Professor’s Conclusions on NIMBYs are Disputed

* I am afraid it is Professor Kanner who is “bananas” (“When NIMBY Craziness Goes Bananas,” Valley Commentary, Dec. 5). His diatribe against homeowners’ hypocrisy is a blatant--and hypocritical--call to class warfare.

Must the word suburbanite always be associated with the pejorative wealthy ? In my admittedly upscale neighborhood, few homeowners are “sitting on $500,000 paper equities.” Most are working hard to afford family life in a safe, quiet neighborhood. Isn’t that every parent’s goal? How does the pursuit of this goal “dump burdens on society” or “screw everybody else,” as Kanner suggests?

The most offensive notion in the professor’s article is the Orwellian suggestion that it is somehow undemocratic for suburbanites to “vote in large numbers . . . in an era of declining voter turnouts.”

Sounds to me like we owe suburban homeowners thanks for their participation in our civic life, rather than the accusations of “greed and abuse” flung about so irresponsibly by Professor Kanner.

HOWARD SCHNEIDER

Northridge

* If Professor Kanner had bothered to read the depositions he refers to in the Warner Ridge case, and not just the titillating newspaper accounts of them, he would have learned that my decision to oppose the commercial zoning was based on sound planning principles.

In 1982, Warner Ridge neighbors came together to oppose the proposed building of condominiums on the site. I agreed with them and suggested to the Planning Department that single-family homes would be more suitable for the property and would blend in better with the surrounding community. The Planning Department, ignoring its City Charter-assigned responsibilities, turned into economic forecasters and determined that single-family homes would not be economically feasible.

The department acted irresponsibly. There is no commercial zoning east of De Soto, whereas Warner Center, west of De Soto, is designed for it. Warner Ridge was then and continues to be an unwarranted intrusion into a neighborhood of stable single-family homes. No wonder the homeowners were angry. They should be! Commercial zoning on Warner Ridge only made sense to those who could profit from it.

Unlike the professor, I consider the rise of effective homeowner organizations a positive benefit of the 1980s. Without them, the influence of developers was unopposed. Homeowner involvement and activism gave rise to reasonable limits and the protection of neighborhoods. In a democracy, the citizen is the winner when decisions are made after all sides are fully heard.

JOY PICUS

Woodland Hills

Picus represented the 3rd District on the Los Angeles City Council from 1977 to 1993.