Monday, October 24, 2016

Silver Lake man announces mayoral campaign; Echo Park small-lot development challenged

Highland Park | Katrina Alexy

Highland Park | Katrina Alexy

MOrning Report

  • Steve Barr, a charter school leader and Silver Lake resident, announced what is described as  a “long-shot” campaign to challenge Eric Garcetti’s in next year’s mayoral race. Barr, 56, founded the Green Dot Public Schools.   L.A. Now
  • The City Council is scheduled to review an appeal challenging a plan to build four  homes under the city’s small-lot ordinance on Quintero Street in Echo Park. City staff have recommended that the City Council reject the appeal that was filed by a neighboring property owner. LA City

eastside events

Submit An Event

Submit An Event

Eastsider Advertising


  1. No more of these stupid small lot homes. They attract a bad crowd.

    • yea, people with jobs that shop at local stores and eat at local restaurants and inject life into the neighborhood.

      As is, 60% of the property is a parking lot, lets keep it that way! Parking lots are good neighbors!

  2. Bruce Brook Pfeiffer

    If a property owner wants to build a by right small lot development why should a neighbor be able to stop or delay such a development? I’m with the city staff who recommend that the City Council reject the NIMBY neighbor’s appeal.

    • Because that term “by right” is fraudulent and has come into play since the turn of this century by the new crop of politicians who came in to pretend things could not be questioned.

      In fact, all the zoning is is the maximum. It does not stand in a vacuum. Other laws apply with it, and can limit it. A key one is CEQA — and under that, the impacts of your project on neighbors and on the community must be addressed — that is what is by right, that you are in a community and the community must be considered.

      Further, the small lot subdivision ordinance is not the zoning, it is a separate statute providing for dividing a property into smaller parts than otherwise would be allowed, and then specifically NOT applying the zoning to those lots, instead considering the entire tract development as if it had not be divided into separate lots — and that makes for a HUGE density bonus over what the zoning would allow on those individual lots, eliminating setbacks and open space and other requirements of the zoning.

      Any time you hear someone pronounce a project is “by right,” know you have just heard either fraud or ignorance.

      • that’s funny… “by right” is a term derived from “zoning” a planning practice that arose from the industrial revolution just over 100 years ago. If you’ve been keeping track, humans have been organizing themselves in cities for thousands of years without the need for the relatively new concept of “zoning” Furthermore, as we’ve progressed far beyond the nuisances of the industrial revolution and the associated problems with manufacturing / residential integration, zoning really has no place in modern cities (planning, yes. Zoning… pointless)

        Coincidentally, most cities without draconian zoning, function far better than Los Angeles (as land use is dictated by market demands and organic growth) AND they are exponentially more appealing.

        “By right” isn’t the problem, zoning is the problem, and your fascination with “by right” is only an extension of the overarching problem

        • Fine, then you should go move to one of those cities. As far as I know, there is only one, and you can have it. We here in Los Angeles and just about every other square inch of America don’t care to have a skyscraper built next door to our single family home in a residential area. We are a community.

          • that would be a travesty to build a skyscraper next to “our” single family home, fortunately, nobody in Los Angeles is purposing anything as preposterous as your gross hyperbole.

            In this case, we have 34′ building, neighboring a 22′ building, on a steep grade..

  3. The problem with this mayoral candidate is that he is all about schools. But the mayor doesn’t control the schools, the school board does. The schools aren’t even the city;s, they are the states under a state-drawn district that is more than the city of Los Angeles. If he wants something done about the schools, he should be running for school board, not mayor.

    Still, just about anyone but Garcetti! Garcetti is the shallowest person I have ever come across. He is shockingly immature. Like an very spoiled and entitled little boy, he operates via knee-jerk reaction to jump into things without any consideration. He simply pretends to be a liberal, but in fact he has pushed through some of the more right wing stuff we have in LA, such as his attack on the homeless since the early time of his career in the city Council — arranging to constantly roust them, to jail them for the most minute excuses possible, to take away their meager possessions, never once to help them — and unceasingly ever since, and now faking he is all about helping the homeless, when even now all he is doing about that is pulling the wool over people’s eyes.. He is 110% sold out to developers, their lawyers, the construction unions — nothing, nothing at all, not zoning, not planning, not common sense, not the law, not danger created, nothing stands in his way when it comes to dramatic, insane overdevelopment. And all in the name of a housing shortage he helped trump up – c’mon, the housing vacancy rate is the same now as it has been constantly for at least the past 50 years! We are not suddenly in some housing shortage. Yes, we can use some more, but nothing on the level Garcetti has trumped up to flood the construction industry with money.

    Garcetti is what I call a highly literate moron. He can recite, but he shows no ability to think deep on his own. He can only memorize and recite what he read someone else thought up. Garcetti is just a fraud who has pulled the wool over people’s eyes.

  4. Garcetti may be a lot of things, but moron ain’t one of ’em. Dude’s a Rhodes Scholar for chrissake!

    And you should really read a bit more on the housing crisis. Most Angelenos are renters, and the apartment market is one of the tightest in the nation right now: http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/01/28/57103/la-apartments-rental-vacancy-rate-fall-to-27/

    According to the Legislative Analysts Office (a non-partisan organization), this has been snowballing for decades (http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.pdf), and is largely the result of exclusionary housing policies. Big economy + coastal location = high demand for urban housing. Restricting growth, like we’ve done for years, has consequences.

    If we’re going to grow, than infill development is the way to do it. It’ll save us money by utilizing existing infrastructure, and it’ll save our natural resources too (urbanites use less land, energy, water, etc. than those living in car-oriented suburbs.)

    • Yes, I know Garcetti is a Rhodes scholar. He is good a memory, he can memorize and recite, regurgitate. He is just like my niece, who has never had a single thought of her own her entire life, but gets better school grades that anyone else in the school. She cant; think into things, she can memorize and regurgitate, just like Garcetti.

      I have read about housing here. Don’t be so quick to believe anything you read that supports your point of view – think into it yourself. The housing vacancy rate is where it has been for 50 years, the skyrocketing prices are NOT due to that, you will need to look elsewhere for that. One reason is Garcetti’s small lot subdivisions, which have only skyrockets land rices five fold, drastically pushing up housing prices and with profit levels so high that no potential owner-occupant can possibly outbid a developer for a house. Even Garcetti says the SLS developments will do NOTHING to bring down the price of housing. Another issue is the massive amount of effort and money Los Angeles and California spend — the scream all over the country and world for people to come here – stop attracting lots more people. And various other things, its cumulative of course. But not some sudden reduction in the vacancy rate, that has not changed.

      But eliminating zoning or other planning is the worst thing you could do. You will get what the City Council is trying to do now, provide for a 27-story building on a side street that can’t handle it in a 2-6 story neighborhood of Koreatown, despite the maximum height of the zoning being 6 stories, and most things there not up to even that height.

      • I’d love to read your sources re: vacancy rates being stagnant for 50 years… seems completely contrary to any data I can find (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=housing+vacancy+los+angeles)

        SLS are sold on the market… adding supply creates competition. Add enough supply, and sooner or later it becomes a buyer’s market. In no way am I advocating for high rises being built in SFR neighborhoods. There’s many shades of grey between our current pattern of development, and Manhattan.

        Anyway, most SLS are being built on land where even greater density is allowed if a developer were proposing apartments. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

  5. Build it. We need more housing and a larger tax base. People willing to invest and live in the neighborhood is a good thing.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *