Posted July 20, 2016 by The Argonaut in Columns
Ballona Do-Nothings Behave a Lot Like Trump

Re: “It’s Not Money for Bulldozers” and “Work with Nature for Recovery,” Letters, July 7

The Ballona Do-Nothings are at it again.

They oppose removing 15 feet of dredge spoil from the 200 acres of former wetland south of Fiji Way buried by the marina’s construction.

They oppose re-contouring the land so the ocean tides can nourish planted wetland vegetation, replacing the acres and acres of invasive weeds there today.

Just like Tea Partiers, they propose to replace any proven, tried-and-true restoration plan validated by learned professionals with an incoherent fruit salad of nothing.

Like Birthers, their manufactured fables of government conspiracy are intended to confuse and create fear.

The Coastal Commission properly threw them out of proceedings for the now successful Malibu Lagoon and Oxford Basin restorations, and will do so for Ballona.

We’ll all benefit from the restored tidal wetlands and public access that the coming Ballona restoration brings.

Like Mr. Trump, these “Save All of Ballona” extremists only want to take us backward, condemning a once vibrant, flourishing tidal marsh to an eternity of suffocating death.

We and our political leaders must together seize every opportunity to oppose these frauds with extreme prejudice.

David Kay, Playa Vista
More Housing = Fewer Homeless

I am writing in strong support of the recent motions that L.A. City Councilman Mike Bonin has introduced to meaningfully help the homeless in Venice. The motions to build permanent supportive housing on city-owned land, establish an  adequately-sized storage program and ensure 24/7 access to public restrooms are critically important in ending  homelessness, as well as providing for the basic needs of people forced to live on our streets until we can end homelessness for everybody.

As a resident of Venice for 28 years, a supporter of Venice Community Housing Corp. and a volunteer at VCH’s Transitional Living Center, I feel strongly that we must commit ourselves to providing housing and other services for our homeless population. We are a community of compassionate people with the resources to end the suffering we see on the streets and beaches.

The permanent supportive housing proposal for a city-owned parking lot on Venice Boulevard is urgently important — it has the capacity to almost double the number of permanent supportive housing units in and around Venice, and it will directly end homelessness for those who move in.

Permanent supportive housing improves the community for everyone. There are well-managed and beautiful buildings in Venice that also provide housing to those most in need and, in some cases, literally save lives.

We welcome more affordable and permanent supportive housing in Venice and throughout Bonin’s Westside council district. The Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti should take every step possible to drastically increase housing production, including ballot measures and increased affordable housing construction on city-owned land.

Nancy Griffin


Re: “Man Dives into Marina del Rey Harbor to Rescue Blind Dog,” News, July 7

Thank you, David, for rescuing this this sweet little dog rather than pulling out your cell phone and videotaping it. We need more people like you in this world!


What a wonderful act to read about! Bless that young man’s heart. If only everyone were like him. Thank God he was there at the right time.




    More blustery nonsense from David Kay, the Donald Trump of the Ballona destruction movement. He accuses us of being right wingers when he is the one who said (it’s on youtube, folks) that he would gladly take money form the ultra right wing Koch Brothers to fund the bulldozing of Ballona! This guy wants to DESTROY the Ballona Wetlands in order to convert it into a massive taxpayer funded windfall for construction companies, wiping out the homes for endangered wildlife there as part of an experiment to see whether man can create a fake vision of nature after destroying it. He is only correct when he says we want to take the wetlands “backward”. What we advocate is what the US EPA defines as a “restoration”: returning the land to what it was before man screwed it up, and doing it at a reasonable speed so as to protect the existing 1300 species of plants and animals there. Our plan returns the historic marshy delta of creeks and lagoons and sandy islands which existed here 200 years ago. What we advocate is massively different than the plan pushed by Kay, as his plan would wipe out the existing wildlife in the hope that they would come back after his project causes many years of bulldozing, resulting in the wetlands being drowned by polluted water. His polluted wetlands plan is historically inaccurate, super expensive, super disruptive and opposed by many reputable organizations and scientists. Because it is not a restoration, it violates California’s Coastal protection Act. That’s we and thousands of our supporters oppose his wetlands destruction plan.

    john davis

    Mr. Kay is barking up the wrong tree again and he wants you to follow.

    Important background information regarding this matter can be traced to permits
    granted by the Coastal Commission and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Los Angeles

    Coastal Development Permit No. 5-91-463 was issued, and the Standard Conditions required
    Compliance with the Special Conditions.

    According to documents obtained from the CCC, Maguire Thomas Partners – Playa Vista, applied for the permit on behalf of an entity named the, “Ballona Committee”,
    comprised of of representatives of the following four entities: the Friends of Ballona Wetlands; The City of Los Angeles, acting through the 6th Council District; the State Lands Commission, acting through the Controller of the State of California; and MTP-PV”.

    This odd group includes LA CD 6 when the lands are located in CD 11.

    The purpose is stated in Coastal Commission application documents is for flood control for Playa Vista Phase 1 and all subsequent development.

    One required condition was the same, “Ballona Committee”, apply for a second coastal development permit to construct something called a, “salt water marsh”, for flood control and wetland mitigation purposes. The second application was never submitted.

    These documents say that this “Committee”, was to obtain the necessary authorizations, including the second permit for a salt water marsh. It was also to oversee the developments implementation, managing the completed development.

    Currently, the entity lawfully required to manage the development does not even appear to exist.

    Apparently, the flood control project currently has no lawful manager.

    The Coastal Commission claims in writing the, “anticipated development did not occur”, but we all know that Phase 1 was constructed and Phase 2 is almost finished.

    The requirements of CDP 5-91-463 run with the land deed and it was never completed in a reasonable amount of time as the Standard Conditions required.

    The second permit obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, a 404 Flood Control Permit No.90-426-EV was issued by USACE Los Angeles District to Maguire Thomas Partners – Playa Vista.

    Like the Coastal unfinished Coastal Development Permit, the 404 Permit Special Conditions required that, “The permittee shall designate a site for the 5.3 acres of salt marsh mitigation within the area proposed to be restored as a salt marsh pursuant to a future application.”

    It appears there was never a second application and no salt marsh was restored.

    Logic dictates that neither permit was completed for flood control and wetland mitigations.

    Wetlands were taken by the development with recompense.

    The question is now begged, why is there a push by the Ca. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife to construct a “salt marsh” at the publics expense?

    Is it to complete both flood control permits that were never finished by the permittees, and if so why and under what provision(s) of law?

    John Davis

    john davis


    The third to the last line should read, “without recompense”.

    John Davis

Leave a Reply