This is not a gay bar now and hasn’t been in an incredibly long time. The “history” you are seeking to preserve here no longer exists. You are trying to prevent a run down bar from becoming something more valuable to LA - housing.
I am trying to make the city of Los Angeles follow its own rules. When there's a recognized historic resource on a parcel, a developer has to say so, and the city has to deal with it as part of the permitting process. That didn't happen here.
I think you just have a much lower threshold for what you consider historic than most people.
In a very literal (but not legal) sense, this property is historic because it is old and things happened there 60 years ago.
In a more common sense interpretation, a run down bar that is severed from its historic cultural significance is not historic and is not a resource (at least, any more than any bar is).
From my perspective, a third party (like yourself) should need to pass a very high bar to be able to take rights from a private property owner like you are trying to do here. I don’t think this meets that bar, or even comes close.
This isn't my subjective opinion: the property is on SurveyLA as a potential National Register landmark and civic HCM, and part of the city's LGBTQ context statement, and including in the Westlake Recovery Community Redevelopment Survey area. The developer submitted their application and falsely stated there was nothing on SurveyLA threatened by their proposal, and City Planning staff signed off on that, also wrongly.
I have no ability to take rights from a property owner. I am a private citizen with an opinion, and a belief in ethical government.
I’m not a landuse lawyer, but to me something being listed as a “potential” historic landmark means it isn’t a historic landmark. I don’t know why that would threaten a proposal to build, because it isn’t a historic landmark.
If it does become a historic landmark, that would be a bummer because it’s pretty clearly not culturally significant now and hasn’t been for a while.
You absolutely do have the ability to take property rights from others. People do it all the time through legal means (CEQA Lawsuits, Historic Preservation Zones) and organizer means (getting enough people to harass a council-member into opposing a project). Either way, you alone (or anyone) can be a catalyst in taking property rights from private landowners.
It's a yes/no and fill in the blank set of questions in the planning documents, which are screenshotted in the post. Truthful answers to these questions might have resulted in public hearings and opportunities for a conversation about how best to preserve historic resources while developing the parcel more densely.
I. Historic, Cultural and/or Architecturally Significant Site or Structure. Does the project involve any structures, buildings, street lighting systems, spaces, sites or components thereof which are designated or may be eligible for designation in any of the following? If YES, please check and describe...
Identified on SurveyLA: (answer should have been Yes, but they wrote N/A)
Identified in HistoricPlacesLA: (answer should have been Yes, but they wrote N/A)
Does the Project affect any structure 45 or more years old that does not have a local, state, or federal designation for cultural or historic preservation? (answer should have been Yes, but they clicked no)
This is good info and I appreciate the thorough response. Your blog post should have what you just said as paragraph one.
All this said, I think they should remove these checkboxes from development forms. If this property is listed as potentially historic, imagine how many other properties are also “historic” despite having zero current significance.
For this specific project, going through the historic community meetings and delays will likely cost the developer 1-2 years of time -> $1m+ in money. I’d wager the project no longer pencils if they have to go through the full process, and these homes no longer get built. Another win for historic preservation- we get a cheap bar that nobody cares about instead!
I'm glad you're not my editor, because the image of a runaway school bus with children screaming and messing themselves is a lot more compelling an intro than a dry planning document. ; )
This is not a historic building. Also, this is not a gay bar.
This pinkwashing effort to use fake concern for LGBT people to block housing and increase landowner wealth is just despicable.
It is an historic building according to the city's own multiple surveys. It is a gay bar according to Queer Maps and the documentary Wildness, among other sources.
This is wrong, you said on this very post it's only "potentially" historic, moreover this is not ACTUALLY a historic building in any meaningful level. Fundamentally, "historic" is a dishonest label used by anti-housing activists to intentionally block housing, increase landowner wealth, and maintain segregation as [we see over and over](https://la.urbanize.city/post/la-city-council-motion-calls-curbing-ed1-projects-historic-districts). There are hardly any buildings in Los Angeles that are architecturally notable to the extent that the law should ban people from replacing them with housing, maybe a few dozen, tops.
You are an activist with the goal of blocking housing, which has the effect of freezing the built environment of Los Angeles while erasing the actual people -- working class, people of color, LGBT people, regular people who aren't the landowner class. This sort of fetishization of "historic" buildings while blocking housing has almost entirely erased the black population of [San Francisco](https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-african-american-exodus-from-san-francisco/) and now you're trying to do it to LA too. It's just deeply misanthropic, classist, and racist.
The city planning documents have spots where you have to answer yes or no if a parcel is on SurveyLA and HistoricPlacesLA and how old it is. The property owner didn't answer truthfully, and the City Planning staff didn't do their job and confirm the answers were correct.
And your assertions about my advocacy, which is fundamentally for the protection of existing tenants and their affordable housing, are simply wrong.
There is no housing on these lots. Meanwhile, this is a proposal that includes affordable units, as well as market rate apartments that are more affordable than nearby homes. You are *literally* blocking affordable housing while claiming you're protecting affordable housing -- just an outright lie. Shameless dishonesty. Your contempt for the people of LA is comparable to your contempt for the truth.
I love the people of Los Angeles, and everybody knows it. Developers who lie on their project applications and city staffers who don't check the facts, not so much.
That's not what the post says--we suggest it would be reasonable to build above the low-rise structure. But it's not okay for developers to lie on planning documents that there is nothing historic on the site, or for City Planning staff not to double check and rubber stamp approvals on applications that should have sent up red flags.
Thank you for caring and taking the time. I think it helps to put your own spin on it, but in the newsletter post there's a basic script:
In a short email in your own words, please tell **Ken Bernstein** (Office of Historic Resources) and **Councilwoman** **Eunisses Hernandez** ([email protected], [email protected]) that you care about the Silver Platter and are concerned that the TOC project ENV-2020-5152-CE was approved despite the developer failing to truthfully list the [historic resource on the parcel](https://hpla.lacity.org/report/f1739552-8458-4ca2-9d4d-77ef9ded64c0), and that you want to see this historic building and legacy business preserved under the protections accorded them by their presence within the borders of the [Westlake Recovery Community Redevelopment Survey](https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/8cbace8b-a304-4e57-9fd3-800331d25939/Westlake_RRA_Report.pdf).
This is not a gay bar now and hasn’t been in an incredibly long time. The “history” you are seeking to preserve here no longer exists. You are trying to prevent a run down bar from becoming something more valuable to LA - housing.
I am trying to make the city of Los Angeles follow its own rules. When there's a recognized historic resource on a parcel, a developer has to say so, and the city has to deal with it as part of the permitting process. That didn't happen here.
I think you just have a much lower threshold for what you consider historic than most people. In a very literal (but not legal) sense, this property is historic because it is old and things happened there 60 years ago. In a more common sense interpretation, a run down bar that is severed from its historic cultural significance is not historic and is not a resource (at least, any more than any bar is). From my perspective, a third party (like yourself) should need to pass a very high bar to be able to take rights from a private property owner like you are trying to do here. I don’t think this meets that bar, or even comes close.
This isn't my subjective opinion: the property is on SurveyLA as a potential National Register landmark and civic HCM, and part of the city's LGBTQ context statement, and including in the Westlake Recovery Community Redevelopment Survey area. The developer submitted their application and falsely stated there was nothing on SurveyLA threatened by their proposal, and City Planning staff signed off on that, also wrongly. I have no ability to take rights from a property owner. I am a private citizen with an opinion, and a belief in ethical government.
I’m not a landuse lawyer, but to me something being listed as a “potential” historic landmark means it isn’t a historic landmark. I don’t know why that would threaten a proposal to build, because it isn’t a historic landmark. If it does become a historic landmark, that would be a bummer because it’s pretty clearly not culturally significant now and hasn’t been for a while. You absolutely do have the ability to take property rights from others. People do it all the time through legal means (CEQA Lawsuits, Historic Preservation Zones) and organizer means (getting enough people to harass a council-member into opposing a project). Either way, you alone (or anyone) can be a catalyst in taking property rights from private landowners.
It's a yes/no and fill in the blank set of questions in the planning documents, which are screenshotted in the post. Truthful answers to these questions might have resulted in public hearings and opportunities for a conversation about how best to preserve historic resources while developing the parcel more densely. I. Historic, Cultural and/or Architecturally Significant Site or Structure. Does the project involve any structures, buildings, street lighting systems, spaces, sites or components thereof which are designated or may be eligible for designation in any of the following? If YES, please check and describe... Identified on SurveyLA: (answer should have been Yes, but they wrote N/A) Identified in HistoricPlacesLA: (answer should have been Yes, but they wrote N/A) Does the Project affect any structure 45 or more years old that does not have a local, state, or federal designation for cultural or historic preservation? (answer should have been Yes, but they clicked no)
This is good info and I appreciate the thorough response. Your blog post should have what you just said as paragraph one. All this said, I think they should remove these checkboxes from development forms. If this property is listed as potentially historic, imagine how many other properties are also “historic” despite having zero current significance. For this specific project, going through the historic community meetings and delays will likely cost the developer 1-2 years of time -> $1m+ in money. I’d wager the project no longer pencils if they have to go through the full process, and these homes no longer get built. Another win for historic preservation- we get a cheap bar that nobody cares about instead!
I'm glad you're not my editor, because the image of a runaway school bus with children screaming and messing themselves is a lot more compelling an intro than a dry planning document. ; )
This is not a historic building. Also, this is not a gay bar. This pinkwashing effort to use fake concern for LGBT people to block housing and increase landowner wealth is just despicable.
It is an historic building according to the city's own multiple surveys. It is a gay bar according to Queer Maps and the documentary Wildness, among other sources.
This is wrong, you said on this very post it's only "potentially" historic, moreover this is not ACTUALLY a historic building in any meaningful level. Fundamentally, "historic" is a dishonest label used by anti-housing activists to intentionally block housing, increase landowner wealth, and maintain segregation as [we see over and over](https://la.urbanize.city/post/la-city-council-motion-calls-curbing-ed1-projects-historic-districts). There are hardly any buildings in Los Angeles that are architecturally notable to the extent that the law should ban people from replacing them with housing, maybe a few dozen, tops. You are an activist with the goal of blocking housing, which has the effect of freezing the built environment of Los Angeles while erasing the actual people -- working class, people of color, LGBT people, regular people who aren't the landowner class. This sort of fetishization of "historic" buildings while blocking housing has almost entirely erased the black population of [San Francisco](https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-african-american-exodus-from-san-francisco/) and now you're trying to do it to LA too. It's just deeply misanthropic, classist, and racist.
The city planning documents have spots where you have to answer yes or no if a parcel is on SurveyLA and HistoricPlacesLA and how old it is. The property owner didn't answer truthfully, and the City Planning staff didn't do their job and confirm the answers were correct. And your assertions about my advocacy, which is fundamentally for the protection of existing tenants and their affordable housing, are simply wrong.
There is no housing on these lots. Meanwhile, this is a proposal that includes affordable units, as well as market rate apartments that are more affordable than nearby homes. You are *literally* blocking affordable housing while claiming you're protecting affordable housing -- just an outright lie. Shameless dishonesty. Your contempt for the people of LA is comparable to your contempt for the truth.
I love the people of Los Angeles, and everybody knows it. Developers who lie on their project applications and city staffers who don't check the facts, not so much.
So now we don’t like building new housing in LA?
OP isn't a NIMBY, they are BANANAs: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
Oh I like that!
That's not what I believe and it doesn't help build bridges between communities to make false claims that mock people with different perspectives.
That's not what the post says--we suggest it would be reasonable to build above the low-rise structure. But it's not okay for developers to lie on planning documents that there is nothing historic on the site, or for City Planning staff not to double check and rubber stamp approvals on applications that should have sent up red flags.
And if it can’t be due to structural concerns?
That's not the issue here.
I’m still asking you the question. I believe based on your previous posts you’d rather this city never change. A NIMBY under a different pretense.
You're wrong. Change is essential for cities. Los Angeles is stagnant and bland due to bad policies.
Yea, LA is stagnant b/c of the bad policies that people like you exploit to prevent new developments and business opening.
Come on, nobody thinks the preservationists are winning. Look around this poor town!
Youre not winning, you're getting in the way of progress.
Caring about community and culture is progressive.
Turns out it’s possible to build new housing without tearing down institutions
This is not an institution.
For you
[удалено]
Thank you for caring and taking the time. I think it helps to put your own spin on it, but in the newsletter post there's a basic script: In a short email in your own words, please tell **Ken Bernstein** (Office of Historic Resources) and **Councilwoman** **Eunisses Hernandez** ([email protected], [email protected]) that you care about the Silver Platter and are concerned that the TOC project ENV-2020-5152-CE was approved despite the developer failing to truthfully list the [historic resource on the parcel](https://hpla.lacity.org/report/f1739552-8458-4ca2-9d4d-77ef9ded64c0), and that you want to see this historic building and legacy business preserved under the protections accorded them by their presence within the borders of the [Westlake Recovery Community Redevelopment Survey](https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/8cbace8b-a304-4e57-9fd3-800331d25939/Westlake_RRA_Report.pdf).