Tenants Hang Tough at Lincoln Place Apts.
By Sheila
Bernard
In the Lincoln Place situation,
there are many important strands, including good urban planning, community input
on development, enforcement of conditions of approval on development projects,
tenants’ rights, and historic preservation, to name only a
few.
Two of these issues in particular are being
portrayed as opposed, when in fact they are
aligned.
The “preservationists”
include several organizations which filed suit in appellate court, alleging that
demolitions at Lincoln Place were illegal because a historic resource was being
destroyed in opposition to city law. These organizations have been erroneously
accused of caring more about buildings than about people, when in fact without
these organizations, Lincoln Place would be dust today and everyone would
already have been evicted. Also, it is the ingenious design of these buildings
that is partly responsible for the united and feisty community that has for
years gone head to head with the biggest landlord in the United
States.
Besides people and buildings,
there are issues of planning and public policy. As of this writing, AIMCO, owner
of Lincoln Place, wants to proceed with a different project than the one they
spent seven years litigating for. They want something more dense than they could
build by right, and even more dense than allowed with the density bonus they
received with their tract map approval. They have not unveiled the actual
project, nor have they mentioned how they intend to harmonize such density with
existing infrastructure in our already-congested little borough. And they want
to do all this with as little public scrutiny as
possible.
Last Friday, the designation
of Lincoln Place as eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources
became final. AIMCO perceived this event as signaling the end of their ability
to get a denser project without a new public review process.
They were furious, and they broke off
talks. They were incorrect that the historic designation was the only thing
standing between them and a public process. There are several, including the
July 13 appellate court ruling, and a councilman who is committed to open
government and a public process.
The
preservationists are being blamed, when the actual responsibility for our
stalemate goes to AIMCO, because AIMCO is refusing to disclose what they have in
mind for the property, in a community which values not only its historic
resources, but its prerogative under law to have a say in what gets built in
their neighborhood.
AIMCO has made a
bad business decision in trying to use coercion instead of sweet reason, in
failing to scope out the political climate in which they are working, and in
conducting themselves in a manner harmful to their image and ultimately their
stock price. They will ultimately have to change their tactics, because, after
all, this is Venice. Their attempt to paint the preservationists as the villains
is fooling no one in this corner of the
world.
So it’s not people vs
buildings. It’s “Save the People, and Save as may of the Buildings
as Possible”. It’s “Win-Win,” not “We Win You
Lose.” It’s designing a project with community input, instead of
unilaterally deciding the fate of a neighborhood and using your moxie to cram
that fate down everyone’s
throat.
AIMCO, learn your lesson. Be a
good corporate citizen. Work with the community for everyone’s benefit. We
stand ready to negotiate a solution to this longstanding conflict.
Posted: Wed - November 2, 2005 at 07:32 PM