I strongly disagree with the newspaper’s position on the Entrada Office Tower Project for several reasons.
1. Even the City Council members who voted not to bring the matter up again with the new
City Council agree that the proposed building is an ugly eyesore.
2. There is a lawsuit to halt the project as it now stands by an organization known as the United Neighbors of the Westside. My understanding is that the Carlyle Group, the parent company of the Entrada’s developers, would pay for any legal expenses incurred by the city involving
this development.
City Councilman Andrew Weisman has expressed strong doubts and concerns about having the Carlyle Group represent the city in court.
So there is the strong likelihood
that the taxpayers in Culver City will have to pay for legal fees for the City Council to defend
a position that was opposed by a majority of Culver City residents.
3. The idea that a property owner should be allowed to develop his or her property any way he wants to is absurd. If a development diminishes the value of a neighbor’s property, causes environmental hazards to the community at-large or adds huge expenses to be borne by the community, that development should not be allowed. “Your freedom ends where mine begins.”
4. Southern California has in the last two decades allowed development to run wild, and we are beginning to pay the price for it. Developers have been allowed to build housing tracts in former wilderness areas and in coastal areas where flood or earthquake damage is highly probable. The taxpayers at-large have to pick up the tab for fire protection service and insurance costs.
5. We live in the desert, and we are running out of water. As huge developments continue to be
built that deplete our open space, decrease the water supply to everybody else and raise the
surrounding temperatures by pouring cement everywhere and erecting huge glass and steel
towers; at the same time our government officials are imploring us to conserve water by taking shorter showers, emptying our swimming pools and cease watering our lawns. In Las Vegas, buildings no longer will have green grass surrounding them but sand and cement. This, of course raises the surrounding temperatures even more.
6. The Southern California Assn. of Governments predicts that L.A. County’s population will increase by 2.5 million people in the next 20 years To meet the needs of this population increase, the entire infrastructure of L.A. County would have to be rebuilt.
Who will benefit from this population increase?
1. Politicians
2. Developers
The rest of the population will see
higher taxes, higher costs for police and fire protection, higher costs for government services.
Higher utility costs and less open space and
Will mean good-bye to the single family home.
As I write this, Gov. Dumbkopf and his chief advisor, former Gov. Pete Wilson,
are dreaming up ways to raise taxes and fees to help pay for all the infrastructure repairs
needed to welcome all of the new arrivals.
It was even suggested that new housing developments be equipped with “message centers” so that government officials in Sacramento could inform common citizens how long they could water their lawn or use a shower.
Our politicians have professed an interest in helping “the most vulnerable citizens in our midst.”
The Imperiled Class
The middle class, or what is left of it in L.A. County, is, in my view, the most vulnerable.
They are the ones leaving L.A. The denizens of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Pacific Palisades can sit and drink their five-dollar lattes and think that everything is dandy.
The general population of $10 an hour workers who have no health insurance, no chance of owning a home or getting an education, will demand services that somebody else is going to have to pay for.
We need politicians and leaders who think of the long run. What kind of world do they want to leave their children and grandchildren?
One of the leading proponents of the Entrada (and every other development proposed in Culver City) said that government should be run like a retail business.
Differences
My view of that idea is the owner of a retail business is the boss, and he can fire any of the
help that disagrees. In government, you have other elected officials who may or may
not agree with you, so you have to build a consensus in order to accomplish anything.
A retailer has goods that are either perishable or are costing money to keep in a store or warehouse. Politicians and public officials are supposed to provide services to all of the general public.
Finally, I want to suggest that our public servants may want to read an excellent article in the Feb. 29 edition of L.A. Weekly entitled “Bitter Homes and Gardens,” by Steven Leigh Morris
or “City Hall's Density Hawks Are Quietly Changing L.A.’s DNA.”
It may be too late to stop the Entrada monster, but it’s not too late for our officials to give
serious thought to how they want to see the city develop in the next decade.
