Quantcast

Silver Lake’s ‘Sunset Junction’ sign now promoting anti-development campaign

Sunset Junction sign gets political

SILVER LAKE — Look twice at the Sunset Junction sign at Sunset Boulevard and Sanborn Avenue. It may look the same as usual, but the Sunset Junction sign no longer says “Sunset Junction.” Instead, it’s been turned into a message supporting Measure S – the anti-development planning reform that will appear on the March 7 ballot.

Nor may the sign be changed back anytime soon, since this isn’t the work of vandals. It was done by the sign’s owners, Christine and Gareth Kantner, according to LA Weekly.

The Kanters, who also own the compound of shops (that includes Cafe Stella and Intelligentsia) around the sign, have joined the Measure S campaign after long fighting the proposed Junction Gateway development across the street from their property. (The Weekly quotes a Junction Gateway spokesman, however, saying that the  project would not be affected by Measure S.)

Measure S makes a number of changes to the city’s general plan laws, including imposing a moratorium for up to two years on any construction that increases development density, and prohibiting project-specific amendments to the city’s general plan.

Sunset Junction sign before it go political

What do you think of The Eastsider?

Hello. Please take a few minutes to take our 2017 Eastsider Reader Survey. The results will be published (individual responses will remain private) and will be used to improve the site, determine editorial coverage and help raise financial support from advertisers and sponsors.Thanks for your time!

Click here or fill out the survey below.

— Jesus Sanchez, Publisher



Eastsider Advertising

26 comments

  1. Oh lord, people are going to vote for this measure thinking it will save their neighborhood integrity and make everything the way it used to be. But they are actually voting for one man’s narccistic vision, driven by greed, locking out potential new citizens and sending us into the dark ages. Sound familiar?

    • Please elaborate if you have some information. It sounds so good on the surface, but if we need to know more and you have evidence, please share- especially with such a large piece of propaganda displayed so prominently.

      • It’s a proposed moratorium… (no building for 2 years) ya know like the conditions that were in place for San Francisco bay area for 20-odd years that have now made it the most expensive region in the US.

        They offer no solutions to fixing the qualms of southern california, literally only a law that essentially prolongs these terrible conditions.

        Here’s a good read on reasons to oppose, keep in mind it’s from a pro-development source, but the criticisms are valid regardless and the article is written by an urban planner, whose intentions are totally clear. You wouldn’t want your surgery performed by a baker, don’t let the planning of your home city be controlled by a corrupt healthcare attorney.

        http://urbanize.la/post/top-7-reasons-oppose-measure-s-los-angeles-neighborhood-integrity-initiative

      • This is a 2 year ban on development that would include affordable housing in LA funded by HHH that would get homeless people off the streets. Housing is already at a shortage in the city, banning new housing will drive up prices and put more people on the streets. Measure S is manipulative and bad for middle income to poor people.

        Read up on it! Inner city law has published some great literature.

        • Here’s text from the measure that refutes your “ban on affordable housing” assertion

          1) impose a two-year moratorium on projects seeking General Plan amendments or zone or height-district changes resulting in more intense land use, an increase in density or height, or a loss of zoned open space, agricultural or industrial areas, with exceptions including for affordable housing projects and projects for which vested rights have accrued

          • Sorry lol. That’s just a summary, devil is in the details. The moratorium on building much needed housing will kill many affordable housing projects as well as market rate projects that without would cause rents and prices to rise citywide.

            This is a totally misguided attempt at a fix that compounds the problem.

          • This is not a ban on new housing. This is a temporary ban on building that requires upzoning variances, and excludes affordable housing from the ban. An update of the general plan would allow public input of permanent rezoning, even upzoning, as opposed to what happens now which is the city council essentially rezoning via variances behind closed doors.
            It would eliminate the mass evictions from affordable rentals happening across the city, and developers bidding up single family homes so that they are out of reach for most Angelinos.
            No ban at all if a developer doesn’t require a variance, that is they build with in the limits everyone agreed to 20+ years ago. Measure S just asks everyone come to the table and update the general plan.

    • Dark ages? Don’t get hysterical. Folks want some control over how their community grows. Out of scale developments, small lot overstuffing, drivers racing thru neighborhoods: put the density somewhere else!

      • You understand that roughly 4/5 projects targeted by Measure S are in Central Hollywood… Hollywood is already one of the top 4 most dense hubs in LA. Where should this density begin, West Covina, Sherman Oaks?

      • this isn’t control, this is a flat out moratorium. nimby’s like you have no defensible right to dictate basic needs like housing over intangibles like ‘character.’

        you’re just as bad as trump voters.

    • You guys are wrong. This is not a ban on development. It is a ban on development beyond that provided for in the City Plan. It is a ban on politicians waving the laws of what may be built and allowing more, a LOT, LOT more to be built there.

      And as for the noise about affordable housing, nearly none is required. When they do that, they often will be building 150 units of housing, and five will be designated as “affordable,” but a lot of people would not consider the prices for those the least bit affordable. Even if they made 10% of this housing “affordable,” that is not remotely close to the amount of people in need of affordable housing! 90% of the people here are not rich! Its the other way around. So, 10% should be allowed to go to higher prices, and the other 90% to affordable! This housing being built isn’t for the residents of Los Angles who are here now?!

      Even the small lot subdivision law, which has made for massive overdevelopment, is not going to help. By doing that, they have horrendously skyrocketed the value of the land. The skyrocketing of housing prices in the pas decade hasn;t been because of some sudden shortage of housing! It has been because of the skyrocketing value of land that now can have so much more built on it. A single family home that not all that many years ago would have gone for maybe $175,000 for the dirt alone, now foes for $1 million for that same dirt! That is NOT bring down the price of house. Even Garcetti, who is the one who pushed through the SLS ordinance, says it won’t bring down the price of houses. If we simply built a granny housing int he backyard, we could double our housing supply, we don’t need to multiple the housing the 10 fold and ruin everything in the process!

      We are not in some sudden housing shortage. The vacancy rate is the same it has been for at least more than 45 years. It is only suddenly, with the city council that came in at the turn of the century, lead by Garcetti, that suddenly we claim to be in a housing shortage, we must take actions to quintuple or more the prices. Its nothing but fake news — and it gets the politicians a ton of money from the developers, construction unions and others..

      The City Council has been allowing 30+ story buildings on property that by law can have a maximum of six stories, or even four stories! That is what the moratorium is on.

      But frankly, the only problem with it is that it does not go far enough. For instance, in Silver Lake, south of Sunset is rediculously zoned with no consideration for the size and width of streets, blind curves, steep hillsides and other. The zoning was just thrown in. The California Environmental Quality Act is supposed to be in play too, and that would bar the dramatically oversized and over=0dense development in the zoning, but the city automatically, although it pretends only after review, waives the need for a full Environmental Impact Report to consider these things.

      And all the while, the city politicians have been collecting horrendous amounts of money from developers, construction unions, the building trades council, all their lawyers, all their subcontractors — and doing exactly what those people want, to hell with the residents and others here.

      Our Councilman, Mitch O’Farrell, in just his first two ears in office took in over $1 million to his campaign committee alone, 100% of it from the developers and construction people! He learned all he knows from our mayor . Eric Garcetti, who has been doing this since first elected to this council district. Garcetti, and now O’Farrell, have been the worst about this, they will not listen to anything. O’Farrell even takes action at City Council to block any nearing on appeals of project to the council — appeals with resident must pay to make — putting them on the Consent Calendar, which means they get no hearing, not discussion, are adopted automatically.

      This ballot measure is the only thing to help even some — but it does not go far enough.

  2. Please educate yourselves people, this proposed measure does not offer solutions to overcrowding or affordability. It would be a major detriment to our economy and fails to meaningfully address the preservation of existing homes or neighborhood character.

    The proposition is thoroughly scrutinized in the link below, be mindful that writer is Shane Phillips an urban planner, with the help of a pro-development news source. With regards to the built environment, do you trust the corrupt healthcare attorney or the urban planner??

    http://urbanize.la/post/top-7-reasons-oppose-measure-s-los-angeles-neighborhood-integrity-initiative

  3. Subpar reporting on this one… please do the community a favor by posting a critical and rational review of Measure S. Articles like this one can easily lead individuals astray and promote falling into ingnorance. Measure S is NOT as advertised and a quick review on the history and individual behind it will easily bring this to light. C’mon EastsiderLA, you’re usually on top of things in the community but this one doesn’t help 🙁

    • The Eastsider is rarely on top of things. They’ve shown themselves to have a heavy anti-development, anti-gentrification bias, I don’t really trust them as a source of news when it comes to politics at this point.

  4. Just read the measure, it’s short. It’s main goal is to get city council to update the general plan with public input. That way neighborhoods can stop playing whack-a-mole with developers spot zoning and getting outrageous variances. There’s two tiers of zoning in L.A. The little people have to adhere to a 20+ yrsold General plan, while big developers build whatever they want.

    • The city tried that in Hollywood a few years back, with plenty of public input and give-and-take, but the plan was sued and scrapped thanks to NIMBY’s who don’t even live in Hollywood. No good deed goes unpunished I suppose.

  5. Oh brother… “Save Silver Lake!” Could they be more hyperbolic if they tried?

    It’s pretty obvious why this family is against infill development. They own property in a neighborhood with high demand for housing/retail and very limited supply. Suppress local development and the money will continue to flood their bank accounts.

    Essentially, “I got mine, screw the rest of you.”

    • The Kantners have no shame. They want to punish the less fortunate, newcomers, and younger generations to their own selfish benefit. You won’t ever catch me at any of their establishments (Stella, Dinette, etc)

    • So true! These people are a big part of what destroy the old Silverlake and now they have what they want and they want nobody else to come in and develop anything. So exactly, I have what I want so screw the rest.

  6. As, Muriel’s Wedding so artfully states: “YOU CAN’T STOP PROGRESS!”

    Don’t vote for this NIMBY crap. Every neighborhood already has community input, via their Neighborhood Council, their LA City Council Member, and various other existing civic modes of using your voice to express your opinions.

    There’s no need to re-create the wheel here — the only reason to vote for this is to knee-cap LA’s needed growth.

    If you care about development in your hood — go to your neighborhood council meetings, meet your council member — run for office! Don’t just say “STOP” b/c a sign made you feel sad.

    • You can’t stop progress, but you can plan it out so we don’t end up with a Frankenstein city.

      Most Measure S supporters have spent countless hours at NCs, taking days off to attend hearings at City Hall and contacting their councilman only to be completely ignored. Its frustrating and frequent to feel public input is a charade and it’s all been decided ahead of time.

      The City needs to make a modern plan for development and stick to it.

  7. I think it’s interesting that a guy who leases to Inteligentsia wants to “save” Silverlake.

  8. Measure S is a trainwreck. Yes, we need a modernized masterplan but we desperately need new units. We need to be putting in 30-40k units to have any chance of making housing more affordable in the city. Those units needs to be throughout the city not just in DTLA or transportation corridors.

  9. Love you Cafe Stella but vote no on S 😉

    LA needs to reduce obstacles to change and development not create more.

  10. Measure S is a scam. I would be willing to be that the backers of this measure have extensive rental real estate holdings and they will profit nicely when developers turn their interests on existing housing stocks. Most of the large developments that are being built that are being targeted by S are being built on empty lots or underutilized spaces.

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 *

*