Voice of Reason is absolutely right. It was just a matter of time! Midtown residents have been reporting costly criminal vandalism (totaling in the thousands) to their personal properties since Midtown became “party central.” They reported countless numbers of newly planted city and private trees which were also broken off or pulled out at a minimum cost of $300 per tree. Staff on both papers voiced no care for the trees, victims or even bothered to report seriously about any of this. Bar/club owners didn’t care about any of the costs and vandalism to neighbors, including the residential rental and sales businesses as long as the bar cash registers rang and bar owners weren’t victims. Further, MBA staff (until Studebaker) voiced the same opinion saying all of such criminal behavior was “minor and just part of urban living”—ignorance at its peak. AND if victims “didn’t like it, they should move.” Flippant commenters on sacpress (one even wrote a article of justification) and SN&R letters to the editor voiced the same nonsense. It made no difference that victims had invested their life’s savings in buying homes and had lived in Midtown for decades. Unfortunately, many responsible renters did move and homeowners, who could sell, did sell and move. Destructive attitudes and thoughtless opinions flapped on and on justifying such criminal behavior and a misperceived right to party unlimited and uncontrolled. Mark, several other cities’ studies that I and others circulated to top city management, council members, Planning staff, Planning Commission members, MBA, bars/clubs, PD, and numerous other parties proved that over concentrating alcohol venues in given areas of a city or county causes costly crime and vandalism. ABC concurred too. RHI confirms such cost findings also in its seminars and advised the city and MBA and othe. I was at those meetings. But the alcohol businesses and city did not want to hear the message, so this is the result. BUT only PD seemed concerned because such crimes taxed their resources too much Sacramento and its party forces remain in control and denial. I see no end to it in this hick town.

Wrong on all counts.

This “housing” project was ill conceived from its original inception years ago—the motive always being a way to make a quick buck. In the days when Midtown was considered a slum, good only for social service facilities, halfway houses, low income residents, etc., a backward thinking city manager and council turned down an offer to sell the land to the city for about a million dollars for park and garden uses. Fellow long time residents like Jan, Julie, Michael, George, etc. may remember when that ground grew orange, grapefruit and other fruit trees along with vegetables on small plots. Two or three stands just north of the RR berm sold their produce each summer weekend and that was our “farmers’ market” then. The Marshall School neighbors’ comments are wise and forward thinking. They have valid concerns. It would be wise for the city and developer to pay heed and focus on achieving long term use and planning benefits. The popular buzzword “infill” can be good and bad. This is an example of very bad. Imagine buying and living there in isolation where growing children breathe in the “sweet” freeway air pollution and families at patio BBQ’s hear the irritating noise of speeding, honking and braking trucks and other vehicles 24-7. The next thing needed would be heat absorbent, poorly performing sound walls like along other freeways. Owners would be smart to take advantage of the current “farm to fork” concept and lease to small farmers to return the area to its original use, which would benefit all of us. Irrigation from the nearby river could be the water supply as is the case of the “river” which runs along the Long Beach Freeway where adjacent property sat vacant for decades. Then property owners and political forces came to an agreement to lease the idle land to a mix of Asians, Latino, Italian/Americans and other gardeners to grow crops. Gardeners than marketed their produce to LB and other nearby cities in their “farmers’ market” -- a win for all.

Mark, as to "I'm not opposed to the bars/nightclubs. I'm opposed to the types of crowds that they now seem to attract." I agree totally but there are too many who choose to distort or ignore that core message which then gets lost in all the hype. For years I enjoyed many clubs and bars here and in other cities where I lived. There were always and will always be those who "can't hold their liquor." That causes serious trouble and costs for the bars and clubs as well as businesses and residents around those establishments. For those reasons responsible bar and club owners 86'd them PERMANENTLY. Good management and customer control is what Responsibility Hospitality Institute promotes to make an alcohol entertainment district work for all. But this city and too many club and bar owners don't want to hear that message.

The city and MBA opposed street lighting some years ago when it was far cheaper to pay for, so both have some apologies and action to make amends with residents. The injustice is that Midtown businesses now benefit from lighting largely paid for by CDBG funds from low income Ben Ali neighborhood. BUT led by First Methodist Church and the then MBA board, the past resident SMUD director and some residents who are now quoted as being in favor of lighting, all opposed Boulevard Park residents’ efforts to get street lighting. In addition, some city council members (Kerth, Ortiz, late Mayor Serna and two others) actually voted Boulevard Park’s proposal down. “According to SMUD Spokeswoman Dace Udris, all one needs is an existing SMUD pole in his or her alley or backyard, and an account with the utility district.” This is an oversimplification. For decades SMUD has been a pusher for ITS cobra pole lighting but refused to cooperate to get street lighting in central city neighborhoods. SMUD cobras may do a reasonable job of protecting individual specific spaces or properties but do little to promote safety in an entire neighborhood. As one resident who lives in an area that has cobra poles (the city took out the old historic lights years ago), said when 68% of Boulevard Park property owners tried to assess themselves to install street lights, tall cobras do a “good job of lighting up your shoe tops and keeping the squirrels awake in the tree tops at night but do poorly to light up distant faces of approaching criminals.” Street lighting is very important to discourage criminal behavior but is not a solution in itself. For example, it has done nothing to stop the costly destruction committed by angry drunken vandals returning to their cars parked for free in residential neighborhoods near or adjacent to the “Johnnie come lately” bars and clubs.