Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Wednesday

Planning Commission President Jane Usher may find her services may no longer be needed. The attorney and Villaraigosa appointee is drawing fire for sending an email to neighborhood activists that recent rules enacted by the City Council allowing developers to build bigger projects if they include some level of "affordable housing" (see why this is a crock here) are probably in violation of state law. Some Council Members feel that Usher's remarks could be an encouragement to NIMBYs to sue with the perceived imprintaur of the leading civilian planning official.

Speaking of NIMBYs, I wonder if some day in the future, when Los Angeles is struggling greatly for jobs and housing, our general emotional overreaction against and disdain for development will be viewed much in the same way many of us view the shortsightedness of previous generations of Anglenos who rejected mass transit plans for the region decades ago.

The Daily News slams the Clowncil and the Mayor for not selling surplus City property when they could have; now that the city is in a budget crunch.

Here's an interesting bit of City history from Bob Timmerman: Proposition B, on the June 3, 1958 ballot which sealed the deal to give Chavez Ravine to the Dodgers in their move from Brooklyn. Interesting that some of the argument was about real estate development back then. Also interesting in the image of Prop B on the ballot is Prop C, a $12 million bond for police construction. I guess the City went on borrowing binges even back in the day.

Want an Elliot Spitzer scandal t-shirt? You can get one here.

Labels: , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jane Usher should set the challenge: should the rights of one "developer," trump the rights of everyone else in the neighborhood to maintain their own quality of life and standards of living?"

Are city policies, when they're known to result in lower residential property values, subject to the law for damages?

Is the city always claiming that "a developer has a right to develop, and gee, I wish there were something I can do," ignoring the fact that the total amount of prop losses and value of quality of life, exceeds this bogus "right to develop?" on any given street.

March 12, 2008 1:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jane Usher is my new hero!

March 13, 2008 1:42 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement