LINCOLN PLACE – a Test of Perseverance
By Sheila
Bernard
A lost battle does not mean a
lost war. At Lincoln Place, we suffered an unfortunate decision by the City
Council on November 20th to capitulate to legal pressure from our landlord.
It is important to understand the source of that
decision and the dynamics at work within the City. It is also important to
understand the profound implications for urban planning, property rights,
equality under the law, and democracy that make us tenants determined to take
this battle to the wall.
Why did the
City approve the owner’s redevelopment
plan?
In 1995, the City denied the
owner of Lincoln Place the right to demolish the complex and build expensive
condos. The City’s Housing Element and other planning documents spelled
out the need to preserve affordable housing, so under a state law called the
Subdivision Map Act, the City was supposed to deny the subdivision. However, the
court ruled that for the City to deny the subdivision based on the loss of
affordable housing was a violation of the Ellis Act, another state law. The
court ruled (and the Court of Appeals recently agreed) that if the City chooses
to deny the subdivision, it must do so for a reason other than the loss of
affordable housing. In other words, the court did not command the City to
approve the subdivision. It ruled that the City may deny the subdivision, but on
other grounds.
The Council delegated
the re-hearing of the subdivision to the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM)
Committee. During the hearing, both the City Attorney’s office and the
Planning Commission staff insisted that the City should approve the subdivision,
because there weren’t sufficient other grounds for denying it. The council
members on the committee (Bernson, Reyes, and Greuel) all tried to get the City
Attorney’s office and the Planning Commission staff to consider other
grounds, or at least delay a decision until the matter could be studied more
closely. The PLUM members felt a delay for further study was important because
of new information brought by Lincoln Place tenants and supporters showing the
eight-year-old EIR for the project to be inadequate, partly because Lincoln
Place has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, and partly
because the impacts of the proposed project on traffic, air quality, and open
space should be re-examined. But the City Attorney’s office and the
Planning Commission staff were adamant. Based on City staff’s insistence,
the PLUM reluctantly recommended that the Council approve the subdivision, which
they did. It is noteworthy that both Councilman Bernson and Councilwoman
Miscikowski refused to be part of the closed session between the PLUM and the
City Attorney, because of the threat of legal action by the owner of Lincoln
Place.
It is startling to watch an
entire City litigated into submission by a private speculative developer and his
legal staff. It is sobering to see that no matter how serious our housing crisis
gets, the right of developers to make more profit seems to supersede the right
of tenants in our workforce to contract for homes for their families in stable
neighborhoods.
What recourse do the
tenants of Lincoln Place have now?
Tenants can sue to stop the project,
because the City’s hasty decision caused inadequate consideration of
important new information. To conduct the suit, we must raise
$25,000.
We are encouraged by the fact
that the Planning Commission and the City Council did some very important things
right, even though their decision was hasty. The City placed some conditions on
the owner. Before the owner demolishes any housing for luxury condos, he must
build on site 144 units of affordable housing for our seniors, disabled
residents, single-parent families, and other low income tenants. These 144 units
will not be remotely enough to meet the needs of the 450 households still living
at Lincoln Place, of whom most fall into those categories. However, we believe
that because of this condition, the owner will be slow to go through with the
plan, if he goes through with it at all. However, we cannot take the chance that
the owner will proceed to destroy 795 units of well-designed, sturdy,
desperately-needed housing. We are preparing to sue.
We are also joining the rest of the
tenants’ movement in lobbying the state for changes in the Ellis Act. The
state must iron out these perceived conflicts between the Ellis Act, the
Subdivision Map Act, and Housing Element law. If a city must make a plan to
provide sufficient affordable housing for its population, and if that plan is to
be implemented in granting and denying subdivisions, then cities should not be
able to be sued by developers’ big guns when they carry out their
state-mandated obligations.
Further,
city planning must become pro-active. Cities, and communities like Venice,
should conduct detailed strategic planning sessions which map out the kinds of
development needed and desired by our neighborhoods. We should make these
results known to the development profession through Requests For Proposals
(RFP’s). This way, a developer responds to a neighborhood’s needs,
and the Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC) of Grass Roots Venice
Neighborhood Council won’t become a battleground between those of us who
favor preservation and those of us who favor gentrification. Rather, we can find
our common ground in a united vision for Venice, and then go about the creative
process of realizing that vision
together.
The battle for Lincoln Place
continues to be educational and inspirational to those of us who hang in there
year after year because of all it has taught us about law, democracy, land use,
and above all, perseverance.
Posted: Sun - December
1, 2002 at 04:10 PM