A Guy in LA
Well, it's the Westside. Hideous traffic. No subway. Million-dollar two-bedrooms. And show us the money.
All by itself, the mere fact that homeowner's associations, of all groups---the people who work so hard to protect the value of their property---are the lead charge behind the Weiss recall movement hovering over CD 5 defies belief. HOAs are not exactly political machines; generally, they concern themselves with preserving property and keeping the members paying their dues. But the fact that the particular homeowner's association in question isn't even on record as opposing the development over which the whole kerfluffle stems moves everything into what thespians might call the Theater of the Absurd.
Add the surly side of Team Weiss---Team Weiss, never known for its touchy-feeliness until recently---to the mix, calling the HOA groups "extortionists" and "people batting their gums together" even as the HOAs demand $5 Million, or We Will Recall---which looks a lot like extortion to me, too---and you only end up rooting for the kind of absurdist drama where everyone ends up in hell in the end.
~~~
The funniest thing about the forty-something storey Century towers project is that it waltzed through EIR without flinches from the City about its claims to impact the environment minimally. How do you like that? Forty-seven storeys' worth of fresh million-five homeowners---do you really think they're all going to take the bus to Gelson's?
But what really outrages about this project---and what print too often ducks, because it too is so behelden to development ads these days---is the fact that while every civic official in LA pleads that "growth is inevitable" and "we need more housing of every kind," this is, in fact, precisely the kind of development that attracts out-of-towners to the City---out-of-towners who may not even come without the development being built.
Who moves into these places? People from Irvine and Seoul and everywhere else there's a strong currency. Who benefits around here? Certainly not people of the City of LA trying to move into new homes. This is not a missing rung filler.
~~~
So deeply behelden to development growth is print, in fact, that recently Steve Hymon at the Times actually went out of his way to get Weiss a Rabbi's, er, blessing on the Westside congestion/growth issue:
(Yeah, I'd say a million five. Here are some tower-condo Century City comps for ya: a one-bedroom for $750,000, a two-bedroom with views for $1,450,000, and a three-bedroom for $1,890,000. Not exactly Zuma Dogg range. Not even Jack Weiss on $171,000-a-year range.)
In short, even though the City is already hopelessly congested, this is the kind of development for people who aren't even here right now, and who wouldn't dream of coming here without Weiss & Council & Latham & Watkins laying out the welcome mat for them.
~~~
Sure, the HOAs have a lot of nerve for holding a recall over Weiss's head over a building it's too politically impotent to oppose outright. They can try garnering their 22,500 signatures at Gelson's, and explain how "we're not really against the development, but...you know...five million could fix a lot of swinging gates..."
But on the other side: are there any bigger extortionists in LA than those holed up in the fraudulent-EIR churning hellholes downtown, prepping their fake docs for City Council signoff with powerful and sinister combinations of money greasing and pr flacking? Not every extortionist is a Westside homeowner after all.
Why stop at Weiss? We see the City we live in; we drive it daily; we see all the forty-unit condos going up for people who don't live here, and all the big projects for people from far elsewhere, who aren't even here yet. Every Councilperson should face a recall of their own.
All by itself, the mere fact that homeowner's associations, of all groups---the people who work so hard to protect the value of their property---are the lead charge behind the Weiss recall movement hovering over CD 5 defies belief. HOAs are not exactly political machines; generally, they concern themselves with preserving property and keeping the members paying their dues. But the fact that the particular homeowner's association in question isn't even on record as opposing the development over which the whole kerfluffle stems moves everything into what thespians might call the Theater of the Absurd.
Add the surly side of Team Weiss---Team Weiss, never known for its touchy-feeliness until recently---to the mix, calling the HOA groups "extortionists" and "people batting their gums together" even as the HOAs demand $5 Million, or We Will Recall---which looks a lot like extortion to me, too---and you only end up rooting for the kind of absurdist drama where everyone ends up in hell in the end.~~~
The funniest thing about the forty-something storey Century towers project is that it waltzed through EIR without flinches from the City about its claims to impact the environment minimally. How do you like that? Forty-seven storeys' worth of fresh million-five homeowners---do you really think they're all going to take the bus to Gelson's?
But what really outrages about this project---and what print too often ducks, because it too is so behelden to development ads these days---is the fact that while every civic official in LA pleads that "growth is inevitable" and "we need more housing of every kind," this is, in fact, precisely the kind of development that attracts out-of-towners to the City---out-of-towners who may not even come without the development being built.
Who moves into these places? People from Irvine and Seoul and everywhere else there's a strong currency. Who benefits around here? Certainly not people of the City of LA trying to move into new homes. This is not a missing rung filler.
~~~
So deeply behelden to development growth is print, in fact, that recently Steve Hymon at the Times actually went out of his way to get Weiss a Rabbi's, er, blessing on the Westside congestion/growth issue:
"We feel this effort is being done for the wrong reasons," said Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, who described himself as a friend of Weiss. "We're not in Kansas. This is a large city with natural growth, and you can't blame Jack for the development of a large city. There is going to be traffic, and that is the price of living in Los Angeles."With all due respect, is the Rabbi's formulation for aiding LA's "natural growth" putting up million-five condos that nobody in LA who isn't already in a million-two home can even afford, and nobody who already has a million-two-plus home would want to buy?
(Yeah, I'd say a million five. Here are some tower-condo Century City comps for ya: a one-bedroom for $750,000, a two-bedroom with views for $1,450,000, and a three-bedroom for $1,890,000. Not exactly Zuma Dogg range. Not even Jack Weiss on $171,000-a-year range.)
In short, even though the City is already hopelessly congested, this is the kind of development for people who aren't even here right now, and who wouldn't dream of coming here without Weiss & Council & Latham & Watkins laying out the welcome mat for them.
~~~
Sure, the HOAs have a lot of nerve for holding a recall over Weiss's head over a building it's too politically impotent to oppose outright. They can try garnering their 22,500 signatures at Gelson's, and explain how "we're not really against the development, but...you know...five million could fix a lot of swinging gates..."
But on the other side: are there any bigger extortionists in LA than those holed up in the fraudulent-EIR churning hellholes downtown, prepping their fake docs for City Council signoff with powerful and sinister combinations of money greasing and pr flacking? Not every extortionist is a Westside homeowner after all.
Why stop at Weiss? We see the City we live in; we drive it daily; we see all the forty-unit condos going up for people who don't live here, and all the big projects for people from far elsewhere, who aren't even here yet. Every Councilperson should face a recall of their own.
Labels: a guy in la, affordable housing, jack weiss
Posted by Joseph F. Mailander @ 6/05/2007 03:05:00 PM
24 Comments:
Not sure I buy the argument that the new Century City towers will only attract people from out of town. Is the high-end job generation rate really that strong? Besides, even if someone who lives in Irvine buys at Century City because they work there, won't that help traffic congestion?
I know you decry the "missing rungs", but you have to give credence to the filtering concept. Someone in Beverly Hills sells a $1.2M house to move into a $1.5M Century City condo. The Beverly Hills house is sold to someone who has a $900K house in Sherman Oaks. The Sherman Oaks house is sold to someone who has a $600K house in Valley Village. The Valley Village house is sold to someone who has a $400K condo in Studio City. The Studio City condo is sold to a first-time buyer. That's how it's supposed to work.
I know you think the market can solve the problem, but as you were informed on LA City TV, the land costs are too high for the "missing rungs." To use the example from the show, you can get a pre-fab house from Kaboom built for $100K but when it's placed on a lot worth $350K, it's not affordable. In lieu of the filtering mentioned above, affordable housing will require massive subsidies unless the price of land drops.
Not defending Jack, just food for thought.
There's already a Gelson's in Century City.
Don't you get it?
We have to attract wealthy out-of-towners to foot the bill for the permanent peasant class our President, Mayor and City Council are determined to establish here.
Yep, that's why if you build a Gelson's, they will come... especially when Council and Planning fumble the required EIRs for a high-priced, high-density condo!
Then wouldn't it be an attorney's (not necessarily Walter) dream come true when an earthquake hits, and the condo was built so close to a hitherto unknown earthquake fault that suddenly becomes active a few years after the residents move in?
I wonder how close to an earthquake fault this planned condo is going to be located? Don't forget that there are plans in the works to build a huge building downtown... and a fault runs right through downtown! I've heard of some estimates that if a big one hits downtown, there will be about six feet of glass in the city streets! I just hope the big one doesn't occur during the workweek... there will be more than a few people that will be late for dinner at home!
For the record: The project in question is 106 combined stories. There are two 47 story towers and a 12 story loft for a total of 106 combined stories. The proposed project is 1,300,000 square feet and will have 1200 parking spaces. Units have been estimated to START at $3M.
This 483 unit, 1,300,000 square feet will replace a combined 35,000 feet of a small bank and seldom-used nightclub - with around 60 total parking spaces.
1200 spaces v. 60 spaces.
1,300,000 sqft v. 35,000.
The claim: The new project creates LESS traffic.
Just for the record: The same "less-traffic" claim was made with regard to the new CAA building when Jack approved that one. 800,000 square feet of brand-new class-A office building v. a Shubert that had been dark for 5 years, a bankrupt movie theater and fast-food that served ONLY twin tower tenants.
Same developer attorneys. Same Councilman. Same result.
This is happening all over CD5 and all over the City.
This practice of knowingly looking the other way is not new. Only the traffic generated by the projects is new.
Gelson's has been at Century City Mall for several decades.
You said "even as the HOAs demand $5 Million, or We Will Recall---which looks a lot like extortion to me, too..."
This didn't happen. Mine isn't the "group in question." It was another of the HOAs fighting the project.
What happened was Weiss refused to listen to the HOA concerns over the project, and the HOAs decided they might as well try to get some good out of the mess.
Jack scuttled the HOA plan and cut an inferior deal that gives him 100% control over the money. He even arranged for his developer friends to pony up HALF as much up front as the HOAs had secured for community benefits.
Someone who was at the meeting between Weiss and the HOA leaders told me that Weiss simply refused to answer any questions on why he was ignoring his constituents.
When asked "who are you representing, because you are sure not representing us," Denise Sample said "this meeting is over." That was it.
The recall wasn't part of any discussions at all. It may be more entertaining to think so, but it isn't true.
Hey moore.People are taking your bid for mayor seriously.
I was talking with an east side homeowner in boyle heights and he mentioned that he was excited that you would be running for mayor.
Could you be a contender?
I don't know , but when people out of the blue mention your name and they are latino homewoners on the east side, something is up.
I know you think the market can solve the problem, but as you were informed on LA City TV, the land costs are too high for the "missing rungs." To use the example from the show, you can get a pre-fab house from Kaboom built for $100K but when it's placed on a lot worth $350K, it's not affordable...
Uh, can you keep the faces straight? That's the point I made...would you like the dvd?
Joseph, way to put that guy in his place! I didn't see the show. What was your solution to the problem of expensive real estate?
What was your solution to the problem of expensive real estate?
I think for securing workforce housing, we should take a look at offering 99-year leases on civic and government land, to take the land inflation off the table. Some orgs also have plenty of land---hello, LAUSD.
For straight private housing, we just have to grant better easements on big lots. What about those old garden walk-up styled Route 66 apartments, six and eight to a lot? Wouldn't that be better than forty unit condos?
Let's incentivize the development of more architecturally splendid garden walkups, of market-based affordable housing solutions, not costly government-controlled affordable housing programs. When the government does it, it just makes housing a lottery with very few winners excepting the developers, the contractors, and the banks.
Joseph, I like what you're saying. A lot of your ideas make sense but the challenge is selling them to the "body politic."
The 99-year lease idea could work, as I believe this is what was done for the Grand Avenue project. But I'm not sure that most government agencies have land with substantial potential for (affordable) housing. If there are sites with potential, I think certain elements of the "body politic" would argue that selling the land outright would give a better return. Plus, if LAUSD leases land for housing and in the future has to build a school in the neighborhood, people will lambast LAUSD for its short-sightedness.
When it comes to the garden apartments of "old" L.A., I agree with you in that this is the "elegant density" that people can get behind.
However, those "old" garden apartments couldn't be built today because of (covered) parking requirements. We need to reform the Zoning Code to require less parking. When "old" garden apartments were being built between the 1920's and 1950's, the Zoning Code probably required few parking spaces, if any at all. Most of the time these structures were built within walking distance of the trolley lines.
More importantly, the citizenry or "body politic" has reached a point where they have no tolerance for density, "elegant" or not. As strange as it seems, Walter Moore has the pulse of the people on this issue. People don't want ANY more housing being built, even if it's "garden" apartments, and they will revolt against any loosening of parking requirements. In fact, several communities have pushed for downzoning of areas that have permitted multi-family housing units for decades.
As much as what you say makes sense, the public won't buy it. The government can't provide the "incentives" you advocate, despite the fact planners would support them, because the public will resist them and put pressure on their local representatives.
I suppose my point is that we are a long way from the pre- and post-WWII period when land, labor, and materials were still relatively cheap, making "garden" apartments possible, especially because each unit didn't require a 2 car garage. In addition (for better or worse) the "body politic" was not invloved in planning and zoning decisions. Additional construction was considered progress. These days, most people in L.A. consider the addition of a substantial number of units as the death of their neighborhood.
If someone like you could meld these ideas to leadership and a political movement, we just might have something to work with.
p.s. Joseph, have you read David Z.'s article in the LA Weekly? He tore into the ideas that you and I think are valuable. However, I know that he reflects public opinion on housing. No one wants anything built anywhere. No supply + increasing demand = a situation far worse than what we face today.
Boy Denise Sample is one crude, arrogant, disrespectful woman. She treats constituents horrible. She's a know it all and speaks for Jack. Now I know why they want to recall him.
Joseph, have you read David Z.'s article in the LA Weekly? He tore into the ideas that you and I think are valuable.
That's too bad. I pitched an article to Jill Stewart about two months ago on missing rungs in the housing ladder, and why starter homes don't get built in LA anymore, and she seemed interested, but I guess Z-man convinced her to go the other way.
What a lot of people who like to think in Democratic, Republican, or even doctrinaire libertarian terms fail to realize is that at the local level, many development issues are unbracketable by partisan politics.
For instance, you have some of the most hardcore liberals yelling for enterprise zones: enterprise zones, a very Republican, free-market solution. You have very conservative, Republican bedroom communities yelping most loudly for slow-growth or no-growth. When it comes to your own block, your politics often seem to flip. And in areas where there are lots of realtor-lifestyle libertarians, like Hermosa or Manhattan Beach, for instance, these people suddenly want tight controls on who can come in and what gets built in town.
But in the words of a poster here at MayorSam, there's all this political kindling laying all around, just wanting for a match to light it. They said the issue in 2005 was traffic; it was all pose, as traffic only got worse; now everyone's simply cynical about it. In 2009, a Mayor will be elected on navigating the City's housing dilemma.
7:24, Does she give out free "samples?"
How about them Anaheim Ducks? Speaking of ducking...
One of the comments repeats the mantra of the Eveloff anti-JMB/CC group, which they play at their HA meetings w/ Power Point, etc. etc., as an argument against the project:
but the argument's core is irrational in that it argues that Century City should STAY as it has been: Shubert Theatre "dark for 5 years...a small bank and seldom-used nightclub...a bankrupt movie theatre and a fastfood place that served only the tower..."
Gee, that sounds like urban blight and a stunning misuse of commercial (note, commercial, not residential) space to me -- to a remarkable degree! I've seen sorry attempts to attract people to the place with fancier surround-sound theatres, the Deli giving out promos, Shubert Theatre productions that failed to draw crowds -- all due to parking problems, and the fact that once you did go to the theatres, there was nothing else to do there, that huge space was so poorly utilized. You then had to drive elsewhere to eat, or go across to the main CC mall: so why not just to to movies there in the first place?
Yes, Eveloff's Tract Assn. and some other neighbors would have liked to see the building just fall linto total decay and literally fall apart, rather than attract traffic; but that is stupid on the face of it, given how valuable land is on the Westside. AND that mall has a number of wide streets all around it already serving malls and hotels so it's a matter of mitigitating an impact from NECESSARY renovations.
One can quibble about the details of the new building and whether the condo owners will cut traffic: it seems logical they will to movies and merchants in their building and across to the CC mall; why not?
Someone even argues that Weiss let CAA have a larger site: this city is built heavily on the back of the movie industry, CAA is one pillar.
The only logical comment is someone noting that Weiss is being made a scapegoat for what some believe to be citywide indifference to traffic and preference to developers: then isn't it just plain indecent and malicious, to single out one man?
One of the problems with planning and land use issues in L.A.? The filtering concept.
Not smart growth in any way, just build them more expensive and maybe, just maybe, some of the people who live in condos will be able to purchase a house and someone who lives in a house can get a bigger one? And let's just keep on building! We don't need no stinking schools, we don't care about the silly little traffic problem. We've got developers to make happy because they give us campaign contributions. WHILE THEY LIVE IN ANOTHER STATE!
Yeah, L.A. and their brilliant planning strategies.
You are out of touch to think there are $400K condos in Studio City!!
Right Joseph. It's all LAUSD's fault for owning too much land. How about the archdiocese of Los Angeles? Go check out how much land they own. If LAUSD were to sell, they would be dragged out and beaten. If LAUSD were to build a school, they would be dragged out and berated.
We need more schools and any new development should be along major transportation corridors (oh wait, we can't because there is no public transportation).. so forget it. Sorry we just have to stay screaming nimby's.
On the CAA building: Maybe you are being intentionally dense, but the point was that ANY claim (regardless of project merit) that the CAA building will create LESS traffic than what was there before is just silly. Same for JMB. Same for Bomel/La Brea Gateway. Same for the Beverly Connection. Same for just about every Latham project where they use their connections (contributions) to overcome facts.
last comment shows how the stupid mantra that less traffic is always good is totally brainless: my point was and is, the apt description of the "bankrupt" theatres, "dark" Shubert, "rarely used" nightclub and bank etc, leading to less traffic so that's good, IS IMBECILIC. The idea was to develop the thing in a way to logically make use of the space and location, while trying to mitigate the situation -- but Eveloff and his minions, I guess you, fought to keep the edifice dark and crumbling just so there would be no traffic.
-- Gee, I guess it would be great if we let every building fall into total disuse and disrepair FOR FIVE YEARS OR MORE, until there was no income at all to maintain it, turn the city into Blade Runner; really, just how dense can you people be?
-- Re: not wanting CAA to have any expansion at all, as you admit: yeah, like this is rational. Shows the naive stupidity behind your whole recall movement, start a war you'll never win; what big city is curbing all growth? Idiots.
-- If you want to see stupid growth look to West Hollywood, where they have approved millions of sq. feet and two huge condo/retail/office/ hotel/ convention center towers, etc. etc., for the Sunset Strip, where every fool can see that it's already gridlock there all day.
THAT is directly under Los Angeles whose residents We Ho brushes off.
-- But what does the Recall Gang do? Throw their support to We Ho cuz Weiss/ L. A. Planning Comm. approved an expansion of Maimonedes Day school and one small 4-story bldg. on Wilshire.
-- You people really operate with no logic whatsoever, excpet spite, even when it's clearly destructive to the people of this city.
-- You people really do
Time to take your meds.
EIRs are supposed to determine impacts. That means looking at existing conditions versus expected/projected conditions. The impact analysis needs to be accurate. Can you agree on that? If not, read CEQA (or take more meds).
The previous writer, who keeps going on with the numbers of cartrips and can't see the big picture: wonder why no one listened to you re: the planning of that project? Maybe if you'd used logic instead of "but, teacher, see, my pretty Power Point shows that there will be MORE car trips, not fewer, since literally no one ever went to that mauseleum for over five years and so it was falling down," -- well, who cares? If it makes you happy, of course all developments fudge car trips and include things like allegedly shared spaces for carpoolers/ multiple users a day, many in ANY CITY ANYWHERE try to overestimate the number who will use public bus etc. -- BUT if you approach it like you are, as an illogical NO GROWTH OF ANY KIND EVEN IF THE BUILIDINGS ARE FALLING INTO DECAY CUZ NO ONE USES THEM ninny, you'll be duly brushed off. Clearly, opponents of a project must approach negotiatons w/ a min. of common sense, knowing that neither side will get ev/thig.
Further on your (side's) combative approach to "negotiating": another writer, who was at the meetings w/ Weiss & staffer & JMB, tries to prove how impossible (and it follows to him/her, worthy of recall), that when "someone asked him, who do you think you're really rep'ing, cuz you're not rep'ing any of us," and he and staffer ended the meeting: Well, surprise! What was the Councilman going to do? He was told no one would accept whatever he came up with, was dissed in front of the developer, and NO WAY should he have stayed.
Similar excuse is used on Recall Petition, re: his walking out on some Homeowners' group that got nasty and personal with him...The City Council and the N C's, as City bodies, do have rules of decorum AND EVEN LOCALS WHO SIT ON BOARDS ENFORCE THE RULES, THEY THEMSELVES WON'T BE INSULTED OR YELLED AT, but inidivual Homeowner Associations do become nasty and unregeulated s/t; there is no reason a busy elected official should sit and be attacked when even ordinary citizens won't.
Speaking of a nasty, snotty "ha-ha" infantile tone, reflected in the whole Recall campaign: who is responsible for that slimy little recall video, anyway? Looks like it was made by an underground teen, so I was surprosed to learn that all the "Gang of 5" who actually signed that thing (and the much- touted D- report on Weiss, where 2 of the 3 signers overlap), are all senior citizens... so much for civility. Admittedly, per the above blogger, there has been a combative, deliberately undermining and nasty tone used in meetings and all aspects of the "negotiations."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home