“Community Benefits,” the sweet-sounding bait City Hall is dangling beneath the noses of developers who want to exceed the city’s downsized height and density limits, may be the worst dream-up since the Edsel was introduced 50 years ago by Ford.
The terminology and the description are sufficiently vague, sufficiently tantalizing, to sound more like the way the concept was intended to appear than the way it actually may be.
The “community benefits” provision appears to have been drawn up to resemble an equally weighted compromise that would satisfy protesting residents without discouraging once and future builders.
How Even Is It?
Is that really the case? Considering that in politics and in real life, “impression” almost always trumps reality, it deserves closer inspection.
Confidently and correctly, activists are celebrating the second biggest populist victory of the year, which, for the moment, rates just behind the spectacular blocking of the South Sepulveda rebuild in impact.
Activists won the taffy pull for having the reconfigured mixed-use ordinance tilted in their direction, a trajectory that has looked inevitable ever since “community benefits” entered the public dialogue 90 days ago.
Who Was Asking for Relief?
The evidence is ubiquitous. Most activists stayed home from Monday night’s City Council meeting when the ordinance was to be kneaded into its semi-final shape. They already had what they wanted. Nothing to protest. Don’t tinker with perfection.
I cannot remember the last Monday night when a redevelopment or development agenda item —whatever Councilman Steve Rose wants to call it — drew twice as many builders as residents to the speaker podium. Usually, that is a reliable barometer for determining who is winning and who is losing.
A Bank Account Threat?
Another dependable indicator was the repeatedly reinforced conviction of perhaps City Hall’s most respected financial analyst that Culver City property values will gradually recede if the ordinance, as expected, leads to noticeably smaller development projects.
As the ordinance stands, if builders agree to provide open space/pocket park or room for public parking or streetscaping or underground utilities, they will be permitted to develop a complexly prescribed larger building.
Another Viewpoint
A man recently in the news disagrees that the benefits concept is a downer.
“‘Community benefits’ is a really good idea,” says the developer Joey Miller, especially for builders of large projects. “It also will encourage more people to interact with CityHall.” He commended Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld and staff “for putting so much thought into the ordinance.” That opinion seems to be the dominant sentiment across the community.
Mr. Miller is familiar with striking a compromise with City Hall in order to quell the neighbors. Between July and September, Mr. Miller and his partner were forced to make numerous modifications in their proposal for the southwest corner of Culver Boulevard and Duquesne before the City Council would certify the project.
No matter how often the concept is invoked, policing the bonus portion — and then gaining community approval for it — will exponentially increase the needless headaches for any developer daring enough to make the offer.
A Long, Long Process
Surely you don’t think that an adventurous developer is going to choose one of the “community benefits” options and then earn the near-term support of the neighbors for his generosity anytime soon, do you?
Not in this climate, pal.
Over the summer, out on the streets, you could feel the irresistible breezes of populist empowerment rippling through the neighborhoods. Their increasingly muscular confidence is swelling, almost by the hour.
Momentum Building
If you doubt, read Tom Camarella’s letter in today’s edition. Eagerly, the people are warming up. They are gunning their motors, and momentum is on their side.
Keep an eye on balance of power. It is liable to be the largest casualty in this perilous adventure.
Let’s say that a builder’s notion of “community benefits” is to provide 40 metered public parking spaces. Say, 75. Do you think either of those numbers will pass community muster before your children become grandparents?
Here Come the Arguments
Or, for instance, what if the developer offers to provide a pocket park? Should it be this size or another size? How should it be stocked? Those arguments could make the Hundred Years’ War look like a City Council meeting.
If, as some people insist, a community head count should be taken before each change is enacted, the magnificent improvements of the past decade may never be repeated.