Letters
01/21/2010
Remembering the Raymond
When I woke this morning, I could feel a lingering headache so I knew the balance of the day would be a challenge. After the morning caffeine hit didn’t do the trick, I sheepishly made my way into the office and opened my email to read the article “Former Raymond Theatre debuts as Raymond Renaissance live-work condos.” My headache didn’t feel so bad after a reminder of the years spent battling to save the Raymond Theatre. The long, drawn-out battle reminded me of the importance of the fight for the Raymond Theatre, win, lose or draw.
As humans, we all strive for bigger and better things. Taller buildings, faster cars, bigger houses … often moving forward at such a pace that we hold little regard for anything but the end goal in our quest for the next best thing. For me personally, the quest to preserve the Raymond Theatre as a live performance venue wasn’t just about saving one old building with a colourful past. It was also about bringing awareness of the increasing number of historic places of interest being lost to progress and overdevelopment.
I always try to approach any of life’s situations with logic and common sense and strive to work with others in reaching a shared goal on common ground. This doesn’t always happen and people don’t always play fair — that’s an unfortunate trend of today’s society. Stubbornness is a curse to those who carry it and I feel that if certain people had put aside their egos and thirst for a quick buck and taken some time to listen to other people’s opinion we might have been able to emerge with a better outcome for all parties.
It’s a tough job to balance passion and common sense, but I can sleep easy at night knowing my contribution to Raymond Theatre was worthwhile. I got to work with a team of people at Friends of the Raymond, who worked tirelessly for the cause, and Gina Zamparelli, who I was able to draw inspiration from to become a better person.
Although the battle has been lost, I won’t walk away from this project empty-handed.
~ARRAN PEAGRAM, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
FROM THE WEB:
Re: “Altadena’s rules of order,” Dec. 17
Interesting story, and accurate overall, I think. I must however correct the last quote from myself (Michele Zack). The Town Council Chair told me the watershed was NOT AN ISSUE IN ALTADENA — a much broader statement than “not an issue for the Town Council.” This comment was unenlightened then; in light of damage to the watershed from the Station Fire and the floods and mudslides we face as a direct result, it is clearly preposterous. This illustrates what I meant when I said the Town Council seems more conservative and less progressive than the folks I know who live in Altadena.
~Posted by Michele Zack
Great article. It might be a good time for the ATC to reach out to the community, explain its value to Altadenans, and insist on transparency.
~posted by altadenan
Zack is correct. It is obvious that the Town Council is not interested in watershed issues. The council approved Monte Cedro, the densely populated luxury development which will result in the loss of important open acreage. Open acreage is good for the watershed, because it prevents water runoff and flooding and replenishes the water table.
Although Zack appreciated the importance of open acreage when she advocated for the pocket park at Woodbury Road and Marengo Avenue (a great project), she took a different position as a council member, voting to approve the Monte Cedro project, instead of proposing an alternate use for the land which would have protected and enhanced the watershed.
Although the council has no real power, it has great influence. The Monte Cedro developer did all they could to court the council, whose unanimous approval they took to the county Planning Commission as “evidence” that the community approved of the new development.
— posted by Betty Harris
Re: “Trouble above,” Dec. 17
What, another Pasadena Weekly article based on opinion and speculation only? Let’s get down to the real issues here. Roli and Keith have a problem with authority. Now the two want to ban the same services that protect them from the real issues that they fear, their neighbors. This is a classic example of someone who bought a rundown Craftsman home in the Northwest area of Pasadena in a rapidly inflating real estate market. Now, after a few trips to Restoration Hardware and Home Depot, they can’t understand why the rest of their neighborhood has failed to catch up to their over-financed properties. Unable to sell or rent, and after being shunned by their latte-drinking friends, they need someone to blame. These two can’t cope with the fact that there are people in front of their homes selling corn on the cob out of a Target shopping cart, they fear their “questionable” neighbors, and the cars that go thump-thump are a nuisance. Maybe they should move to Inglewood and start a ban against planes landing at LAX. What is also sad is the lack of factual and truthful reporting done by Justin Chapman. It is obvious that Mr. Chapman did little or no research while writing this piece. “Respond to low-priority crime?” What about the high-priority crimes? I’m sure there are quite a few in the Northwest. Do the police respond to those? Armor plating and gun turrets? Not to mention the poor Photoshop job of the low-flying helicopters. The Pasadena Weekly needs to stick to what it does best, provide a bogus list of top places to eat and drink, (as long as they advertise in the Weekly) and a place for massage parlors and escort services to list their ads.
— posted by Stew
Re: “Different paths,” Jan. 7
Having a walkable city is crucial as the age of the automobile wanes. And although LA as a whole will probably never be a completely walkable city, it is essential that there are interconnected nodes of activity that are pedestrian-oriented. The best cities in the world have great choice and mix of lifestyles; however, LA, by and large, does not. Creating walkable areas will allow for a greater diversity of living options, which will bring us closer to becoming a truly vibrant city.
~ Posted by mike_c
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Michele Zack is critical of the Altadena Town Council chair for not understanding watershed issues. Zack, a self-appointed watershed "expert," doesn't "get" watershed issues, either. Watersheds are not damaged by fire, which is essential for the renewal of chaparral environments, but by human development projects that pave over open space and channel runoff to the oceans.