Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Wednesday
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/54e0f/54e0f4a257f58bf131af5741fab03227451671e3" alt=""
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9b61/f9b6124a30b95cf7ba8aaf466e2b159226d39d1a" alt=""
Labels: chavez ravine, eliot spitzer, jane usher, mass transit, mayor antonio villaraigosa, nimby
2 Comments:
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.
Jane Usher is my new hero!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home