What is the Worst Feature of the Prop...

What is the Worst Feature of the Proposed Montebello Hills Condo Development?

Created by 42 yr North Mtb resident on Jan 4, 2014

87 votes

Click on an option to vote

Structural City Budget Deficit up to $1 million

Polluted Oil Dust from 10 years of Grading.

Increased Traffic on already Busy Mtb Blvd

Increased Traffic on already Busy San Gabriel Blvd

Decreased Property Values for existing Homes

Cancer, other Diseases risks by Oil FieldEmissions

Unlimited Liability to City from Potential Claims

The Killing of Half of Animals and Plants in hills

Loss of Significant Potential Parkland Resource

Loss of Natural Area for Future Generations

Godless Communist Fish

Irvine, CA

#21 Feb 18, 2014
Red Herring
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#22 Feb 18, 2014
Witty Whittierite wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you aren't from this area, or you would know that virtually EVERYONE in Montebello is complaining about this proposed project, not just the people who live near the hills.
No small development area in Montebello, indeed, in the USA, has people who's are living above 300 oil wells, 100 of which are still operating. In Whittier, we now have a handful of operating wells, and they are causing all kinds of problems for nearby homes.
It is not a belief that there is a cancer risk from oil production. It is a fact. Every study ever done that correlates proximity of oil emissions to health problems has demonstrated a link between oil and health problems. They even have correlations between specific kinds of oil emissions and specific bad health effects.
There is an anecdotal spike in cancer cases in north Montebello, but reportedly the Chamber of Commerce has squelched any talk of the city to try to get a handle on the actual numbers because of the effect it could have on the city's economy. It's a lot like the story of how to boil live frogs. Turn up the heat slowly, and they won't jump out of the pot. In north Montebello, more and more neighbors are turning up with all kinds of cancer, but the locals are reportedly so used to so many cancer cases that they are not as concerned with it as they would be if suddenly confronted with the real numbers.
In short, the risk exists, the city's administration is paralyzed regarding this threat, and the proposed development would only make the existing problem worse.
Ummm, I live and work in the city. It's obvious you don't. "Virtually everyone" that I know is NOT complaining about the project but are instead wondering what the hell is taking the city so long to get it going. Now, back to my original question: If people who are living near these oil wells (whether in Montebello or Whittier) believe they're causing cancer, WHY are they still living there? Atheist commie fish wants to argue that they're still there because they'd not be able to get fair market value for their home, implying they'll risk their health to hold out for top dollar. Either they're greedy or they really don't believe there's a health risk. And anyway, the oil argument doesn't work for me with respect to the hills project for two simple reasons: Even without the project, the oil wells are still there. And if the oil wells are still there causing all that cancer, why on Earth would the people who live near them continue to live near them?
Witty Whittierite

Whittier, CA

#23 Feb 18, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, I live and work in the city. It's obvious you don't. "Virtually everyone" that I know is NOT complaining about the project but are instead wondering what the hell is taking the city so long to get it going. Now, back to my original question: If people who are living near these oil wells (whether in Montebello or Whittier) believe they're causing cancer, WHY are they still living there? Atheist commie fish wants to argue that they're still there because they'd not be able to get fair market value for their home, implying they'll risk their health to hold out for top dollar. Either they're greedy or they really don't believe there's a health risk. And anyway, the oil argument doesn't work for me with respect to the hills project for two simple reasons: Even without the project, the oil wells are still there. And if the oil wells are still there causing all that cancer, why on Earth would the people who live near them continue to live near them?
The people that live in Montebello who are supplying the information about their educational program concerning the facts of the proposed condo project have been keeping count of actual residents who support saving the last open space resource in the city for future generations have been saying for years at city council meetings and in these and other blogs that there are only about 54 verified residents who support the proposed development out of the approximately 4,000+ who have expressed an opinion on the condos at dozens of public outreach events they have attended for years.

For Example, at the last 5 concerts in the park, approximately 800 residents stopped by their booth or accepted their free 'Save the Montebello Hills' bookmarks. Exactly 6 residents expressed support for the condos, and the other 794 or so ALL were against it. Reportedly, similar numbers have been expressing similar views at all the task force's events for the last 6 years.

The 54 resident supporters are made up, almost entirely, of public safety union members, employees of PXP or Cook-Hill, recipients of money from the developer, or real estate speculators who reportedly believe they can make money flipping condos purchased at advantageous rates. Continuous door to door campaigning over the years has found similar results: At most, 1 or 2 people per block express support for the condos, and the rest are appalled. In some cases, whole blocks are against the proposed condo development.

As to the demonstrated health risk from oil production, you are free not to believe the facts. This is America, and you can believe whatever you want. Reject the demonstrated science of global warming, evolution, cancer-causing chemicals if you choose to. You are free to choose your own belief system. Just know that most of those who know the facts will choose to believe in the facts, and not advertising from a company that wants to make money from the suffering and economic degradation of the residents and city of Montebello.
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#24 Feb 19, 2014
Witty Whittierite wrote:
<quoted text>The people that live in Montebello who are supplying the information about their educational program concerning the facts of the proposed condo project have been keeping count of actual residents who support saving the last open space resource in the city for future generations have been saying for years at city council meetings and in these and other blogs that there are only about 54 verified residents who support the proposed development out of the approximately 4,000+ who have expressed an opinion on the condos at dozens of public outreach events they have attended for years.
For Example, at the last 5 concerts in the park, approximately 800 residents stopped by their booth or accepted their free 'Save the Montebello Hills' bookmarks. Exactly 6 residents expressed support for the condos, and the other 794 or so ALL were against it. Reportedly, similar numbers have been expressing similar views at all the task force's events for the last 6 years.
The 54 resident supporters are made up, almost entirely, of public safety union members, employees of PXP or Cook-Hill, recipients of money from the developer, or real estate speculators who reportedly believe they can make money flipping condos purchased at advantageous rates. Continuous door to door campaigning over the years has found similar results: At most, 1 or 2 people per block express support for the condos, and the rest are appalled. In some cases, whole blocks are against the proposed condo development.
As to the demonstrated health risk from oil production, you are free not to believe the facts. This is America, and you can believe whatever you want. Reject the demonstrated science of global warming, evolution, cancer-causing chemicals if you choose to. You are free to choose your own belief system. Just know that most of those who know the facts will choose to believe in the facts, and not advertising from a company that wants to make money from the suffering and economic degradation of the residents and city of Montebello.
For crying out loud, I personally know more than 54 residents who wish the city would get off the dime and get moving on the project. I think the website about the project lists easily 200 people who support it. It's interesting that you refuse to address my original comment. If the people who live near the project are against it because of the supposed presence of cancer causing chemicals, why do they choose to to risk their health by continuing to live there? How does opposing the project do anything to address their concerns about oil?
Witty Whittierite

West Covina, CA

#25 Feb 19, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
For crying out loud, I personally know more than 54 residents who wish the city would get off the dime and get moving on the project. I think the website about the project lists easily 200 people who support it. It's interesting that you refuse to address my original comment. If the people who live near the project are against it because of the supposed presence of cancer causing chemicals, why do they choose to to risk their health by continuing to live there? How does opposing the project do anything to address their concerns about oil?
What do you think about the saveourmontebellohills.com website's fact sheets that are composed, almost entirely, of information provided by the developer, but buried in 6,000+ pages of detrius?

I find it interesting that you are ignoring my response to your original comment.

Where does this atypical horde of resident supporters live? How come they never attend any of the city's public events, city council meetings, or even answer their doors or phones? Are they hermits, shut-ins, felons who can't vote, mutes?

I've personally seen how the developer gets people to sign up, with misrepresenting themselves as the group that's going to 'save the hills',or by stating that the people have to 'sign up' to get the free things they are giving away. Such sign ups are virtually worthless. Where on the developer's website is the list of 200 names and the city's they live in that they have been able to get in the last 8 years? I can't find it.
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#26 Feb 19, 2014
Witty Whittierite wrote:
<quoted text>What do you think about the saveourmontebellohills.com website's fact sheets that are composed, almost entirely, of information provided by the developer, but buried in 6,000+ pages of detrius?
I find it interesting that you are ignoring my response to your original comment.
Where does this atypical horde of resident supporters live? How come they never attend any of the city's public events, city council meetings, or even answer their doors or phones? Are they hermits, shut-ins, felons who can't vote, mutes?
I've personally seen how the developer gets people to sign up, with misrepresenting themselves as the group that's going to 'save the hills',or by stating that the people have to 'sign up' to get the free things they are giving away. Such sign ups are virtually worthless. Where on the developer's website is the list of 200 names and the city's they live in that they have been able to get in the last 8 years? I can't find it.
I don't know where "this atypical horde of resident supporters live." But you seem to. How else would you know if they don't "answer their doors or phones"? Are the people who wrote the so-called fact sheets you mentioned tracking them down the "atypical horde of resident supporters" to harass them? Shameful if they are. Let me try one more time: If you lived near an oil field that you suspected or had evidence of causing cancer, would you risk your health by staying in your home? Would you want to protect that 'open space resource for future generations to enjoy' so - what?- those future generations might also be exposed to that so-called risk?
Witty Whittierite

Whittier, CA

#27 Feb 19, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know where "this atypical horde of resident supporters live." But you seem to. How else would you know if they don't "answer their doors or phones"? Are the people who wrote the so-called fact sheets you mentioned tracking them down the "atypical horde of resident supporters" to harass them? Shameful if they are. Let me try one more time: If you lived near an oil field that you suspected or had evidence of causing cancer, would you risk your health by staying in your home? Would you want to protect that 'open space resource for future generations to enjoy' so - what?- those future generations might also be exposed to that so-called risk?
So, no factual responses. No rational justifications. Just gibberish and paranoia.

Typical of condo supporters, as there isn't any rational or factual justification for the proposed development.

As to your red herring question about living near an oil field, which doesn't even apply to the proposed development, it has already been answered,unlike all the pertinent questions to you, which remained unanswered.
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#28 Feb 19, 2014
Witty Whittierite wrote:
<quoted text>So, no factual responses. No rational justifications. Just gibberish and paranoia.
Typical of condo supporters, as there isn't any rational or factual justification for the proposed development.
As to your red herring question about living near an oil field, which doesn't even apply to the proposed development, it has already been answered,unlike all the pertinent questions to you, which remained unanswered.
And you wonder why no one will answer the door or pick up the phone.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#29 Feb 19, 2014
Witty Whittierite wrote:
<quoted text>So, no factual responses. No rational justifications. Just gibberish and paranoia.
Typical of condo supporters, as there isn't any rational or factual justification for the proposed development.
As to your red herring question about living near an oil field, which doesn't even apply to the proposed development, it has already been answered,unlike all the pertinent questions to you, which remained unanswered.
Well, Witty Whitterite, What wannabees will willingly, with wide-eyes whitewash!

I'm not sure which Whittier resident you are, but you definitely have been reading these fora, attending our outreach events, been to city council meetings, and have heard all the residents who oppose the proposed condo development.

You'll notice that condo supporters will never directly address the health, financial, or nature dangers this proposal raises. They will definitely use red herrings and straw man arguments, almost exclusively, as there is nothing else that will support them.

Thank you for mentioning the fact sheets, which have been available for several years, and you know that if there was so much as a single misplaced comma or misspelled word, the would-be developer would trumpet any error to the heavens. Their silence in response to our using their own, well hidden, facts against them speaks volumes.

You will notice that the would-be developer apparently prefers not to do anything that is objectively verifiable, like put out a proper Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Both were released about 4 years ago, and neither is complete, accurate, or verified yet.

The fact that the would-be developer would rather spread baksheesh around like mayonaisse on a sandwich and bombard residents' mailboxes with colorful advertisements filled with lies, halftruths, straw man declarations and inapplicable trivia follows the general oil industry publicity trends, so there isn't anything surprising there.

I used to put links, citations, direct and exact quotes to try to engage condo project supporters in civil and rational dialogue, but I gave it up as none of it makes any difference to the condo dreamers. Facts, Science, Public Opinion, Financial Reality, these are nothing to condomaniacs. All they want is to believe the fantasy that "If we build it, all our problems will be solved."

No reality, rationality, or facts will shake them of that belief, fostered by glad-handing, back-slapping, baksheesh-spreading, mailbox-spamming would-be developers. Even the developer's own facts are not believed if they contradict the dreamed fantasy.

BTW, the current total is 56 confirmed residents who will publicly support the proposed condo development out of now 5,000+ residents that the residents that make up the Save the Montebello Hills have interacted with and queried. That means that .1% of those questioned support condos in the Hills and 99.9% responded negatively. That doesn't count the two families alleged to be residents in the latest advertising brochure, because they haven't been verified, yet.
Somebody has to say it

Montebello, CA

#30 Feb 24, 2014
Why is it that some people are so willing to risk other people's health?

They say 'oh, just let the build the houses. If they're not safe then people just won't buy them.'

Yeah, great idea. A mountain full of empty houses and a twenty foot high stack of expensive health claims against the city. Super idea, Einstein.
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#31 Feb 24, 2014
People don't want to live near active oil and gas wells. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the financial resources to just pack up and leave. Even those who live in Montebello and worry about their health can't just sell their homes and move.

So, what do people in such a situation do? They complain to their local government officials and in a growing number of cases, residents are organizing themselves to protest and call for stricter regulations on oil/gas activities in their neighborhoods.

Tomorrow, the City of Los Angeles - Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) is meeting to discuss two separate motions introduced by Los Angeles City Councilmembers:

1. A citywide ban on hydraulic fracturing introduced by Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin.

2. A review of city oil/gas codes introduced by Councilmembers Jose Huizar and Bernard Parks.

Community turn out is expected to be HIGH at this meeting, especially amongst affected citizens living near oil/gas wells such as the Allenco and Murphy drill sites.

The tide of public opinion is turning against oil/gas well operations in residential neighborhoods.

PLUM Committee Meeting
Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2014
2:30 p.m.
Board of Public Works Meeting Hall,
Edward R. Roybal Hearing Room 350
200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, 90012

(Do not enter on Spring Street)
Wonder why

Riverside, CA

#32 Feb 26, 2014
ytw wrote:
People don't want to live near active oil and gas wells. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the financial resources to just pack up and leave. Even those who live in Montebello and worry about their health can't just sell their homes and move.
So, what do people in such a situation do? They complain to their local government officials and in a growing number of cases, residents are organizing themselves to protest and call for stricter regulations on oil/gas activities in their neighborhoods.
Tomorrow, the City of Los Angeles - Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) is meeting to discuss two separate motions introduced by Los Angeles City Councilmembers:
1. A citywide ban on hydraulic fracturing introduced by Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin.
2. A review of city oil/gas codes introduced by Councilmembers Jose Huizar and Bernard Parks.
Community turn out is expected to be HIGH at this meeting, especially amongst affected citizens living near oil/gas wells such as the Allenco and Murphy drill sites.
The tide of public opinion is turning against oil/gas well operations in residential neighborhoods.
PLUM Committee Meeting
Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2014
2:30 p.m.
Board of Public Works Meeting Hall,
Edward R. Roybal Hearing Room 350
200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, 90012
(Do not enter on Spring Street)
What happened at the PLUM meeting?
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#33 Feb 26, 2014
Wonder why wrote:
<quoted text>What happened at the PLUM meeting?
Wow! There were about 100 people who showed up to express their support in favor of the two motions. The meeting room was so PACKED those who arrived just a few minutes late had to wait outside in the hallway until an overflow room was opened. As the meeting progressed, the people who had come to speak on other, non-fracking related agenda items left and the rest of the overflow crowd was allowed to enter the meeting room but it was still standing room only.

The two motions concerning "fracking" and other oil/gas operations were items 8 (Parks - Huizar: review of city oil and gas regulations) and 9 (Koretz - Bonin: fracking moratorium.)

Council Member Bonin spoke first and expressed his concerns about air pollution, water contamination, and earthquakes. His remarks were echoed by Council Members Koretz and Parks.

About 5 people signed up to speak on item 8 and more than 65 people signed up to speak on item 9. Due to time constraints, most of these speakers never made it to the microphone but had to settle for hearing their names/position read into the public record. The overwhelming majority of speakers were in favor of passing both motions.

The Committee voted to pass both motions to the next City Council meeting this Friday.

Los Angeles Times
First step toward fracking ban in L.A. taken by land use panel
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-l...

Mike Bonin - Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/MikeBoninCD11
Concerned Bystander

West Covina, CA

#34 Feb 26, 2014
This does not affect Montebello, does it? At a city council meeting, I heard the paid spokesman for the developer read a letter from the oilfield owner PXP saying that there was "no high pressure fracking" (or words to that effect) going on in the Montebello Hills.

Unless the oil company and the developer are lying, doesn't that mean that there isn't any fracking going on here?
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#35 Feb 26, 2014
The letter written by Plains Exploration & Production (PXP) to the City Montebello (January 23, 2013) states:

"It came to our attention that on several occasions, members of the public made erroneous statements that PXP is drilling and completing wells at our Montebello Oil Field utilizing hydraulic fracturing. For the record, we have not drilled a single well since 2008. In addition, we reviewed the well records and found no evidence that any well at the Montebello Oil Field was completed using either conventional, or High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF). Any claim to the contrary is simply false."

The letter goes on to include this curious statement:

"There is another well completion activity called High Rate Gravel Packing (HRGP) that is also confused with hydraulic fracturing."

The letter does not say whether or not High Rate Gravel Packing has been used in the Montebello Oil Field nor does it say if they intend to use this technique in the future, but according to an article written for the Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), "In 2003, a radically different frac pack completion strategy was developed and evaluated" which combined "fracturing and gravel packing in one step." p.1 This technique was used in the Inglewood Oil Field (Vickers/Rindge) and "The frac pack recompletions of two wells in the Montebello field are currently in the planning stages. The zones targeted are at a similar depth to the Vickers/Rindge, and suffer from the same formation damage restrictions, and thus the technique has good potential at Montebello." p.9

Source:
SPE 90975
Multistage Oil-Based Frac-Packing in the Thick Inglewood Field Vickers/Rindge Formation Lends New Life to an Old Producing Field
W.H. Moodie, SPE, Plains Exploration & Production, W.A. Minner, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies, Inc, M. Fernandez, D. Lockman, Plains Exploration & Production, W. Burgett, Jr., Weatherford Completion Systems

The website for Weatherford Completion Systems states:

"Frac packing is a hybrid process that stimulates a reservoir by hydraulically fracturing the formation and accomplishes an annular gravel pack in a single operation."
http://www.weatherford.com/dn/WFT193884

Any confusion over terminology and definitions is the fault of the oil and gas industry. The public needs to continue to ask questions and demand clear answers, not doublespeak.
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#36 Feb 26, 2014
More on yesterday's PLUM meeting:

LA Streetsblog
Fracking Ban Passes PLUM Committee, To Full Council Friday
by Joe Linton
http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/02/26/fracking...

Details on Friday's meeting:

AGENDA
LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL
Friday, February 28, 2014
10:00 AM
JOHN FERRARO COUNCIL CHAMBER
ROOM 340, CITY HALL
200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/dow...
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#37 Feb 28, 2014
The L.A. City Council voted unanimously, 10-0, in favor of a citywide moratorium on fracking and other types of well stimulation within city limits.

The four councilmembers who sponsored these motions were given a loud, standing ovation by the packed room.
Wonder why

Riverside, CA

#38 Mar 1, 2014
ytw wrote:
The L.A. City Council voted unanimously, 10-0, in favor of a citywide moratorium on fracking and other types of well stimulation within city limits.
The four councilmembers who sponsored these motions were given a loud, standing ovation by the packed room.
Interesting that L.A. Is moving proactively to protect citizens health by halting (at least until more info on possible dangers is available) oil well stimulation techniques. Meanwhile, here in Montebello we have the Chamber of Commerce, and other folk who think they (or their organization) would benefit, demanding that housing for vulnerable families be built on top of the active Montebello Hills oilfield. Where is their concern for the health dangers these families would face from the chemicals and fumes that result from oil production?

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#39 Mar 1, 2014
Wonder why wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting that L.A. Is moving proactively to protect citizens health by halting (at least until more info on possible dangers is available) oil well stimulation techniques. Meanwhile, here in Montebello we have the Chamber of Commerce, and other folk who think they (or their organization) would benefit, demanding that housing for vulnerable families be built on top of the active Montebello Hills oilfield. Where is their concern for the health dangers these families would face from the chemicals and fumes that result from oil production?
The last three chamber chairmen have ALL said that the chamber of commerce is NOT concerned with the health dangers this proposed project poses because the chamber of commerce is ONLY concerned with economic issues, and they claim it is the city council who is supposed to be concerned with health dangers.

Is it a case of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, because what could be more evil than intentionally placing men, women and children in harm's way of death and disease?
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#40 Mar 3, 2014
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
<quoted text>The last three chamber chairmen have ALL said that the chamber of commerce is NOT concerned with the health dangers this proposed project poses because the chamber of commerce is ONLY concerned with economic issues, and they claim it is the city council who is supposed to be concerned with health dangers.
Is it a case of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, because what could be more evil than intentionally placing men, women and children in harm's way of death and disease?
Perhaps there are no health dangers to worry about. After all, even the Sierra Club people have a vision of a vast park that would probably see tens of thousands of "men, women and children" roaming around on the property if it were to become a park.

http://angeles.sierraclub.org/environmental/i...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Montebello Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BP Mayor pro temp Slammed 2 hr What a Joke 2
la art show 4 hr Planet Earth 3
How much does Montebello and MUSD owe CALPERS 5 hr Trash Talk 2
Local Politics Do you approve of Art Barajas as ? 5 hr Trash Talk 2
Golden Glob Awards 7 hr Shyit whole Hawaii 20
Montebello CC Meeting On Livestream 8 hr Findlay finder 43
Montebello mega-housing developer 11 hr Mtb Resident 3

Montebello Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Montebello Mortgages