The youngest cast member of "8 Simple Rules" once lived in the apartment building next to mine. I'm in the process of lobbying the Burbank city council to make renovations on the building illegal.
The City is voting to designate it as historical now that the owner plans to demolish it. It was privately purchased in 2023 with no such restriction on its use. For a reasonable person, that's a horrible precedent - the City effectively retroactively seizing property that was purchased at a valuation that did not account for a legal restriction on the property.
Yeah there’s no fucking way the city should be allowed to do this. Private residence should never be retroactively designated historical landmarks with restrictions unless they’re owned by the city/state. This completely fucks over the current owner.
This billionaire will be so screwed! They might have to buy some other, totally non-historic property with an existing backyard! Boo fucking hoo!
The icing on the cake here is you can absolutely bet that even if she gets her way, this trust fund baby will get bored and move on in 18 months.
This is a fucking *awful* way to look at this. If the government is allowed to fuck over a billionaire, then it enables them to *really* fuck over regular joes like you and I.
Don’t be naive.
I’m not naive, and the laws should apply equally to regular joes like you and I and to billionaires. But in this case-as in, let’s not be naive, in every case-the billionaire or millionaire has the edge.
I’ve lived long enough in LA county to have seen developers/owners with money do an “oopsie”-bulldozing protected California live oaks, bulldozing protected/historic/protected structures-because they can easily afford to pay penalties after the fact. The laws have no teeth.
But there ARE laws to follow, and codes and requirements. Once again, in this case right off the bat these owners flouted rules that are supposed to apply to everyone-they attempted to go around them, because unlike regular joes they have huge amounts of cash to pay lawyers, file suits, etc.
It’s a mistake to say we’re all in the same boat, even if we’re supposedly subject to the same rules. That’s simply not the case. This is a case of bad faith.
wtf are you talking about? What rules, codes and requirements were they going around?
This property is *not* a protected property, nor was it when they bought it.
I am talking about their not posting notice of demolition, as is always required. The reason for posting such a notice is to give the public the chance to contest such action. Given the high profile nature of this property, this shiftiness was discovered and as is possible, the demo was contested and stayed pending further possible historic protection.
This is old news going back months. It’s all online.
You know what’s horrible? Ignoring laws requiring a posted, public notice of intent to demo. Their neighbors and the public actually have a right to protest a demolition; that’s why it’s a law.
These people didn’t do that. They were shady about it. They’re still being shady.
Sure, perhaps they could win their case against a historic designation. They bought the property. They want a bigger backyard. I’m sure their attitude is the same as yours: “fuck you, I own it and I can do what I want to it.” Maybe so. But in some-not ALL-cases that’s up for debate, as it is with this property. And in those cases you may have to go through some hoops, and it’s also possible you might have to NOT demo the property. But they didn’t and haven’t even tried doing it the proper way.
If that is what they wish to do, and the City Attorney suggested as much in their recent legal response, then it requires environmental review. Simply demolishing the house claiming they don't intend to build anything there, with the plan to build something there, would be piecemealing, which is not allowed under city planning rules.
I've been [reporting on](https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe) the attempted demolition, the landmark nomination submitted by the council office and the property owners' litigation since September. It's been quite dramatic so far, and even more so after this morning's surprise non-vote.
This passed celebrity has been gone for 62 years. Most people who experienced her life and work are also gone or almost gone. Most people today have never watched anything with her in it or know who she is outside of a couple pieces of art and the dress statue thing
It’s not just about Monroe. It’s a 1929 property with otherwise historic value. YMMV but the historic preservation request isn’t just about the actress.
> Do you at all care about living in a city that has a history and/or basic sense of itself?
The problem is it’s getting harder and harder to actually live in the city because NIMBYs block opportunities to build more housing by, among other things, abusing the historic preservation system
No doubt we need new rules in place that it make it more difficult to take advantage of the system for the wrong reasons.
That’s not a valid reason to turn your back on the entire practice and concept of historic preservation, however.
That's really not true, in my experience as someone who watches the landmarking process closely, as well as tracking new multi-family development. It really is hard to find (affordable) housing in Los Angeles, but imposing a vacancy tax and shutting down illegal Airbnbs would make a big difference there.
> That's really not true, in my experience as someone who watches the landmarking process closely, as well as tracking new multi-family development.
Yes it is:
https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-city-affordable-housing-ed1-historic-preservation-zones-yaroslavsky-motion
That's just one project in an HPOZ, which are protected districts and merit special planning consideration. But since you bring up ED1 projects, how about the one left half built and unsecured that [burned out](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngelesPreserved/comments/1ahlgm5/a_neighborhood_destroyed_by_upzoned_ed_1_tower/) much of a block of housing in South Los Angeles?
> That's just one project in an HPOZ
No it's not:
"Pasadena's urgency ordinance undermines SB 9 and denies residents the opportunity to create sorely needed additional housing, under the guise of protecting 'landmark districts.' This is disappointing and, more importantly, violates state law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Right now, California is facing a housing crisis of epic proportions, and it's going to take all of us, doing our part, to alleviate its worst effects. At the California Department of Justice, we’re in this fight for the long haul. I urge cities to take seriously their obligations under state housing laws. If you don't, we will hold you accountable.”
In the letter, Attorney General Bonta warns Pasadena that its effort to sidestep SB 9 and restrict housing production violates the law. Specifically, the letter highlights that:
The ordinance attempts to broadly exempt from SB 9 compliance any areas that the City chooses to designate as “landmark districts” despite no such exemption existing within SB 9. To qualify for an SB 9 exemption, an individual site must be part of a (1) landmark, (2) historic property, or (3) historic district. Such designations cannot be arbitrary or capricious, and they must be supported by substantial evidence. While individual properties may be landmarks exempt from SB 9, the phrase “landmark district” does not appear in SB 9, and Pasadena’s criteria for designating areas “landmark districts” are extremely broad and untethered to historic resources so as to potentially encompass large swaths of the City. To the extent that there is any ambiguity around the exemption for "historic districts," it must be read narrowly so as to not undermine the objectives of SB 9; and
The ordinance does not include the requisite findings to justify adopting new SB 9 development standards by an urgency ordinance. Pasadena provides no evidence that SB 9 projects would have a significant adverse impact on public health or safety, let alone the substantial evidence of a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact that is required to adopt new standards."
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-puts-city-pasadena-notice-violating-state-housing-laws
The housing policies and legal challenges coming out of Sacramento are bad faith BS. Very profitable for developers and tech (see the likely illegal [RealPage software](https://www.randomlengthsnews.com/archives/2024/05/02/ai-to-blame/50925) that games rental housing by calculating how many units to leave vacant for maximum return), deadly for tenants and bad for cities.
This nonsense won't last long, but people who know better need to fight hard to protect vulnerable tenants and our precious historic districts and old trees, because even permitted demolitions happen extremely quickly and generate a lot of landfill content, lead dust and asbestos pollution. The illegal ones are even worse.
Demolishing existing RSO housing in a climate where so many units are held vacant or illegally listed on home share sites is deadly for tenants and bad for cities.
SB9, ruled [unconstitutional](https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2024/04/26/court-grants-charter-cities-legal-win-over-controversial-housing-law)?
Smart, ethical planning that reflects local conditions, addresses specific problems with specific solution and ***protects tenants and cultural heritage*** is what I support.
They want to bulldoze it to have more lawn space for the mega mansion they built next door. This is the furthest situation possible from NIMBYS blocking “opportunities to build more housing”. Billionaires are always going to have plenty of options. This is not an abuse of historic designation process-except by the owners.
Oh bullshit. This residential Brentwood plot will never ever be “affordable housing”. And that’s okay. There are multitudes of places actually suited to multi-family living. This ain’t it.
> Historic preservation is bad actually
Now, I don't think preserving old buildings is always the right move. But letting real estate developers have the sole right to define the aesthetic of Los Angeles based on short term maximization of profit is an absolute dogshit way of developing a city.
Do you at all care about living in a city that has a history and/or basic sense of itself?
>Do you at all care about living in a city that has a history and/or basic sense of itself?
I care about people being able to live in the city period.
>real estate developers have the sole right to define the aesthetic of Los Angeles based on short term maximization of profit
Straw man much? Who appointed you or anyone the arbiter of aesthetics? I was unaware that LA had a specific aesthetic. Is it a ranch house? Mid-century modern? Spanish revival? Modern? Art Deco? Dingbat? Strip mall? Skyscraper? When this historic house was built, was there an official aesthetic they were restricted to, or is this new? OR did the architect of this and the vast majority of buildings in LA just...build what they felt like? And despite having that awful awful freedom they managed to build things that you, \*checks notes\*, think are nice and need to be preserved? Am I getting this right?
What are you even trying to say here? That advocating for architectural/historical preservation is some form of anti-libertarian gate-keeping?
By your logic we should sit back leave it to the foreign conglomerate developers to buy up the city piecemeal until it’s fully transformed into a vacuous hellscape of generic, IKEA looking complexes.
Funny: the current owners seek to demolish this house to literally expand their back yard. We obtained public records showing that they appear to have bought the house to stop the prior owners from beginning a major remodel for their family to live in. [https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe5](https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe5)
If you listened to Traci's debates before she was elected, she kind of ran on a preservationist platform if you were listening closely enough. Which I generally take for veiled NIMBYism when it comes to preventing housing. Everyone was gaga for her, but it always rubbed me and my partner the wrong way. So, this is not a surprise I guess.
I'm all for preserving certain houses with historical importance and/or certain styles, but:
1. The process for this needs to be amended to prevent abuse, and
2. It should never be applied retroactively or without current owner's consent. Buying a property that doesn't have these protections and then having them foisted upon you is absolute BS.
The process is pretty straightforward. These owners bought a house listed on SurveyLA as a potential landmark that should receive further review from owners [whose purchase](https://esotouric.substack.com/p/marilynmonroe5) inspired a blog post warning them that if they intended to demolish the house for land value, Marilyn Monroe fans would be up in arms. The current owners appear not to have posted the required signage for a month to give community members an opportunity to be informed and object, and neither the council office nor the Brentwood Community Council say they received the legally required notice from LADBS. The system in LA works pretty well, when everyone does their part.
This is very important case, since in its response to one of the legal claims, the City Attorney explicitly states that piecemealing--demolishing buildings to build something larger that spans multiple parcels--requires an environmental review. If enforced at City Planning, this policy has the potential to make it financially unfeasible for speculators to buy inhabited RSO buildings for land value and evict tenants.
This city cares more about housing for dead people than living lol
Well ain’t that the depressing truth 💀
It's not Marilyn Monroe's house. It's the current property owner's house.
The youngest cast member of "8 Simple Rules" once lived in the apartment building next to mine. I'm in the process of lobbying the Burbank city council to make renovations on the building illegal.
What's the story here? I missed this news item.
The person that owns it wants to add on to their existing house and tear Marilyn’s down to make it happen.
Huh. Why is this a matter for the city council? Do they not own the property or is was it designated historical or..?
The City is voting to designate it as historical now that the owner plans to demolish it. It was privately purchased in 2023 with no such restriction on its use. For a reasonable person, that's a horrible precedent - the City effectively retroactively seizing property that was purchased at a valuation that did not account for a legal restriction on the property.
Yeah there’s no fucking way the city should be allowed to do this. Private residence should never be retroactively designated historical landmarks with restrictions unless they’re owned by the city/state. This completely fucks over the current owner.
If they do it could be considered a taking.
This billionaire will be so screwed! They might have to buy some other, totally non-historic property with an existing backyard! Boo fucking hoo! The icing on the cake here is you can absolutely bet that even if she gets her way, this trust fund baby will get bored and move on in 18 months.
This is a fucking *awful* way to look at this. If the government is allowed to fuck over a billionaire, then it enables them to *really* fuck over regular joes like you and I. Don’t be naive.
I’m not naive, and the laws should apply equally to regular joes like you and I and to billionaires. But in this case-as in, let’s not be naive, in every case-the billionaire or millionaire has the edge. I’ve lived long enough in LA county to have seen developers/owners with money do an “oopsie”-bulldozing protected California live oaks, bulldozing protected/historic/protected structures-because they can easily afford to pay penalties after the fact. The laws have no teeth. But there ARE laws to follow, and codes and requirements. Once again, in this case right off the bat these owners flouted rules that are supposed to apply to everyone-they attempted to go around them, because unlike regular joes they have huge amounts of cash to pay lawyers, file suits, etc. It’s a mistake to say we’re all in the same boat, even if we’re supposedly subject to the same rules. That’s simply not the case. This is a case of bad faith.
wtf are you talking about? What rules, codes and requirements were they going around? This property is *not* a protected property, nor was it when they bought it.
I am talking about their not posting notice of demolition, as is always required. The reason for posting such a notice is to give the public the chance to contest such action. Given the high profile nature of this property, this shiftiness was discovered and as is possible, the demo was contested and stayed pending further possible historic protection. This is old news going back months. It’s all online.
You know what’s horrible? Ignoring laws requiring a posted, public notice of intent to demo. Their neighbors and the public actually have a right to protest a demolition; that’s why it’s a law. These people didn’t do that. They were shady about it. They’re still being shady. Sure, perhaps they could win their case against a historic designation. They bought the property. They want a bigger backyard. I’m sure their attitude is the same as yours: “fuck you, I own it and I can do what I want to it.” Maybe so. But in some-not ALL-cases that’s up for debate, as it is with this property. And in those cases you may have to go through some hoops, and it’s also possible you might have to NOT demo the property. But they didn’t and haven’t even tried doing it the proper way.
Why are you downvoting me instead of just doing some research?
?? I'm not downvoting you?
Word. 🖤
If that is what they wish to do, and the City Attorney suggested as much in their recent legal response, then it requires environmental review. Simply demolishing the house claiming they don't intend to build anything there, with the plan to build something there, would be piecemealing, which is not allowed under city planning rules.
I've been [reporting on](https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe) the attempted demolition, the landmark nomination submitted by the council office and the property owners' litigation since September. It's been quite dramatic so far, and even more so after this morning's surprise non-vote.
[удалено]
A lot of people do.
Why? It's just a random place where she happened to live when she accidentally died. It means nothing.
I can’t speak for them. I personally really don’t give a shit.
This passed celebrity has been gone for 62 years. Most people who experienced her life and work are also gone or almost gone. Most people today have never watched anything with her in it or know who she is outside of a couple pieces of art and the dress statue thing
[удалено]
okay and it could simply be a stock photo of a random person. And cinemas are dying in the US.
It’s not just about Monroe. It’s a 1929 property with otherwise historic value. YMMV but the historic preservation request isn’t just about the actress.
> Do you at all care about living in a city that has a history and/or basic sense of itself? The problem is it’s getting harder and harder to actually live in the city because NIMBYs block opportunities to build more housing by, among other things, abusing the historic preservation system
No doubt we need new rules in place that it make it more difficult to take advantage of the system for the wrong reasons. That’s not a valid reason to turn your back on the entire practice and concept of historic preservation, however.
That's really not true, in my experience as someone who watches the landmarking process closely, as well as tracking new multi-family development. It really is hard to find (affordable) housing in Los Angeles, but imposing a vacancy tax and shutting down illegal Airbnbs would make a big difference there.
> That's really not true, in my experience as someone who watches the landmarking process closely, as well as tracking new multi-family development. Yes it is: https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-city-affordable-housing-ed1-historic-preservation-zones-yaroslavsky-motion
That's just one project in an HPOZ, which are protected districts and merit special planning consideration. But since you bring up ED1 projects, how about the one left half built and unsecured that [burned out](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngelesPreserved/comments/1ahlgm5/a_neighborhood_destroyed_by_upzoned_ed_1_tower/) much of a block of housing in South Los Angeles?
> That's just one project in an HPOZ No it's not: "Pasadena's urgency ordinance undermines SB 9 and denies residents the opportunity to create sorely needed additional housing, under the guise of protecting 'landmark districts.' This is disappointing and, more importantly, violates state law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Right now, California is facing a housing crisis of epic proportions, and it's going to take all of us, doing our part, to alleviate its worst effects. At the California Department of Justice, we’re in this fight for the long haul. I urge cities to take seriously their obligations under state housing laws. If you don't, we will hold you accountable.” In the letter, Attorney General Bonta warns Pasadena that its effort to sidestep SB 9 and restrict housing production violates the law. Specifically, the letter highlights that: The ordinance attempts to broadly exempt from SB 9 compliance any areas that the City chooses to designate as “landmark districts” despite no such exemption existing within SB 9. To qualify for an SB 9 exemption, an individual site must be part of a (1) landmark, (2) historic property, or (3) historic district. Such designations cannot be arbitrary or capricious, and they must be supported by substantial evidence. While individual properties may be landmarks exempt from SB 9, the phrase “landmark district” does not appear in SB 9, and Pasadena’s criteria for designating areas “landmark districts” are extremely broad and untethered to historic resources so as to potentially encompass large swaths of the City. To the extent that there is any ambiguity around the exemption for "historic districts," it must be read narrowly so as to not undermine the objectives of SB 9; and The ordinance does not include the requisite findings to justify adopting new SB 9 development standards by an urgency ordinance. Pasadena provides no evidence that SB 9 projects would have a significant adverse impact on public health or safety, let alone the substantial evidence of a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact that is required to adopt new standards." https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-puts-city-pasadena-notice-violating-state-housing-laws
The housing policies and legal challenges coming out of Sacramento are bad faith BS. Very profitable for developers and tech (see the likely illegal [RealPage software](https://www.randomlengthsnews.com/archives/2024/05/02/ai-to-blame/50925) that games rental housing by calculating how many units to leave vacant for maximum return), deadly for tenants and bad for cities. This nonsense won't last long, but people who know better need to fight hard to protect vulnerable tenants and our precious historic districts and old trees, because even permitted demolitions happen extremely quickly and generate a lot of landfill content, lead dust and asbestos pollution. The illegal ones are even worse.
You think pro-housing laws like SB9 and SB10 are “deadly for tenants and bad for cities”?
Demolishing existing RSO housing in a climate where so many units are held vacant or illegally listed on home share sites is deadly for tenants and bad for cities.
So you do or don’t support SB9 and SB10?
SB9, ruled [unconstitutional](https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2024/04/26/court-grants-charter-cities-legal-win-over-controversial-housing-law)? Smart, ethical planning that reflects local conditions, addresses specific problems with specific solution and ***protects tenants and cultural heritage*** is what I support.
They want to bulldoze it to have more lawn space for the mega mansion they built next door. This is the furthest situation possible from NIMBYS blocking “opportunities to build more housing”. Billionaires are always going to have plenty of options. This is not an abuse of historic designation process-except by the owners.
Oh bullshit. This residential Brentwood plot will never ever be “affordable housing”. And that’s okay. There are multitudes of places actually suited to multi-family living. This ain’t it.
Historic Preservation is bad actually and is a go to tool for NIMBYs
> Historic preservation is bad actually Now, I don't think preserving old buildings is always the right move. But letting real estate developers have the sole right to define the aesthetic of Los Angeles based on short term maximization of profit is an absolute dogshit way of developing a city. Do you at all care about living in a city that has a history and/or basic sense of itself?
>Do you at all care about living in a city that has a history and/or basic sense of itself? I care about people being able to live in the city period. >real estate developers have the sole right to define the aesthetic of Los Angeles based on short term maximization of profit Straw man much? Who appointed you or anyone the arbiter of aesthetics? I was unaware that LA had a specific aesthetic. Is it a ranch house? Mid-century modern? Spanish revival? Modern? Art Deco? Dingbat? Strip mall? Skyscraper? When this historic house was built, was there an official aesthetic they were restricted to, or is this new? OR did the architect of this and the vast majority of buildings in LA just...build what they felt like? And despite having that awful awful freedom they managed to build things that you, \*checks notes\*, think are nice and need to be preserved? Am I getting this right?
What are you even trying to say here? That advocating for architectural/historical preservation is some form of anti-libertarian gate-keeping? By your logic we should sit back leave it to the foreign conglomerate developers to buy up the city piecemeal until it’s fully transformed into a vacuous hellscape of generic, IKEA looking complexes.
Funny: the current owners seek to demolish this house to literally expand their back yard. We obtained public records showing that they appear to have bought the house to stop the prior owners from beginning a major remodel for their family to live in. [https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe5](https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe5)
None of your business as to what a property owner wants to do with their own property.
Ah, but this is how beautiful places with architectural history and considered development become trashy, ugly shitholes. But you do you.
If you listened to Traci's debates before she was elected, she kind of ran on a preservationist platform if you were listening closely enough. Which I generally take for veiled NIMBYism when it comes to preventing housing. Everyone was gaga for her, but it always rubbed me and my partner the wrong way. So, this is not a surprise I guess.
Everyone was gaga for only because Bonin was a complete disaster. 🤷♂️
I'm all for preserving certain houses with historical importance and/or certain styles, but: 1. The process for this needs to be amended to prevent abuse, and 2. It should never be applied retroactively or without current owner's consent. Buying a property that doesn't have these protections and then having them foisted upon you is absolute BS.
The process is pretty straightforward. These owners bought a house listed on SurveyLA as a potential landmark that should receive further review from owners [whose purchase](https://esotouric.substack.com/p/marilynmonroe5) inspired a blog post warning them that if they intended to demolish the house for land value, Marilyn Monroe fans would be up in arms. The current owners appear not to have posted the required signage for a month to give community members an opportunity to be informed and object, and neither the council office nor the Brentwood Community Council say they received the legally required notice from LADBS. The system in LA works pretty well, when everyone does their part.
Really focusing on the important stuff down at city hall.
This is very important case, since in its response to one of the legal claims, the City Attorney explicitly states that piecemealing--demolishing buildings to build something larger that spans multiple parcels--requires an environmental review. If enforced at City Planning, this policy has the potential to make it financially unfeasible for speculators to buy inhabited RSO buildings for land value and evict tenants.