|They're dandies alright, but can you win them with cheese?|
Now I should probably talk once again about the people who would be profiting from such counterintuitive real estate dealings. Jerry Pearson from Arcadia is doing a lot of the heavy lifting right now. You may recall his purposeful little talks about the great benefits of development impact fees at various community input meetings last month.
Jerry's claim being that if the people here would just allow him and his pals to build a gross or so of mini-mansions at Mater Dolorosa, all of Sierra Madre's financial woes would be peacefully laid to rest.
Then there is that noted bon vivant, Burbank investment advisor Cameron Thornton. Cam, as he enjoys being known, has also bought into the so-called community saving aspects of packing bodacious bumper housing development onto monastery grounds.
All of which leads me to ask you this. Isn't it simply astonishing just how many people are eager to selflessly put aside their own personal interests and save us all from, well, bad things? All done because they care?
I can only assume that "Saving Sierra Madre" in this quite special context means preserving things like the financial advantages of the 12 platinum members of the Sierra Madre Police Department. All so they will be able to continue reaping upwards of $180,000 in paid compensation every year.
Or, to look at it in another way, just about enough money in one year to keep the Library open and fully staffed for the rest of this decade, and well into the next.
These are all just blasts from the past, of course. Today we have a whole new chapter in the always evolving divide and conquer strategies going down at Mater Dolorosa. That being to try and get the Realtors of Sierra Madre to sell out the interests of their own community. It certainly is not anything new, I do know that. But it is also something that has not been put to use here since the dark days of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Here is how Burbank Cam and Jerry Arcadia roll out their latest unfortunate effort:
Now I enjoy wine and cheese just as much as the next guy, but is the concept being peddled here entirely appropriate? How exactly can consecrated grounds ever be described as "vacant?"
When I was a young lad receiving religious instruction from the good Fathers, I was always told that monastery lands such as those we find at Mater Dolorosa are filled with God. Making them exceptional places. So isn't describing portions of their own monastery as "vacant" in effect denying the sacred in so great a project as a religious retreat center?
I myself would hope that this is still the case. I'd hate to think that instead every such thing now must be judged by its value to development interests and the nearsighted wishes of those real estate brokers who choose to serve only them.
But maybe that is just me.
Pasadena can't get anything right
For seven months now we have been told that Pasadena was making great strides with its investigations into the $6.4 million Wootengate Embezzlement Scandal, and that this stolen money would be found and returned to the people of that city.
Well, it might actually be that none of that is going to happen. This from the Los Angeles News Group family of papers:
I think that people now have to start asking questions like "Will this embezzlement investigation ever actually get done?" I have always felt that Pasadena City Hall participated in a carefully planned cover up from the get-go. One designed to shield the rather posh backsides of some of the richly compensated bureaucrats working there. Michael Beck being one of them.
Though, of course, it is always possible that these people are merely incompetent and can't handle this kind of pressure no matter how much you pay them.
You can read the rest of this not entirely surprising article by clicking here.