Re: “Nachbar Says Continuing Is Council’s Call”
When talk began to circulate this morning that the proposed economic makeover in a southern Culver City neighborhood might abruptly end because the funding group has quit the project, Vice Mayor Andy Weissman stiffened his spine and said “no.”
Look for him to take a, or perhaps the, leading role in Monday evening’s 7 o’clock City Council meeting in salvaging a plan that has been the most talked about political topic in town since last year.
Mr. Weissman made a prediction.
“I think the Council likely will direct (city) staff to pursue some of those initiatives as part of the ongoing work program of community development,” he said.
“Why would it be dead?” he asked, almost incredulously.
“I am fairly confident it will not be dead” just because the Carlyle Group, which birthed the idea last year and has been funding all of the preliminary research, is selling its holdings and leaving town.
“There are elements in the visioning report that are, in my judgment, worthy of further consideration.
The more he thought about it, “I certainly hope it is not dead. I wouldn’t expect that it is.
“You never know, though. I don’t know what my colleagues are going to do.”
Billboard/large electrified graphics signs are not off the table yet. The threat of large electronic graphic signage is integral to the plan being presented tonight. If the council does not advise all parties, in writing, that no variances to our sign law will be given to anyone, and that the signage component must be removed from the proposal, there should be no discussion. Only when the threat of billboards/electrified graphics or any signage that requires a variance is removed can a discussion begin with the community about the other components of this proposal. I believe it should be rejected outright until everyone is in agreement there will be no signage component ever. Council should respect the will of the people who passed a sign ordinance to protect us from invasive advertising and ugly signs. We need a community discussion about any and all development with all community stakeholders, not just the moneyed folk, and only after we know that our laws will be respected.
I agree COMPLETELY with Laura. Suggesting that this is more than a plan to introduce billboards is a creative way of saying that the plan will install billboards in Culver City, something that I am sure most of us who live here do not want. If the council really wants to work with the community to bring about economic development in this neighborhood, take billboards off the table and we can all work together to create this plan. Until then, this has to be DOA.