1.

Why would you want to prohibit the mall from charging for parking? We're not talking about a Beverly Center or Westside Pavilion that's surrounded by residential streets. The mall would have the racetrack on one side, Westfield Santa Anita on another, and not-terribly-pedestrian-friendly Huntington Drive on the other two. In all likelihood, pay parking would simply make people less likely to go to "The Shops" rather than going but parking on nearby streets.

2.

Even though I think Caruso is a pompous ass, it is irritating that these "traditional" malls continue to throw roadblocks in his face. There is a way to compete in the marketplace and this isn't one of them.

3.

According to this post, "Measure N would prevent the developer from installing...signs identifying retailers not visible from the street."

Would the developer be prevented from installing signs that are *NOT* visible from the street? Or did you mean "prevented from installing signs identifying retailers [whose *stores* are] not visible from the street?

This is awkwardly worded and unclear.

4.

Pete, the truth is that the next-door Westfield is afraid of people parking on its free gigantic parking lot and walking next door.

Mark, the quote from the article is: "Measure N would prevent the developer from installing a variety of signs common to mall developments, such as a marquee for the movie theater or signs identifying retailers not visible from the street."

Still awkwardly worded, but it looks like the most extreme interpretation of the measure (to suit Westfield's purpose) is so people can't actually see signs that point that the development is actually there. Like those generic signs that list big-name retailers (The Grove! Best Buy! AMC!) on the side of the road.

5.

If Westfield wants to keep people from parking for free in its lot and walking over to The Shops, they should do what USC does with University Village and charge a huge fine for going off the property with a car still parked in the lot. It's not hard to do, evidently: the UV lot is half-empty even at noon on a Tuesday, which is probably the time of peak parking demand in the area other than football games.

6.

IM ALL FOR THE GREAT IMPROVEMENT AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME FRESH CHANGE IN A DEAD AREA OF LAND, MOST OF THESE PEOPLE THAT COMPLAIN ARE RESIDENTS THAT DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN ON EVERY LITTLE THING. YES YOU WANT TO FORBID DEVELOPMENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME WHAT DO YOU GAIN. IM ALL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXCITED TO SEE SOME NEW STORES AND WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE MILES AWAY ITS EXTRA $$ TO OUR CITY. I SEE THAT ITS USUALLY THE ONES THAT COMPLAIN THE MOST ARE THE ONES WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON THIER HANDS. AND DONT SEE WHAT THE BENEFITS AND ONLY SEE THE BAD. AWW TOO MUCH TRAFFIC...BLAH..BLAH TRAFFIC WILL ALWAYS BE THIER EVEN IF THE DEVELOPMENT ISNT, CARS WILL CONTINUE BEING MADE PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO DRIVE AND THIER WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE. AND ALL I KNOW IS I DEFINETLY WOULD WELCOME THIS CHANGE! TOGETHER WITH THE REST ON MY BLOCK WHO ALSO AGREES WITH ME!!