Ventura Blvd. Specific Plan

* Re “Land-Use Rules, Courts Boost Housing Costs,” June 23.

Law Professor Emeritus Gideon Kanner’s “Second Opinion” facts regarding the Woodman / Ventura Canyon block on Ventura Boulevard are askew and denigrating . . . but isn’t that the way too many lawyers perform?

As a member of the committee that helped defeat builder [Jacky] Gamliel’s illegal attempts to thwart the law, I’m happy to straighten Kanner out. At no time did the homeowners committee tell Gamliel not to build. His three-story glass building didn’t fit the community. He promised changes, but never delivered. He tried to circumvent the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan.

Kanner sneers at then-City Councilman Michael Woo for helping to stop Gamliel’s proposed building. Doesn’t Kanner know politicians are supposed to be servants of their constituencies, not their bosses? When Woo saw the signatures of some 1,000 residents who didn’t like the plans, he did what he had to do. Kanner obviously doesn’t believe in democracy.

Two courts denied Gamliel’s petitions for legal relief, and Kanner castigates them for their decisions. Here’s a law professor who has no faith in the courts. I wonder what his law students have learned from him.

Finally, what has this to do with “land use” for homes, which is Kanner’s alleged point? We’re talking office building here, not housing. Straighten out your thinking, Mr. Law Professor Emeritus.

ALFRED E. F. STERN

Sherman Oaks

*

* My first reaction to Kanner’s article is that this professor of law emeritus should come down out of his ivory tower and live in a neighborhood. Perhaps then he will understand, along with the rest of us homeowners, that we, as much as some developer, have the right to protect our property and investments.

We do not want high-rises on Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks. We have seen what it’s done to neighborhoods in Encino. It was a costly fight for many of the people in the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. But the fight was worthwhile if it prevents developers from moving in on neighborhoods without first working with homeowners to improve instead of downgrade.

Without rules and plans for Los Angeles, and allowing total anarchy to control what our city looks like, we are building the slums of the future. We cannot let our representatives’ campaign war chests allow them to turn their backs on us and say “yes” to every building scheme presented to them.

The cost of doing business in California is not high because we want clean water, clean air and decent neighborhoods; it’s high because those who are out for a quick profit forget that every so often there’s an election that they can’t buy.

And that’s the way if should be, despite a professor of law emeritus who seems to have been blinded by the wealthy and powerful.

ARTHUR BERNARD LEWIS

Sherman Oaks

*

* Kanner’s general statement (mocking) of local Sherman Oaks homeowners overriding “the law” is oversimplified.

Local area residents have the right to complain about the lack of response from City Hall. As communities grow, laws need to change to meet local area usage and safety requirements. The L.A. City Council has a history of slow response to local community problems. Special interest plays a sinister role, especially when it comes to commercial land usage. The city of Los Angeles spends $81 million on special consultants and yet there is not a clear redevelopment plan that is tailored for local neighborhoods. The people in that area of Sherman Oaks were afraid that what happened to Encino (creeping high-rise) would happen to their neighborhood.

And please, Mr. Kanner, don’t equate the high cost of doing business in California to so-called lawless homeowners. They have every right to protect their property in light of special interest-fed City Council members. I say good for them.

KIP KENNEDY

Tarzana

Kennedy is an inspector for the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.