Time for a New Development Moratorium
The Land Use and Planning Committee is
considering requesting “a moratorium on all multi-family and commercial
projects in the Venice area for 12 months.”
The moratorium idea is gaining support
because of a deluge of large projects aimed at transforming Venice.
They include: Lincoln Center, a large
shopping center replacing Ralphs and Ross; Pioneer Bakery, 75 condos and a
restaurant/bakery on Rose Ave.; MTA lot, a “gated community” at Main
and Sunset with up to 225 units and commercial spaces; Trammell Crow, an Oxford
Triangle area project for 248 condos; 300-346 Washington Blvd., convert an
office building in 42 condos and build 81 new townhouse units; and multiple
condo units either proposed or being built around Venice (see past Beachheads
for even more projects).
Meanwhile, traffic
and parking problems continue to worsen throughout Venice with no end in
sight.
A moratorium might be in order
to take a time-out to address the vehicular issues. In addition, there is no
overall “Plan” for Venice to which everyone agrees. The Venice
Specific Plan has not been approved by the Coastal Commission – a
prerequisite to legitimacy for a beach side
community.
This isn’t the first
time a moratorium has been needed. Around 15 years ago, Venice experienced a
burst of development fever after generations of very slow growth and neglect by
developers.
Community activists such as
John Haag, Arnold Springer and Moe Stavnezer, among others, pushed for a
moratorium. They had the support of the Venice Town Council, which was an
experiment in democracy that pre-dated the neighborhood council system by three
decades.
In addition in 1987, one of
our own, Ruth Galanter, was elected to the Los Angeles City Council. Galanter
was in sympathy with the moratorium and got it implemented, beginning in
February 1988 for 14 months. The result was not to stop growth, but to slow it
down. Not everyone was happy with the projects that did get exemptions during
the moratorium, but no one who was active then would disagree that the
moratorium was necessary and stopped some outrageous developments from getting
built.
A new moratorium should not be
used to prevent low-income housing and social service projects from being built,
but it should slow down development built solely for profit without regard for
community needs.
– The
Beachhead Collective
Posted: Mon - November 1, 2004 at 04:28 PM