• Bob Stevens

    So the residents and activist groups of Santa Ana don’t want non residents coming in to their city and changing things to the detriment of their city… Maybe they should build a wall around their city…. The irony here is just delicious.

    • subnuckle

      I’m just seeing this now, 12 days later. sorry for the late response. You probably won’t ever see it.
      But anyway, the point was not that the builders are non-residents, I have no issue with that in itself. I think it would be totally unrealistic to expect only SA residents to build in SA. The problem is what they want to do- the “detriment” you acknowledge. It’s just kind of like salt in the wounds that they won’t be around to interact in the area they affect. Hypothetically, if the firm consisted of all SA residents and want to build the same thing, I would feel the same way about their plan. I think it’s a bad idea. I hope that is more clear. Sorry the irony that you thought was delicious does not apply. Have some ice cream.

  • subnuckle

    In a neighborhood meeting last night, we saw a presentation by a firm that plans to put in a “mixed use” area in the empty lot by the zoo, formerly occupied by the Saddleback Inn (including where the Elk’s building is, and they are going to move to another location). Apparently “mixed use” means a tiny green area they call a park, a couple shops and 600 rental units with a high likelihood that they will buy their way out of the 15% affordable housing requirement, which they hinted at. they don’t live here, they are from San Diego. that’s who.

  • David Zenger

    Well done.

    The “experts” are always clinging to the latest planning fad and of course the top down solutions always include stuff like arts tourism and other chi chi concepts that are patronizing, boneheaded, or just goofy; and that will never even pay for the public money sunk into the latest effort.

    Redevelopment may be mostly dead, but the mindset is alive and well.

  • LFOldTimer

    “Downtown Inc. has outlined a strategy in which new businesses and developers, tourists, and high-income transplants can thrive in Santa Ana.”

    Do you mind if I ask a really stupid question?

    What businesses or high income transplants would want to move to Santa Ana after the City Council declared it to be a sanctuary city and a protective harbor for illegal foreigners in a city that already has a God-awful crime rate (both violent and property crimes)? Would you move there?

    Is that an appropriate social policy in a city with high-density and high-poverty levels that are already prevalent?

    Who would want to start a business, buy property or live in a city that endorses crime?

    Fair question.

    • David Resendez

      Ignore this one trick pony’s his get off my lawn approach to all issues. He’s smarter than everyone.

      Downtown Inc. could care less about what happens to 98% of Santa Ana residents. They want Latinos out of downtown. They want an island unto themselves.

      • 0_0

        Can you blame them?

      • LFOldTimer

        Look, when designing a city you can’t mix two polar opposite concepts and expect them to successfully coexist.

        Choose one or the other.

        You either need to clean the entire city up – that means establishing a semblance of order sort of like Rudy Giuliani did with NYC – then proceed to create a high-end downtown sector with Class A entertainment, 4 star hotels and restaurants, respectable public transportation, gentrified living arrangements to promote an atmosphere that would attract professional upper-middle class residents who want to be in the middle of the action (like living in little Manhattan). This would be a place where tourist would want to visit.

        Or you need to market the city toward the lower middle-class with Latino honky tonks, drinking establishments, tattoo parlors, street vendors, comedy clubs, smoke shops, weed dispensaries, etc.. – and design the city to be the TJ north of the border. I’m sure it would attract tourists – just a different class of tourists than you would find with Option #1.

        It should be up to the residents who live there. Who do you want to attract into your city? The people should decide.

        I’m just saying that the SA city council is sending out conflicting messages. You can’t effectively endorse harboring a criminal population which would increase crime and population density while promoting Option #1. They’re incompatible.

        Just being honest.

        • David Resendez

          Yes those could be the only two options because you say so. You sound like an ignorant old man: now get off my lawn.

          • LFOldTimer

            You should run for Council. You’d fit right in.

          • David Resendez

            I have a job & self-esteem and so I have no interest in running. But, by all means, you should continue with your self-righteous and ill-conceived posts because your brilliance must be shared often.