How Much Growth?

April 11, 2006

Dear Editor,

As one of the opponents of the proposed redevelopment of the Sunset Avenue MTA bus yard, I take strong issue with your recent complaints about alleged NIMBY-ism around the issue. (see column)

First and most important, characterization of the opposition to this project as "no-growth" is absolutely false. The vast majority of those who opposed the deal were not and are not opposed to commercial and residential redevelopment of the property. We said so emphatically and repeatedly.

Rather, the issue was and remains rather “how much” growth. Specifically, whether the developer would be allowed to build to a far greater density than the surrounding neighborhood, which is already quite dense by Los Angeles standards (you yourself describe it as "tightly developed.")

Or, to put the matter even more directly, whether the same rules that apply to everyone else who wants to build in Venice would apply to him.

In an effort to try to create a compromise, the planning commission ultimately went far beyond those rules, and put forward a proposal to split the difference between existing neighborhood standards and what the developer wanted. Not enough: it was his way or the highway. The final proposal was to reduce density by less than 10 percent over the original, and he has since said the planning commission proposal is unacceptable.

But still you blame our neighborhood, informing us from on high that "the benefits of replacing the bus yard with residences and shops far outweigh whatever negatives -- possibly a bit more traffic -- that the project might have."

This formula completely ignores the fact that the Venice community has for the past two decades been creating fair and uniform standards for development, which are now in place. The proposal was to simply ignore these standards, with precedent-setting effect. You reduce this situation to a matter of spiteful negativity: "People have the opportunity to say no, so they say no."

Again: people in Venice never said "no." They have consistently said, "Yes, but according to the rules." Maybe you think the idea of rules is obscure or quaint or unnecessary, or that the rules should apply only to individual homeowners, not to deep-pocket developers with big plans.

In your column you snarkily say our councilman, Bill Rosendahl, "carried water" for the neighborhood in demanding that standards apply. Who are you carrying water for in demanding that standards be discarded?

Eric Mankin
Venice, CA

April 11, 2006

Dear Editor,

I happened to be one of the residents from the Baldwin Hills Community which was going to be the recipient of those buses that would have been moved from the property in Venice and our community chose to also say "no" to this ill-planned, illogical scheme to swap land and build a bus yard on one end and multiple units on another.

Our reasons for saying "no" were numerous, but the most serious problem was that of an already congested La Cienega Blvd that serves as an alternate route to the 405 Freeway and numerous travelers coming from LAX to Beverly Hills and Hollywood. We could not take 150 buses coming out on our streets from a single outlet off of Jefferson Blvd.

Before you bad-mouth the residents of North Venice you might want to investigate the entire deal that was about to take place -- a deal in which several were going to make a substantial amount at the expense of taxpayers. At some point we have to say no to exploitation and greed.

Carol Tucker
President, Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners Association