Back in Avenida Park: Listening and Following Up

On September 5, I returned to the Avenida Park community to follow up with residents who had previously raised concerns about crosswalks, street safety, and neighborhood traffic.

But I did not want the conversation to stop there.

So I knocked on doors.

Before long, six of us were standing together in the street discussing what else mattered to residents in the neighborhood.

One of the first concerns raised was short-term rentals and absentee ownership. I explained that short-term rentals such as Airbnb are not outright banned in Ontario, but they are regulated. Property owners must obtain a permit, and the property must be their primary residence rather than a second home or investment property used solely as a vacation rental.

The conversation then turned to traffic.

Residents discussed the possibility of speed bumps on residential streets, and we talked through the pros and cons. Traffic-calming measures can help slow vehicles, but cities also have to consider impacts on emergency response, drainage, maintenance, noise, and vehicles with low ground clearance.

One resident raised a broader concern: when a driver speeds, ignores traffic laws, seriously injures someone, or causes a fatal collision, the City can still face lawsuits alleging that roadway conditions contributed to the incident.

From the resident’s perspective, that means taxpayer dollars can be spent defending claims connected to the conduct of drivers the City does not control.

That led to an important discussion about responsibility.

Drivers are responsible for how they operate their vehicles. A city cannot force someone to obey the law. What a city can do is design streets responsibly, address known hazards, enforce traffic laws, and evaluate reasonable safety improvements.

That distinction matters.

Residents also raised concerns about open land and what happens as agricultural uses disappear. Some said they would rather see vacant land thoughtfully developed than allowed to sit neglected.

One property discussed was Proposition 70 land within the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan area.

Interestingly, another resident immediately asked why greater progress had not been made on Grand Park.

That gave us an opportunity to connect the two issues.

I explained how land acquisition remains part of the Grand Park process and how certain property transactions are related to the City’s long-term efforts to assemble the land needed for the project.

We also spent time discussing air quality.

Residents wanted to understand how regional air-quality measurements are collected, where AQMD monitoring occurs, and why the Inland Empire is often described as having poor air quality even when local visibility appears clear.

Several residents said they were confused by repeated claims that Ontario has some of the worst air quality in the nation because that did not match what they were seeing outside their own homes.

That opened the door to a broader conversation about regional pollution patterns, historical conditions, monitoring methodology, and the difference between what we see on a particular day and what long-term air-quality data may show.

There was some humor, too.

A few residents joked that they would not exactly miss the smell of cattle and manure if nearby farming operations eventually disappeared.

By the end of the conversation, what residents said they appreciated most was not that I told them what they wanted to hear.

It was that I gave them realistic answers.

I did not promise that every idea would happen. I did not pretend every issue had a simple solution. I explained what I knew based on civics, land use, public safety, and regional planning.

That is the kind of leadership I believe residents deserve.

Not campaign promises designed to win applause.

Clear information. Honest expectations. Follow-up. And the willingness to keep showing up.

That is what service before politics looks like.