Take a meandering drive down 50 percent scenic Globe Avenue on a cool, sunny early spring morning.
A traditional-looking neighborhood, except that middle-class families live, unperturbed, along the western perimeter, while a string of properties across the street remains in a condemned, partitioned-off state on the east side.
Nonetheless, the view is soulfully serene, just as you would expect of a tree-lined miniature street that merely reaches from Washington Boulevard on the south to Washington Place on the north. Only 4 1/2 chirping birds (one was pregnant) punctured the tranquility.
Then think back to the neighborly protest over an intended action at last night’s City Council meeting. You may want to scratch your head with both hands, simultaneously.
What were the neighbors griping about?
The Redevelopment Agency has been charged with deciding the fate of eight modest freeway-adjacent properties that City Hall acquired before the widening of the 405 Freeway could begin.
The issue was unclouded:
Should the Agency endure the greater expense of rehabilitating these stripped-down, pocket-sized properties?
Or, should it conserve money by razing the buildings and putting up new structures?
To some parties, the distinction was obvious.
The Result Is in-Hand
Either way, the properties are tagged for “affordable housing,” and condos for a dozen or more families are scheduled to be erected on this fenced-off land.
Therefore, the outcome is known in advance. Only the methodology is to be determined.
What is to debate?
What looked like a black-and-white subject lingeringly descended into a fuzzy gray puddle.
A puzzling parade of protestors, followed by a ziz-zagging discussion among downsized members of the Redevelopment Agency, resulted in a no-decision evening.
With only four Agency members seated, three votes were needed for a verdict.
(Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger recused himself from the debate because staffers linked the potential but aborted awarding of a demolition contract for Globe Avenue to a separate property near the law office of Mr. Silbiger.)
The debate dissolved into a familiar pairing, Mayor Scott Malsin and Andy Weissman, Chair of the Agency, on one team, in sharp disagreement with Chris Armenta and Mehaul O’Leary on the other.
Mr. Weissman made his position clear, tear down and rebuild, the sooner the better, especially given that advocates argue there is strong need for affordable housing within Culver City..
In addition to the numerous deficiencies found on each plot of land — for example, driveways are of sub-standard width — “rehabbing does not make sense,” Mr. Weissman said.
Physically and economically, it is smarter to start over, he said, because the structures will be more reliable and cost less.
While Mr. Malsin concurred with Mr. Weissman, Mr. Armenta wondered why the decision had to be made at this juncture.
He was not ready to vote.
Neither was Mr. O’Leary.
He said that not only did he need more information about the plan, the protesting neighbors’ wishes should at least be weighed if not obeyed.
Change in Agenda
A significant change in the agenda for the Monday, March 30, 7 o’clock Town Hall meeting in Council Chambers was argued and agreed upon.
A lengthy debate of City Hall’s budget was intended to be the showcase subject, but partisans managed to drop it to the bottom of the agenda “if there is time.”
Instead, the years-long dispute over the preferred form of public notification was moved to the top of the agenda.
