Battle brews over LAUSD land use

Point Fermin Elementary s electrical units and lunch shelter encroach on about 25 feet of L.A. city property.

[Archie]

What a jerk. San Pedro has no view restrictions. Move to PV if you want to fight over your view. I only hope someone builds a huge house in front of his view. If the school has been using the land, adverse possesion should apply. Where are the lawyers?

[Archies Raunchie]

I guess Archie wants to follow laws, rules, and regulations that benefit only him and nobody else.

Archie also feels it is perfectly correct to place school children in harms way.

When LAUSD continues to ignore laws, rules, and regulations, like Archie supports, it demonstrates what is wrong with LAUSD and not what is right.

Archie, it is a SAFETY issue.

Archie, I think your brain has gone, as Sarah and "W" would say; 'nucular'.

[LOVSP]

What a jerk is right. The VIEW issue was pushed by LAUSD. Never in any meeting has the VIEW been brought up except here in this article. LAUSD in its motion to fix this wants to widen Carolina and this is not mentioned here either. What would the expense of widening Carolina be and how much private property would be taken away for that. That will still not give the kids the sidewalk. The kids have to walk INTO the street to get into the school.
In August when the LAUSD Bond Over Site came to see this site that was built for the air conditioners they all had on jackets. It was cole and windy. Pt Fermin Needs AC? I don’t think so. PT Fermin gets AC because the Valley gets AC. The money has to be spent for the same thing throughout the district.

[slug]

From the way this article reads, make no mistake - this guy is only about his view. He can't change the situation by any code related to his view issue, so he hammers away at ancillary issues only to get at his main issue. This installation I'm sure was built to code, so he finds an anomaly in property rights over property he doesn't own. He doesn't care about how much money the government spends since it ain't his. I bet any legal fees he accrues will be paid in the end by the school district, also.

[LOVSP]

slug wrote:

From the way this article reads, make no mistake - this guy is only about his view. He can't change the situation by any code related to his view issue, so he hammers away at ancillary issues only to get at his main issue. This installation I'm sure was built to code, so he finds an anomaly in property rights over property he doesn't own. He doesn't care about how much money the government spends since it ain't his. I bet any legal fees he accrues will be paid in the end by the school district, also.

LAUSD in in the wrong. Lausd brought up the VIEW. That is their RED Herring. LAUSD will pay because they are in the public right of way and the TAX payvers pay for the BOND LAUSD spends. Who is the Government? How does the Government get is money?

[slug]

LOVSP wrote:

<quoted text>
LAUSD in in the wrong. Lausd brought up the VIEW. That is their RED Herring. LAUSD will pay because they are in the public right of way and the TAX payvers pay for the BOND LAUSD spends. Who is the Government? How does the Government get is money?

Reread the article to see where the view issue lies. His tax payments don't change as a result of his actions. The marginal cost to him is zero. The District's allocation of resources are significantly adversely affected.

[Archie]

Ummm to Archies Raunchie (AKA Campaou), if you think you are going to gain public support, you are in the wrong town my dear. I wonder why if it's such a safety issue now after all these years with no sidewalk there? Why aren't all the neighbors complaining? Isn't that what the crossing guards are for?

Yes, LAUSD screwed up by not renewing the land use permit, but so did the city by not enforcing it..and that gives the school rights to the land.

You live in whisky flats, your property value has deeply declined, getting rid of wires isn't going to help.

[LOVSP]

slug wrote:

<quoted text>Reread the article to see where the view issue lies. His tax payments don't change as a result of his actions. The marginal cost to him is zero. The District's allocation of resources are significantly adversely affected.

The district makes many mistakes in spending. Look at the recently exposed BIG salaries. Look at the money they pay these monkeys. Is that not a sinful waste of public funds. LAUSD is TOO big and way too FAT. They blotched this job and have to fix it. END OF STORY. Now go find some donuts to eat slugger. Or better yet, go spend more of our tax dollars. Remember, No child left behind. AND, No Tax dollar left unspent. RIGHT.

[An old time local]

If Mr.Campeau wants the lines buried, let him pay out of his pocket. BOO HOO, BOO HOO! poor baby.
I had the same problem when I lived on 2nd.street
ha a harbor view and could see the mary star statue,
But we had to live with it!We don't need more schools, What we need is a lot less people here!!!!!!!!!

[IRule]

Great. NIMBY's get their lawyers to fight for a better view. Nice job of wasting taxpayer money.

[amazed]

time to check camp p u's permits. Whiskey Flats used to have such nice folk. flip this house brought in some nasty neighbors.

[LOVSP]

Drive by the school and see what lausd has done to the place. Its more about the sidewalk. The lines are over the lunch area and should have been put underground and at a much cheaper price then what they did. LAUSD wasted tax payers money by the blotched job they did. The view is not an argument from the neighbors. It is an argument that lausd has stuck in. The kids have NO sidewalk on that side of the street. They have to walk off the curb and into the street to get to school. Good job lausd.

[slug]

LOVSP wrote:

Drive by the school and see what lausd has done to the place. Its more about the sidewalk. The lines are over the lunch area and should have been put underground and at a much cheaper price then what they did. LAUSD wasted tax payers money by the blotched job they did. The view is not an argument from the neighbors. It is an argument that lausd has stuck in. The kids have NO sidewalk on that side of the street. They have to walk off the curb and into the street to get to school. Good job lausd.

The point was made in the article that the funding is not allocated, and likely will not be allocated (due to priorities, I am sure), for a sidewalk. Another post pointed out that the issue never was raised, after all these years, by anyone until now - and that only because one person had his view impaired by a power pole. BTW, a power pole doesn't block one's view - it just becomes part of it, kind of like a bridge, etc.

[LOVSP]

slug wrote:

<quoted text>The point was made in the article that the funding is not allocated, and likely will not be allocated (due to priorities, I am sure), for a sidewalk. Another post pointed out that the issue never was raised, after all these years, by anyone until now - and that only because one person had his view impaired by a power pole. BTW, a power pole doesn't block one's view - it just becomes part of it, kind of like a bridge, etc.

WRONG WRONG WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN
This battle has been going on for at least 3 years. Can you count to 3? This is NOT a new battle. You will see. Drive by the school and let us all know how safe it looks to you. Its not the view its safety and the kids walking in the street and you spending money like its water. There are documents to prove you wrong and you will see them.

[Janice]

3 years and no kid roadkill? Doesn't sound that unsafe to me

[Education First]

"While the dispute persists, the electrical, air conditioning and technology upgrades that were completed at the school last fall - to the tune of almost $2.3 million -- won't get power until the situation is resolved, district officials said. That has generated frustration on the part of some teachers and parents"

Meanwhile our kids and teachers suffer while this issue is argued. Where is the support for education and for our children?

This guy would probably prefer that the school wasn't even there. All those noisy darn kids making noise on their way to school and in their playground.

Between this and the battle against the new Angel's Gate High School, there seems to be a real trend in this neighborhood against kids and education. This has to change.

[slug]

LOVSP wrote:

<quoted text>
WRONG WRONG WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN
This battle has been going on for at least 3 years. Can you count to 3? This is NOT a new battle. You will see. Drive by the school and let us all know how safe it looks to you. Its not the view its safety and the kids walking in the street and you spending money like its water. There are documents to prove you wrong and you will see them.

I think that is about the same length of time this issue has been going on about the power pole. So, the street without a sidewalk has been there longer than I can remember and it gets brought up about the time the power pole is objectionable to one person's harbor view. We aren't using safety issues, kids' welfare, etc. as red herrings to argue someone's vision problem here, are we? Because, reading the article that is exactly what is going on? Has the press failed here?

[VIEW VIEW VIEW]

All this is about is the view. Give the kids their air conditioning NOW!!!

[Natural Mom]

Actually it is NOT all about the view, it is also about children's safety, and it is also about a community tired of being ramrodded by LAUSD. When we taxpayers improve our property we have to pay through the nose and follow each and every edict of the city and the coastal commission with permits and inspections, but LAUSD just does whatever the heck it wants with little regard for the community it "serves." If the big administrative bureaucracy known as LAUSD were truly concerned with educating kids and doing so safely, this never would have come up to begin with.

[slug]

Natural Mom wrote:

Actually it is NOT all about the view, it is also about children's safety, and it is also about a community tired of being ramrodded by LAUSD. When we taxpayers improve our property we have to pay through the nose and follow each and every edict of the city and the coastal commission with permits and inspections, but LAUSD just does whatever the heck it wants with little regard for the community it "serves." If the big administrative bureaucracy known as LAUSD were truly concerned with educating kids and doing so safely, this never would have come up to begin with.

Sadly, you've misrepresented every point. It is about the view - read the article. The permit will be renewed post hoc by DPW and the land use issue will become moot. The installation was permitted by the city and met all safety and construction laws. The air conditioning is there for the benefit of teaching the children. The school itself has no choice on that issue. The meeting on Monday is obviously to make peace with the community. It is the "view" issue that is being ramrodded down the District's and City's throats, even when there no law applying to that issue.