Size Matters
Today City Councilman Tom LaBonge will introduce a measure to limit the size of homes people can build based on the size of their lots.Do you consider this a legitimate use of police power to preserve the scarce green space in our city, or is this a commie plot to deprive property owners of their rights?
Posted by Walter Moore @ 6/06/2006 06:34:00 AM
16 Comments:
This is a zoning and land use issue. When will this go into effect? What about variances?
This needs to be done because people with money are going crazy building way over on property that was meant for one house. I think Tom is doing this because of the expansions in Hancock Park. The foreigners who bought homes are making them into god awful huge monstrasities.
i'd rather have mansions than duplexes and the like (R-2, R-3, R-4). That will ruin a neighborhood. Then folks will put their illegal family members in the homes that they build and that will put more cars on the streets and increase transportation related impacts to the city.
I've seen it happen in my neighborhod where i grew up. It's sad. They've had to widen the street to accomodate the growth and expansion of illegal immigrants in the neighborhood.
Unless you are checking for green cards, you shouldn't assume these immigrants are in this country illegaly.
It is about time that LaBonge got on the bandwagon. Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council folks wrote the anti-mansionization measure that Wendy Greuel pushed through. Until we get planning folks who do not make "variances" a way of life, then the new code will work. Let's hear it for neighborhood councils, folks!
Subject: LA Daily News:
'Mansionization' laws proposed
Dear Ms Bartholomew,
Please print some kind of correction to the error in the article below. It contains a serious inaccuracy regarding the restrictions to floor area in the Sunland-Tujunga ordinance. On the advice of Wendy Greuel's Planning Deputy, Dale Thrush, I carefully worded the draft to allow THE LARGER OF 2400 square feet, including garage OR 40% of the area of the lot on any lot UP TO 8000 square feet.
What this means, if you are "math-challenged" is that if you have a 5500 square foot lot, you can still build 2400 square feet on it, conforming with the existing setback requirements, of course. This means a 3200 square foot house (including garage) can be built on an 8000 square foot lot.
From my observation, it appears that the real estate industry is actively forwarding the inaccurate statement that no house larger than 2400 square feet is allowed here, probably to create opposition to a reasonable ordinance which still allows for very large houses to be built. Note that there is NO restriction applied on lots larger than 8000 square feet.
Roberta Actor-Thomas
Former member of Design Advisory Committee,
Sunland Tujunga Neighborhood Council
The new zoning would bother my best friend BFF Randy Waller.
No power,
No juice,
No respect
No money
No effect: Neighborhood Councils
(well meaning participants though)
They don't call it the PLUM (Planning and Land Use Committee of the City Council for nothing)
Tom LaBonge has his hand out.
Property rights were of paramount importance to the Founding Fathers and continue to be a pressing concern for urban planners and politicians.
In an urban context, unrestricted property rights create numerous negative externalities for adjacent property owners and the larger community. It is not communistic to stop a property owner in a single-family neighborhood from building a "McMansion," just as it is not communistic to stop a vehicle owner on the highway from driving at unsafe speeds.
The "McMansion" issue is important because property owners should rightly expect that their single-family neighborhood is maintained with the qualities that attracted them in the first place. Zoning has given these property owners piece of mind for decades, as they are assured that a factory or an apartment building won't pop up next door. I don't think it's unreasonable to assure these folks that an out-of-scale "McMansion" won't pop up either. They block views and transform the neighborhood environment.
However, it's important to keep in mind that over-regulation of land use in existing neighborhoods could serve to scare away reinvestment, prevent appropriate redevelopment, and cause areas to decline. There must be a balance between land use regulation, property rights, and the desires of neighborhood residents.
Most people don't realize how political urban planning and land use regulation are. It's one of the few arenas that Neighborhood Councils can make their voices heard. People throughout the city should get involved with planning and zoning matters in their neighborhoods: no one knows your community better than you do!
People with money or without money. It is simply invasion of privacy..nothing to do with communism. Just because we so called "own" property doesn't or shouldn't mean we could encroach on our neighbors, our beaches, and our mountains. Look what happened in Arcadia California and Pasadena. I used to love these places and now on every corner there has to be a condo complex built or your people trying to build horrible looking stucco home on top of the property line. If you don't have the space you don't have it and people to should stop trying to force 5,000 square feet homes on a 5,000 square feet lots. Only Ophra has a mansion..so just give it up.
I agree with M. Glaser 100%...you should run for office dude! Is that you you've got the picture?
All kidding aside...kudos1
you people are missing the point of City Council members & zoning. Zoning issues mean campaign $$. The Council doesn't care what you think. Zoning shouldn't be politicized, but it is. Your councilmember is the gatekeeper, pay the man please.
Neighborhool Council members, you are a City entity and to participate in zoning issues that effect you financially would seem to be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Tom is a politican, not a planner. I live in Hancock Park, leave me alone. The Council spends the largest chunk of time handing out certificates. Bring back Bernardi. LaBonge: you're no Bernardi.
I think the title of this blog speaks volumes regarding LaBonge. Size does matter, too bad you come up short Tom. He is one who pontificates about absolutely nothing of importance wasting precious time each and every time he stands up in council to speak.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home