Mayor Vetoes Air Rights Sale

Very disappointing decision. We don’t need the Mayor micromanaging development decisions.

Perhaps, it is a reflection of his low faith in the city’s Planning department. However, Goldberg seems to be a very able leader. She, presumably the most informed person on the issue, was supportive of the ordinance.

My hunch is just reflects Villaraigosa’s “busy, busy, busy” management style. I’ll definitely voice my displeasure with this decision and urge the council to override the Mayor.

Nothing about the Mayor’s veto surprised me.

From a political perspective, the sale will create a huge fiefdom for CD9. And while people may be comfortable with the current CD9 seatholder, who is to say the next one will be as capable of such blank check trust?

The long-term implications of Air Rights are worth a slower and more examed look as are the value of such rights as they can only be sold once.

Personally, I think this is something voters should decide as they would any other Bond Measure.

Sorry Ben , but CD9 already has a large fiefdom . redistricting that occurred after the last census there was a move made by then councilman Nick Pacheco of the 14th Council District to take Downtown all the way to grand avenue, which of course did not happen. So you can see that folks have been trying to change the dynamics of those relationships for years.

While responding to you it just occurred to me just maybe why the mayor shot this down and vetoed this thing.

hint? we have a county supervisor who may be stepping down and Herb Wesson may be running. Herb Wesson is one of the Mayor’s boys on the Council and Herb needs as many points as he can handle for that race.

Rumors are that these three will be running:

Herb Wesson

Mark Ridley Thomas

Bernard Parks

and you guessed it…

Jan Perry

Since Downtown historically has a strong economic development relationship with South Los Angeles , anyone who can control those relationships has a very big advantage. The staples center was one such project that benefited South Los Angeles

It may not make sense to newbies in the downtown area but if you have been a part of any redevelopment plans and projects it is as easy to understand as 1, 2, 3.

Don, I don’t doubt political motivation in any decision coming out of our Mayor’s office.

Certainly the Air Rights sale would be a large feather in Perry’s cap for whatever next step she takes with her political career. And I can understand how those such as yourself who are aligned with her would be disappointed (I am sure you recall Perry’s ties to developer-friendly and Republican Mayor Riordan and her service as his liaison to Census 2000).

But, for the long term benefit of the City and not just Downtown, is it wise to rush a major precedent such as this? On this deal alone, compare the square footage price of the Air Rights to the current market rate for a square foot of land Downtown? In the future, what happens when a developer on the Westside sues to buy Air Rights over a park so he or she can build higher somewhere other than Downtown?

My point, the immediate pot of gold everyone sees in this deal aside, this is something the residents of the entire City should decide via a vote because of the long term implications and the fundamental fact the Air Rights over the Convention Center belong to the residents of Los Angeles, not the current denizens of City Hall.

Ben,

Regardless of who I am aligned with, and I will always say I am a huge supporter of Jan Perry and a huge supporter of Antonio Villaraigosa,both ( Antonio has proven himself a great ally because of his safe cities inititiative and his support for the restoral of 1.5 million dollars to SRO Housing Corporation) , the fact remains, the issue is, that it may well be that this has nothing to do with what is right but what is politically expedient.

There is much more to this than what is being said in the papers.

The question and I think we all missed it , was that the transfers would only be in the City Business District and City Center Project Area.

Signs are that the transfers now can go to South Los Angeles and even Jose Huizar’s district outside of downtown, if the ordinance is changed to reflect that. And Antonio can get credit for any transfers on projects within Jose Huizar’s part of Downtown.

I mean, if you want to blow the whistle on me as being a Perry supporter. Well , there is no need to . I have blown the whistle on myself. I will Stand by Jan Perry , because if it wasn’t for her; 1. skid row would not be cleaning up and 2. there would be no loft for you to live in.

1. as far as filming , I think because we have reached critical mass with the new loft residents , Jan Perry and others on the City Council will be much more amenable to making sure that the film industry is much more considerate of the dwellers in the historic core. I know you were the one that blew the whistle on the eidc , but that isn’t the only issue downtown. We have been fighting this battle for a while now. Thanks to the whistle blowing of the EIDC (and give you credit for) and the new changes, we in Downtown who have created relationships with council offices and the Mayors office are in a more tenable position to create those considerations and so are you.

We have wonderful people in Downtown who are working on that issue now

Back to air rights. I think Antonio Villaraigosa will probably make the same decisions Jan Perry would have made as far as where the funds go. But this is about a supervisorial campaign coming up.

And why the hostility towards Jan Perry? Follow the money my friend and you will see most of the la city politicos are all aligned with the big business people in the City Center and get their campaign contributions from them. It isn’t so much a matter of who will get the transfer monies , but who will take the credit, when it comes time to dole it out to them so they can get support in the upcoming races.

Don, I’m not discounting Jan Perry’s accomplishments, nor do I have any hostility towards her, nor do I think there’s any secret you are one of her supporters.

But as a citizen of Los Angeles, the Air Rights deal I saw proposed concerned me even before it was vetoed by the Mayor (for whatever reason that was).

Bottomline, in my opinion, the City’s Air Rights belong to the citizens and should not be put into play by anyone other than the voters. On a long-reaching and irreverisble issue like this democracy should be used, not politics.

Oh yeah,

I forgot to mention something I meant to put in the above post. It is good to see the Mayor using his extended powers in the New City Charter that was recently voted in a couple of years ago. Unfortunatly , it had to happen on this issue when Jan Perry was going to see to it that monies flow to permanent supportive housing projects. Now the Mayor will get ton’s of credit for the monies flowing to these projects. Like I said I don’t believe the beneficiaries will change much , just who gets credit for doling out the monies. ALL this means for me is that I have to write more wonderful and exciting posts about the Mayor

What people fail to realize the air rights deal does is also incentivize the creation of density .There are some other incentives in this ordinance as well .. I will get back to you later.

SO you are saying the tax payers should decide if there is an ordinance or which projects are funded?

Los Angeles is always looking for sources of funding that stay within the city. Why do you think the CRA hasn’t been dismantled ? Because prop 13 sent the majority of City Revenue to the state, thus the largest chunk for the general fund is Sales Tax. Thus redevelopment tax increment stays local . For those who do not know , the City Business District redevelopment project are reached the 750 miiion dollar cap and the increment is only paying those bonds which were floated. And while everybody screams about the homeless problem and the County Continues to be stingy with the Prop 63 monies. Only doling it out to those already in their network of providers and services, the city needs to find new ways to secure the funding.

With the recent cuts in CDBG funding for some of the housing providers , this was a good source of funding for them , esp for capital programs such as building new units of housing. I wouldn’t doubt other providers across the city not to mention any organizations( PATH in Hollywood- for instance), was probably wondering how they could secure some of that money. And yes, spreading it to providers across the city , and getting credit for the doling out the funds to these benificiaries is important to politicos.

It is interesting to note Garcetti-cd 13 -hollywood- was a mover of the ordinance who works closely with Jan Perry on Homelessness issues. Thus, I don’t think Garcetti had anything to do with the veto. And in all actuality if you put it in that perspective there could be a big conspiracy to make it look like one party was for only CBD and City Center getting the money, but I doubt it.

But someone was upset they would not receive funding. We may never know.

And if the developments are scattered across the region , yes, the pot of gold which is the engine that drives the LA Economy , downtown los angeles, has just lost fuel to burn to make it even more efficient at producing the momentum to sustain a vibrant los angeles economy.

Many communities benefit from a densified downtown los angeles. People will come here to party , spend their money , and you may disagree with me , but the city reaps because when people spend money, sales tax is generated and the general fund is replenished so we can increase our services. You gotta have the money to be able to enhance infrastructure. But that is another story all together.

I think the Mayor wants to maximize his control over the sale and approval of “Air Rights” so that… certain developers can get favored status while others might get left out in the cold.

That’s so L.A.

I defer to your knowledge of past funding propositions Don and I do respect your passion for issues related to Downtown.

What I am saying is that the proposed sale of Air Rights should be a matter for the voters to decide as should perhaps the fund and general manner in which the revenue should be allocated.

In my opinion, this is more serious than a bond issue because, as I understand it now, the ramifications of the Air Rights sale are exemptions from current buidling height restrictions.

It’s a major turn in the direction of the City’s future as I think it is one worth presenting to the citizens for a direct vote.

Considering, that our last voter turnout rate was somewhere around 15%.

I don’t think more elections can be a good thing.

A good independent panel should grant projects, and money should go to a parks and affordable housing trust.

What I do believe is that the “Air Rights Sale” is a step in the right direction.

We are, as a community united for high-rise development in Downtown. We have broken the ignorance and misconception that suburban sprawl is the place to be.

We are tired of our City being choked by freeway traffic. Our City is losing it’s energy, it’s flavor, it’s boring, there is no place to go and nothing to do here.

We are a true city. A Vertical Wonderland. A place for walking, seeing, touching the senses. Things are going to change with this.

And I also think they should be able to build out to 3 miles instead of 2 within the Convention Center, much of Downtown has been left out as it is, like Chinatown, Figueroa USC area, and Westlake.

Fifteen percent of City voters is still more democratic than 15 votes Council Chamber votes.

Does anyone know what would happen if the City decided years from now to update the Convention Center to a taller structure? Would an Air Rights sale prohibit that?

I guess I was wrong about Herb Wesson. It looks like Herb says in the LA Times that he will side with the Council if a compromise is not made over the air -rights issue.

WoW!!!!

God only knows what is going on…..

Benjamin Pezzillo wrote: <i>Fifteen percent of City voters is still more democratic than 15 votes Council Chamber votes.</I>

Not only that, but even 15 percent of Angelenos can vote with a clean conscience. Council members care about who butters their bread.

15 percent voter turnout is a very disturbing thing.

Think about it, how many of those voters were Labor Union members, Public Employees, religious extremists, and other special interest groups ?

Probably a huge chunk, almost half, were people with financial and political ties to the campaign, ie. a voting machine, or a voting bloc.

If we have a shortage of educated, neutral, everyday people. Everything in politics will be extreme right, or extreme left, with no views in between.

It’ll be an endless parade of mudslinging, attack ads, and “shady campaign funds”. And whoever controls those “campaign funds” will win all.

We must get out and Vote in greater numbers.