tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post2669284738179870139..comments2023-12-15T00:16:54.199-08:00Comments on Fresh & Easy Buzz: City Council Approves Crenshaw-South Los Angeles Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Store Despite OppositionFresh & Easy Buzzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06339190145395775927noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-23205907952172072302010-12-28T10:03:04.644-08:002010-12-28T10:03:04.644-08:00Anonymous,
People were bused in. I don't eve...Anonymous, <br /><br />People were bused in. I don't even the Council member or Fresh & Easy will deny it.<br /><br />And it's ridiculous to suggest people would oppose another grocery store. That's a straw man argument. People's objections were to the failure of the store design to comply with the clearly defined pedestrian orientation design requirements. You say you don't care. Many do.<br /><br />The difference is I think you wouldn't care whether the design was or was not pedestrian oriented. I'm not passing judgment, just simply making an observation.Crenshaw Community Membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-26595094370303746342010-12-26T16:51:51.070-08:002010-12-26T16:51:51.070-08:00Many of us support the Fresh & Easy store. We ...Many of us support the Fresh & Easy store. We don't feel 2 grocery stores in the neighborhood is enough. It's insulting to say those of us who were at the council meeting were all bused in. Just propoganda. Here's a blog post I and many others in the neighborhood supported to get the Fresh Easy store approved http://www.blackisonline.com/2010/12/freshneasy/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-89011863678741022992010-12-26T13:02:48.575-08:002010-12-26T13:02:48.575-08:00I wasn't exaggerating when I said the City Cou...I wasn't exaggerating when I said the City Council votes 99.993%: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/07/la_council_votes_unanimously_9.php<br /><br />Over a year ago, the Council member for the area, Bernard Parks, said he didn't care about the exceptions and wanted to see them granted. So even if the hall were packed with residents the council still would have voted unanimously in with the Council Member. It happens time on land use issues in Los Angeles. The no vote is the only real surprise.<br /><br />I've been on a list with about 50-100 CCs seeing the back and forth between the HOPE group and the Council member, and it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. Several people have said they're ready to sue.<br /><br />And you can delete the first post in this thread. It is redundant.Crenshaw Community Membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-51024110710786401312010-12-21T07:33:48.077-08:002010-12-21T07:33:48.077-08:00The 12-1 vote should only be surprising because th...The 12-1 vote should only be surprising because there was 1 opposed. The unwritten rule in LA City Council politics is that the entire council always votes with the council member in whose district the project is, because they don't want other council members voting against projects in their district. <br /><br />The 99.993% figure is accurate: <a href="http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/07/la_council_votes_unanimously_9.php" rel="nofollow">LA Weekly article</a><br /><br />Another surprise was that the item came out of the Land Use committee of the City Council with no recommendation, despite the Council member's statement requesting the committee reject the appeal. <br /><br />It was very telling the conversation at the committee level and the absence of any at the City Council level. The only council members who stood up and spoke in support of the plan were the only Republican on the council and a council member in another district who is facing a similar challenge from residents who want a Cost Co. built in a more pedestrian friendly manner.<br /><br />There has been a healthy online email dialogue that has included the council member since the vote where the group basically has admitted they focused their attention on winning the case in other avenues (my bet is they're going to court), since they had zero shot at the City Council level. The City Council member in very uncharted fashion has openly expressed disapproval of the Crenshaw community specific plan.<br /><br />There is also an election coming up in March.Crenshaw Community Membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-54444737867340633772010-12-20T11:00:42.502-08:002010-12-20T11:00:42.502-08:00I'm not sure what was said that was disagreeab...I'm not sure what was said that was disagreeable. The previous post was primarily only written to correct a few misrepresentations that have been made by the other side . You just issued one yourself when you said, "The lot where the Fresh & Easy is going has been empty for a long time. First it was an empty store front. Then it was torn down and has been sitting vacant for over a year."<br /><br />That's just not true, and again seeks to project a false image in an attempt to justify Fresh & Easy violating clearly defined design guidelines and undercutting the community's defined long-term development vision.<br /><br />The fact is Crenshaw Motor Ford closed in early 2007 after serving the community consistently for over 50 years. Soon thereafter some car auction place opened up in the same building, but was closed down about 2 years ago. A little over a year ago, the owner demolished the old building, so it has been a vacant lot for about a year, which definitely isn't even close to a long time even in the best economic areas, especially since it typically takes 2 years in the city of Los Angeles just to get through the approvals process, when a project is compliant with the design requirements.<br /><br />So no, it has not "been empty for a long time."<br /><br />And it is ridiculous to suggest that Fresh & Easy is going to improve the local grocery stores. First, what evidence is there to suggest they'll perform any better than the rest? <br /><br />Second, the Slauson/Crenshaw Ralphs (2 blocks away) was torn down and rebuilt 4-5 years ago. The Albertsons at King/Crenshaw was significantly renovated about 2-3 years. The Ralphs further down on Rodeo/Crenshaw is going to be torn down and rebuilt. And the Food 4 Less Slauson/Western just opened up only 6 years ago. All of these capital improvements were announced BEFORE Tesco expressed interest in the United States, let alone the Crenshaw community.<br /><br />Fresh & Easy should build the type of development that is in line with the long-term design guidelines of the community, just like they'd be required to do in any other community. I'm not sure how that is in any way disagreeable.Crenshaw Community Membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-72640668843865480772010-12-19T16:43:15.080-08:002010-12-19T16:43:15.080-08:00I'm a resident of the neighborhood and totally...I'm a resident of the neighborhood and totally disagree. The lot where the Fresh & Easy is going has been empty for a long time. First it was an empty store front. Then it was torn down and has been sitting vacant for over a year. <br /><br />No other grocers are interested in putting a store on the lot. Safeway, no. Albertsons and Stater's, no thanks. On and on.<br /><br />We need a grocery store in the neighborhood. In a perfect world not giving Fresh & Easy the exemptions would be fine. But it ain't a perfect world. They might have taken advantage of the fact no other grocer wants to locate there to get hte exemptions, saving them some money probably, but I look forward to a grocery store so close to my house rather than more years of an empty lot. Ralphs also needs some competition.AnotherCommunityMembernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-81667559389896775092010-12-18T07:31:54.362-08:002010-12-18T07:31:54.362-08:004) There were alternative designs that would have ...4) There were alternative designs that would have made the store more pedestrian-friendly but Fresh & Easy and the Council man have refused to consider them. Among them was moving the building to the corner and having the parking in the middle. It would have made the parking lot much less obtrusive.<br /><br />5) The only surprise after the Council member made clear he had no problem with the design of the building (about a year ago) was that the Planning Land Use and Management committee pushed this out of committee to the Council without a recommendation despite the Council member's appearance (that NEVER happens) and that Alarcon voted no on the floor of the full City Council. A little bit more research on your part would have revealed that the City Council votes unanimously 99.993% of the time. The unwritten rule in City Council politics is that council members don't mess with projects in other council members district, because they don't want them messing with projects in their own district.<br /><br />Parks, who is running for re-election bused in seniors and kids who for the most part didn't understand the issue, and many left feeling used once the issues were explained to them. It was great political theater, but it won't mean a thing. Several people have already begun discussing a lawsuit. And that would be unfortunate, given that all it would have taken is a little bit more dialogue with the community groups, respect for the Crenshaw Specific Plan and minor redesigns of the project to resolve the controversy. But the Fresh & Easy representative did not want to modify his standard corporate model to comply with the communities' clearly defined design guidelines. This a real black eye for Fresh & Easy.Crenshaw Community membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-38683310288049372882010-12-18T07:30:52.903-08:002010-12-18T07:30:52.903-08:00The Council member and Fresh & Easy have been ...The Council member and Fresh & Easy have been very good in painting this community with a broad brush to present a picture that just isn't the case. Allow me as a member of the Crenshaw community correct some of the false images:<br /><br />1) This is not a food desert. In your report you neglected to mention that there is a full-service Ralphs market just two blocks away (Slauson & Crenshaw), and a weekly farmers market a block away. Within a 2.5 mile radius of the site are 6 supermarkets (3 Ralphs, 2 Albertsons and a Food 4 Less) and 2 farmers markets.<br /><br />2) This is not a poor South LA community. The store is located in View Heights at the foot of View Park and less than 1/2 mile away from Baldwin Hills a place so affluent it birthed the BET reality TV show of spoiled brats named after the area. View Park, Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights and Leimert Park is the most affluent contiguous black community in the United States. But it has resulted in a lack of investment in our commercial corridor in large part because of the image projected by stories like these and by ineffective political leaders, like the Councilman, who have failed to create the climate that new business feel comfortable coming to. The stark contrast between the beauty and affluence of the residential areas and the Crenshaw commercial corridor is a constant talking point in community meetings.<br /><br />3) The large parking lot is a bigger safety hazard than the proposed alternatives. The officer neglected to mention that in this area the biggest problem the local division has is not in the storefront areas that have rear parking, but rather with the large strip mall parking lots. Also, because of the low fences, this is a parking lot that will be very hard to lock up at night. The result has been to erect large gates at some of these areas, which is terribly unsightly. <br /><br />Comparatively, if the parking access was restricted to two areas (one on Crenshaw and one on 52nd Street) and the rest of the boundary had pedestrian-friendly storefront it would be much easier to lock up at night, and there would be more pedestrian activity on the sidewalk known as "eyes on the street."<br /><br />The most important point however, is that if there is a safety concern require on-site security. Almost all successful businesses in this area have it, why shouldn't Fresh & Easy?Crenshaw Community Membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023018867778958193.post-26873472732085793292010-12-18T07:30:29.629-08:002010-12-18T07:30:29.629-08:00The Council member and Fresh & Easy have been ...The Council member and Fresh & Easy have been very good in painting this community with a broad brush to present a picture that just isn't the case. Allow me as a member of the Crenshaw community correct some of the false images:<br /><br />1) This is not a food desert. In your report you neglected to mention that there is a full-service Ralphs market just two blocks away (Slauson & Crenshaw), and a weekly farmers market a block away. Within a 2.5 mile radius of the site are 6 supermarkets (3 Ralphs, 2 Albertsons and a Food 4 Less) and 2 farmers markets.<br /><br />2) This is not a poor South LA community. The store is located in View Heights at the foot of View Park and less than 1/2 mile away from Baldwin Hills a place so affluent it birthed the BET reality TV show of spoiled brats named after the area. View Park, Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights and Leimert Park is the most affluent contiguous black community in the United States. But it has resulted in a lack of investment in our commercial corridor in large part because of the image projected by stories like these and by ineffective political leaders, like the Councilman, who have failed to create the climate that new business feel comfortable coming to. The stark contrast between the beauty and affluence of the residential areas and the Crenshaw commercial corridor is a constant talking point in community meetings.<br /><br />3) The large parking lot is a bigger safety hazard than the proposed alternatives. The officer neglected to mention that in this area the biggest problem the local division has is not in the storefront areas that have rear parking, but rather with the large strip mall parking lots. Also, because of the low fences, this is a parking lot that will be very hard to lock up at night. The result has been to erect large gates at some of these areas, which is terribly unsightly. <br /><br />Comparatively, if the parking access was restricted to two areas (one on Crenshaw and one on 52nd Street) and the rest of the boundary had pedestrian-friendly storefront it would be much easier to lock up at night, and there would be more pedestrian activity on the sidewalk known as "eyes on the street."<br /><br />The most important point however, is that if there is a safety concern require on-site security. Almost all successful businesses in this area have it, why shouldn't Fresh & Easy?<br /><br />4) There were alternative designs that would have made the store more pedestrian-friendly but Fresh & Easy and the Council man have refused to consider them. Among them was moving the building to the corner and having the parking in the middle. It would have made the parking lot much less obtrusive.<br /><br />5) The only surprise after the Council member made clear he had no problem with the design of the building (about a year ago) was that the Planning Land Use and Management committee pushed this out of committee to the Council without a recommendation despite the Council member's appearance (that NEVER happens) and that Alarcon voted no on the floor of the full City Council. A little bit more research on your part would have revealed that the City Council votes unanimously 99.993% of the time. The unwritten rule in City Council politics is that council members don't mess with projects in other council members district, because they don't want them messing with projects in their own district.Crenshaw Community Membernoreply@blogger.com