Salty language

  by Bob Pinzler

On occasion, people in public office find themselves at a loss for civil words and fall into the natural Plan B, language saltier than usually found in prime time.

The latest example is a confrontation between Redondo Beach Councilmen Steve Aspel and Bill Brand. Aspel, suffering from colon cancer, was angered by a seeming falsehood perpetrated by Brand regarding one of the more contentious issues in the city these days, a proposed land use change in the Harbor area.

It seems that while the proposed change potentially allows for a certain type of development, specifically a three story residential structure, the Council has made it clear that they will not approve such a project. Aspel, angered by the continued use of that “unacceptable possibility” by the rezoning opponents, said that they are “more toxic than the cancer in my rectum.”

This has caused a certain level of outrage by the opponents, who claim righteous indignation over being associated as such. I guess being a “pain in the butt” would have been all right?

No matter the hurt feelings, zoning is one of the few things left that city councils have influence over regarding the running of a city. While as stultifying as anything a government can produce, how land is used is one of the primary elements in determining what are called “quality of life” issues. It affects density, traffic, school funding, public safety, water, sewage, garbage collection…basically everything a city does.

The two sides on this issue cannot be more diametrically opposed to each other. One wants the benefits of growth, while the other sees the benefits in none. There is no middle ground.

Redondo Beach is the poster child for bad land use decisions. Going back to the “Don’t condo like Redondo” days of the cityhood campaign to establish Rancho Palos Verdes, the mistakes of Redondo reverberate like earthquake aftershocks.

The problem is that any moves to try to fix what was done wrong are met with knee jerk opposition. The Heart of the City project, which was botched from the start by a city council that danced with the deftness of a Captain Ahab, was an attempt.

Now, smaller, more focused projects are attacked in the same way. Once again, the Council responds with vitriol rather than smarts.

Let’s face facts. The Harbor area, from the power plant to the urban renewal project which destroyed the old downtown, is an example of how to misuse an extraordinary resource. It has to change. And change will not come without conflict.

The only other result is for the entire area to go even more to seed than it already has. Yes, there will be hard feelings. But, everyone must act like big boys and girls to get over it to get something worthwhile done. And, it must start with agreeing to do something that is, in fact, “doable” financially, esthetically and socially.

But please don’t complain about the tenor of the argument. The chance of hearing some colorful language is what makes council meetings bearable. ER