Another Ballona Accuracy Check

For some reason, I can't post comments to David Kay's Ballona Blog.  Below is my response to his latest.

[http://marinadelrey.patch.com/groups/friends-of-ballona-wetlands/p/westchester-dems-to-study-ballona-donothing-resolution]

Some odd comments/omissions here that I hope the author will clarify:

- Wasn't a resolution approved at this meeting specifically encouraging the Annenberg Foundation to pursue an off-site location for its companion animal facilities?  If so, it seems that it should be mentioned here if the author is striving for an objective summary of the meeting.

- Wallis Annenberg must be starting to realize her proposal is sinking fast when her staunchest supporter describes it as a "strings attached" "deal with the rich lady."  Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the same person who was confidently proclaiming a few months ago that "anyone who puts $80 million–plus on the table for such a critical component of the largest public open space in L.A. next to Griffith Park can have an acre with a few rooms to rehabilitate abandoned kittens."

- It is perfectly fair to criticize the restoration ideas being proposed by Marcia Hanscom or anyone else.  However, blatantly mischaracterizing those ideas does nothing to move the discussion forward.  To do so is to commit a logical fallacy called a "straw man argument" that, in fairness, has also been used to criticize the State's plan.  Regardless of who does it, it isn't appropriate.
 No one is arguing that the State's ambitious plan should be carried out by volunteers.  What Marcia and some other folks are advocating for is an entirely different plan altogether that would not require heavy machinery.
 Again, it benefits the ecosystem when stakeholders thoroughly and objectively scrutinize all of the various ideas being proposed for the restoration.  But please don't waste people's time with absurd scenarios like taking 140 years for volunteers to move millions of cubic feet of dirt when no one has proposed doing that.

- Regarding a 46,000 "interpretive center", this is the size of a museum, not an interpretive center (no surprise that the Foundation sought guidance from museums during the design process).  We have many great actual interpretive centers in Southern California and most are a few thousand square feet (see Sooky Goldman Nature Center, Grassy Hollow, etc.).  Even something that size would be excessive for the already diminished and fragmented Ballona ecosystem, and whatever is needed could be sited outside of the protected reserve.  If Annenberg purchased or leased nearby commercial land for this purpose, she would be free to tie it in to an animal adoption center and have a real legacy to be proud of.  Unfortunately, the approach she is taking currently is tainting her legacy and she will come to realize that her advisers did her a disservice with their "Empress' New Clothes" acquiescence to her poorly thought out idea.

- Regarding the CEQA process, it would be nice if the author acknowledged that it is now running full year behind schedule.  The last and only state sponsored public meeting for the CEQA process was over 13 months ago and kept secret the pending Annenberg proposal (Jackie Jaakola, whose title was "General Manager, Wallis Annenberg Companion Animal Center" was at the meeting unbeknownst to those of us attending in good faith).  The CEQA process is important, but it is only useful if the public is actively engaged throughout.  Anyone portraying CEQA as a magic process that prevents any environmentally undesirable land use either doesn't understand it or is purposely giving the public a false sense of security to lessen public engagement.  

Dr. Kay and Friends of Ballona Wetlands should join us in working to keep the public engaged throughout the entire process.  Let's push the state agencies to hold meetings in which they provide updates to the CEQA process, explain delays, share new information, and answer questions.

And, please, let's once and for dispense with all of this silly PR spin, which isn't fooling anyone anyway, and have an honest discussion about what is best for this important public natural resource.

Walter Lamb
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust
www.ballona.org