Lots of knowledgeable-looking, well-dressed types — including Steve Rose — last night were milling around the mid-sized Dan Patacchia Room off Council Chambers at City Hall.
The scene was rather impressive.
After enduring years of criticism that community members were being denied valued input on Redevelopment Agency projects, City Hall opened its arms a few summers ago and pledged that residents would be granted an influential voice every time.
Ergo, last night.
Roaming among the competing sets of building plans proposed by the four finalists in the Developer Sweepstakes to build on the Parcel B property in front of The Culver Hotel, they were talking sotto voce, the way art patrons do when they pause before a classic painting in the vast, largely empty, room of a gallery.
Were it not for the sake of good manners, who would have guessed that this was actually amateur night, that the only building most in this crowd ever had done was to walk by one?
They probably didn’t know more about erecting a mixed use structure on an expensive commercial Downtown lot than the boy at Ralphs who bagged your groceries this morning.
In three weeks, on Monday, Nov. 14, the City Council-Redevelopment Agency is scheduled to choose the lucky developer from among four dramatically different sets of plans.
How strongly will the assertions and opinions that streamed from residents last night influence the outcome?
A prominent person with answers is Mr. Rose a two-term former City Councilman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce.
A lone wolf Republican in a Democrat community, amateur and professional, he has been through these scenes from both sides of the Influence Line.
Question: Why was Mr. Rose among the roamers in the Patacchia Room?
“I am looking for a viable project that will be sustainable and return dollars to the city to enhance Downtown by making it a shopping destination.”
Do you have a favorite among the four designs?
“No.”
What do you like about any of them?
“Each one brings a different mix of retail and architectural feelings that move each project in a different manner.”
Mr. Rose’s most candid views swiftly were about to bubble through the surface. Truth was about to detonate.
The tone was about to make a sharp swerve.
Shrewdly scanning the crunchingly crowded room, Mr. Rose turned back to his inquisitor and said:
“The public is putting their emotional and architectural feelings into this, but at least 60 percent of the final decision has to be made from the financial end, which is closed off from the public until the final choice is made.”
Therefore, was it worthwhile of the city to invite residents in for a close-up inspection and to offer their opinions?
“It keeps the natives happy.
“It allows the community to feel as if they are giving their input on the likings of one architectural style over another.”
Will the public’s voices be heard?
“It depends on which one you like best, and whether the Council chooses yours. If one of the two you like is picked by the Council, your voice has been heard. If not, then it hasn’t been, right?”
Is this inspection/speak-out event a worthwhile exercise?
“Yes, if the people realize government is a representative democracy. They don’t make the final choices. The election officials do.”
