "want" to sound like a jerk, but you do.

Somebody Has to Say It

ytw wrote:

<quoted text>
I have always been very involved in "my community" but nobody can do everything. Choices have to be made and for many years I chose to focus my attention on helping the young people of Montebello.
Mr. Be Happy, you may not "want" to sound like a jerk, but you do.

Touche', ytw.

Wonder Why

AOL

Discussions were held at Montebello Historical Society meetings about the Taylor Ranch House. Many members wanted it to be saved. However only two people were willing to serve on a committee that would evaluate the issue and make recommendations. So ultimately nothing was done and the landmark was demolished. Fortunately there is a very active local group working hard to save our historic hills from destruction.

Be Happy

ytw wrote:

<quoted text>
I have always been very involved in "my community" but nobody can do everything. Choices have to be made and for many years I chose to focus my attention on helping the young people of Montebello.
Mr. Be Happy, you may not "want" to sound like a jerk, but you do.

OK, you just said it, you made a choice and no body criticizes you for that. However, the consequence of that choice unfortunately resulted in you not having the time to focus on the Taylor Ranch.
I'm not criticizing you for not being able to do something about it, I'm criticizing you because now two years later, you are criticizing those who obviously had time to make a decision about the Taylor Ranch and did so.
I can't criticize someone for doing something that they feel is right while all the time I did nothing on my end. That's just not right. It'd hypocritical.

Be Happy