Gail Goldberg New Head of the Los Angeles Planning Department
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - San Diego's top city planner is coming to Los Angeles, it was reported today.Gail Goldberg, 62, will become head of the Los Angeles Planning Department, replacing longtime planning chief Con Howe who retired in September, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced yesterday.
Goldberg is credited with spearheading San Diego's "city of villages'' planning concept, which champions the coordinated development of communities and public services, such as libraries and public transportation.
Villaraigosa, meanwhile, has said he is interested in denser, pedestrian-friendly Los Angeles that also relies more on mass transit, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Goldberg's appointment requires City Council approval. Goldberg was a stay-at-home mother until her husband died unexpectedly in 1982, and she returned to college.
In 1988, at age 45, she was hired as a junior planner in San Diego. She worked her way up the ranks and was made chief of the department in 2001.
Posted by Anonymous @ 1/08/2006 09:13:00 AM
17 Comments:
Are the Animal Activists going to demand her firing a week after Council approves her? They have the last word don't they?
So Mr. Born to Raise Hell wants residents to chuck their three-bedroom homes and (already small) backyards for sardine can condos. Forget about it. Despite how much the media tries to promote him, he'll never have national appeal especially if he pushes schemes like this. His embrace of density WILL prompt a backlash and no amount of developer dollars and cheap spin will change this.
9:43 - you're a half-wit if you think that LA is going to be able to support the massive influx of people year-after-year from around the country with single family dwellings.
We don't have enough housing as it is because of small-minded thinking that you support. If housing prices continue to rise at current rates (even half of current rates), we won't have housing for teachers, nurses or other needed professionals.
The Mayor of LA, whether AV or the ones to follow MUST respond to the density issue. Ducking their heads will only make it worse in the long run.
11:13
Housing prices will cool, and then just what will be the educational and income levels of this "massive influx"? From this country, and of course other countries. In case you haven't noticed, LA is already dense, but not as dense as you.
11:13
11:39 is correct there is no Constitutional right to live in Los Angeles. Villababoso only interest in housing is to make his developer friends money. Pay back for Huizaraigosa as it turns out is going to be very expensive. Luckily we have a group of City Council caucus that is not interested in rubber stamping the 18th Street Cholo agenda,
11:39 is right on how many people does it take to reach saturation. Is seven million, 14 million or 21 million enough density. We can't keep up with our infrastructure now street paving, sidewalk repair, tree trimming, trash removal, or more police officers. But stupid Villarascame los huevos, and "Mini Me" Huizar vision is to bring in more density. There is nothing wrong with single family detached homes on in fill lots. Affordable housing, section 8, and disingenious concern for the homeless, are attemptes to excuse and distract us from these huge projects that want to turn L.A. into New York or Chicago. I keep looking for Gene Hackman in a Santa Claus suit chasing a criminal down the street past all these abandoned crime ridden, graffiti sprayed, and urine wreaking buildings. I only wish that the next scene was Gene kicking the 18th street Cholo and Huizar the vendido.
It's good that it took so long after Con Howe left to find a new planner. During the initial search for the new planning director, including Ed Reyes' special PLUM meetings, people were talking about the planning director as if some white knight were going to ride in and save LA from all the evil developers, simultaneously reducing traffic, protecting the environment, ensuring historic preservation, promoting development/transit integration, etc...
Now that it's taken so long and people have kind of lost track, Antonio was safe to pick someone unspectacular. And right after the holidays, too. Lovely!
11:13 a.m. seems like the only person with his head screwed on straight. "There is no Constitutional right to live in Los Angeles" is a total b.s. argument.
The citizens of L.A. have time and again elected politicians who have placed artificial barriers in the housing market. An example is the "North-East Los Angeles Community Plan" of 1992, which limits height and density along Colorado Blvd. to 35 ft. and 1.5:1 or 3:1 FAR. These are height limits in a C4 zone - a zone that would allow mid-rise towers that match the amount of infrastructure invested in that boulevard and the nearby freeway connections to it.
Artificially high housing prices raise the cost of everything in this region, at the same time our poor federal immigration policies allow for wages to be dragged down on the black market. For short term political gains your "no one has a right to live in Los Angeles" has been a windfall for generations of local politicians - but for the health of this region it has been a disastr, and a failure of our government to respond to legitimate long term needs of this region.
"there is no Constitutional right to live in Los Angeles"
For the record, Jack Ass, there is a constitutional right to live wherever you like, including Los Angeles - that would be the 13th & 14th Amendments.
Read before you go quoting shit you don't know.
your friend,
11:13
11:13 and ubray,
No matter how severe the housing crisis becomes, you absolutely, positively cannot force the entire city of Los Angeles to live in a huge cement city.
There is a happy medium.
The people will come, the people will come, blah, blah, blah, I am so sick of that mantra. IF they can't find jobs and or housing, they'll move on to Nevada and Arizona. Let them.
The REAL problem here is infrastructure. We need infrastructure before we can even consider the massive overdevelopment that we already have going on.
If you think taking every little patch of green space and erecting enormous skyscrapers on it is a good way to raise children, you're on drugs.
Going into the mountains and carving them out is just stupid planning. Hillsides are not all built for development.
Our area planning commissioners are all developers and could not care any less about whether it's a natural disaster to build there or if maybe... just maybe they should consider the long term ramifications.
Suburbs are for families who don't want their children on the narrow strip of green outside their apartment buildings, getting bored and deciding to tag. What quality of life is this?
A real problem in the San Fernando Valley is along Van Nuys, Ventura, Reseda, Roscoe, Victory and Sherman Way, mostly everything is one story and no public transit. They should gut all those pawn shops and unused store fronts and build mixed use apartments above them.
The REAL problem that needs to be addressed is the need for real live affordable housing. No developer wants that as it will cut into their profits.
We need apartments that actually cost $800 for a nice 2 bedroom, 2 bath that aren't in gang infested neighborhoods. A whole building full of them.
Why can't developers build brand new houses along those "imaginary dreamlike" transit corridors and hubs that cost $200,000 to buy and still have yards? They are the ones who have pushed the prices of houses up. Not the NIMBY's.
How can a city who offers NO jobs have the balls to over charge for homes and then have the nerve to bitch about traffic immobility? It's nutty here. Who pushes the cost of building houses up? The outsourced lumber that we have to get from Japan? The workers? What?
I hope that Antonio doesn't really meant that the days of the 3 bedroom homes are over. He can't really think that. No good city could function like that.
The lofts downtown are awesome. That is where young people in their 20's or 30's should live until they have children and move to a better place to raise them. Then they can go back down there in their 70's and give the 30 year olds with families a chance to live in their children friendly homes in the suburbs.
Nothing can be done if we don't have excellent subways, monorails, buses, mag levs, etc.
Am I really that far off base here? I need to know.
Can Antonio define what he really means by that statement that is polarizing homeowners vs apartment dwellers and families who want a yard??
Goldberg said something really dumb in the paper "I know little about the lay of the land in Los Angeles but a great deal about working with communities."
So out of 3.8 million people Antonio couldn't find ONE that knew LA? LA needs to crack down on illegal immigration. Sadly, I don't see it with AV as mayor. They are flooding schools, hospitals, neighborhoods and using up all the resources meant for citizens born here. Downtown looks like a 3rd world country with all of them.
The will of the people is for housing to get cheaper and for it to get more spacious. The market forces are pushing housing towards becoming even more expensive and even more cramped. Smart money will bank on market forces trumping the will of the people. Bankers, not mayors, set housing policy; mayors get to tinker with rent ordinances but not with the real property marketplace itself.
4:35 p.m.,
You've got pieces of the puzzle firmly etched into your head, but the way you put them together is wacky.
What is so significant about he "developers hate affordable housing because it cuts into their profits"? What you're refering to is below-market rate housing that costs more to build than you will get back selling or renting it at an "affordable" rate. No one will stay in business by losing money.
Second, affordable housing is stymied by people just like you who "don't want to live in a concrete jungle". People who accuse anyone who wants to build anything of turning Los Angeles in to New York, Chicago, etc. People who don't want "affordable" tenants in their precious neighborhood.
Regarding your reference to "infrastructure" - all I'm reading is "bigger roads and highways for cars". Well we have plenty of those alredy. If a "kid friendly" suburb doesn't have a school, a church, a market, a public place to play with other kids, and a doctor's office within easy walking distance - then it ain't "kid friendly". The soccer mom, in her mini-van, typifies what your definition of "kid-friendly" has done to parents (and expecially mothers) in America.
Finally, regarding the "cement city": no one is advocating building shear concrete walls 25 feet high abutting every avenue of the city. Freaked out people, who are afraid of the region they moved to are the reason those places get built anyway (i.e. the Orsini).
Enough of this crazy talk: google the new planning director's name and see what sort of work she did in San Diego, and what she thinks will work in L.A.
put of the 700 miles of border fence quick!
I've seen and have lived among Goldberg's work. She is amazing, and will prove herself. Don't close your eyes Los Angeles!
Gail Goldberg has completely alienated the ENTIRE planning department. She is clueless as to what is going on, she is relying on bad advice either from the mayor or his aids and she is only close to one person in the depart. who is looking for advancement to deputy director. All he does is mirror whatever she says. He is not helping her but she is not smart enough to see this. Everyone knows he is a clueless planner.
She is trying to fight MOUs to change work hours. What she wants is to make it LOOK like she making the staff be REALLY efficient because she changes hours and HOPES we work overtime for free.
Goldberg berates staff for not accommodating the public (they work long hours and they don't screw around). The fact is so many developers file their huge condo towers monstrosities, otherwise known as glorified apartments for outrageous prices (GAFOP)
because, quite frankly, they know the city will approve just about anything before it. Anyone looked at the Planning Departments tract record? What the point of filing an entitlement at all when it all is rubber-stamped anyway? The poor community who files appeals don't understand the planning commission is pro development so they are wasting their time.
Affordable housing? Has anyone READ the state code on that? Affordable housing is not what you think! Can you EXPLAIN to me how evicting tenants in apartment buildings who are on section 8 or under rent control is consistent with this bogus "affordable" housing?
When Con was thrown out on his 'arse it was because he neglected the poorer areas. Now we got a Developer's planner who Con Howe by a factor of 100. She is known in San Diego for marketing the COV plan with flowering prose with no substance and basically shoving it down the the city's throats-- with the help of the San Diego’s self-interested planning commission. They all have big projects in one of the 5 areas in the the idiotic "city of villages" Geez it’s spelled wrong on their freaking link. How sad is that?
Like the "clear sky initiatives" or the "healthy tress initiative" of the Bush ilk, it's anything but what is implies. The Friends of San Diego based on ignoring the EIR which says the hugelyl congested and smog inducing traffic congestion cannot be mitigated! Say what?!I bet the San Diego will lose Big Time for this.
As to her management style, ff you know anything about psychology, she obviously clueless how to effect changes. She just pisses everyone off and then repeats her mistake.
As for the those who think density is the end all and be all for a city that needs to grow, think about this. If you keep putting rats in a small area they start acting dysfunctional--eating their young, going in circles over and over. Erg., I know friends who live in NYC who said they are rapes and violence where bystanders just watch and NOT ONE PERSON does anything. Thsi is common place. Ask yourself why? Because density DEHUMANIZES people.
Downtown news said only the top 2% income levels can afford the housing downtown. We had an opportunity to make the developers at least pay more and put in a trust fund to created REAL affordable housing. Teh developers make more profit than even the oil companies.
So you got Gail Goldberg who is going to do the same in LA just like the mayor ordered (his highly connected developers expect a quid pro quo), ergo, more density, windfall profits for the developers, gentifying all the areas so only the wealthy can afford "affordable housing"
btw, please READ the city of villages, there is nothing NEW there. More density along corridors? That is her legacy? Like DuH! Give me a break that's about as original as mixed-use housing.
When you move into a new environment you can't trust anyone. You're first job is to figure out the culture of the department. Instead Goldberg the clueless dismisses the advice of all but one person in the Department and relies on the mayor to push an agenda that is contrary to what the city really wants (aside from the greedy developers. that is)
She is not relying on real advice by people who have no agendas.
Isn't it management 101 when you come into a department you try to forge a bond between your staff which in turns foster loyalty? Employees are a double edged sword: they can be your strength and weakness.
Goldberg has alienated the staff so much no one feels she cares about them. It the same old BS. People who suck up (and are not very competent) get promoted and those who get high promotional scores are passed over unless they suck up.
If anyone asks the Planning staff they hate the same things the public hates and they have GREAT IDEAS to improve the department and make LA a better place. They listen to the public and hear what is being said.
These ideas are dismissed. The GOAL, after all, is lot 'o development with as much density as can be shoved down the cit so feed the hungry needs of the developers who put the mayor in office.
My bet is she will fail miserably. She is not what the public wanted or expected.
I have to say August 7, it sounds like you are much more bitter about having to change your hours and work 5 days a week, than you are offering an unbiased critic of your new bosses first few months. It comes off like you are hoping she will fail.
I'm no planning guru and I'm new to the area, but it seems like there is a pretty broad consensus that the planning department in LA hasn't served the community well for a long period of time. I understand that there is even a detailed audit that chronicle's the poor service the department has been providing to all of it's stake-holders. Now a new leader is brought in to turn around the department, and shockingly you are reporting that many of you who have been working in the department, don't like being asked to change your old ways. It's even more ironic that your biggest complaint is your being asked to work the same hours as most of the people are you hired to serve.
I guess I'd be a lot more concerned if all the legacy employees in your department were saying how much you loved your new boss.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home