Letters
• Playa Vista, a contrary view - Moe
Stavnezer
• Anna Haag - Lance
Diskan
Playa Vista
- a contrary view
from Moe
Stavnezer
Dear
Beachhead;
John Davis’ article on
Playa Vista could, more appropriately, be entitled “Ignorance is
Bliss.” The definition of ignorance is “the condition of being
uneducated, uninformed or unaware.” To assert, as Davis did, that this
project “reared its ugly hear in the early 90’s” is to be
ignorant of the long history of Playa Vista. So, as a player in that history, I
will attempt to set some of the record as straight as I can.
The debate over Playa Vista began more
than 25 years ago when the Hughes Corp., which soon morphed into the Summa
Corp., first made its plans for the area known. Opposition to that plan began
almost immediately led by a group of Playa del Rey activists who became Friends
of Ballona Wetlands (FOB or Friends), led by Ruth Lansford. It also included
some gadflies who, like myself, had been involved in coastal issues for some
time.
The Summa plan, when it was made
official as a permit application to the City of Los Angeles, was truly an
abomination. That plan envisioned the almost total destruction of the wetlands,
even those lands west of Lincoln Blvd. It included development both east and
west of Lincoln Bl. including the land where the fresh water marsh has been
created. The development was to be 2/3 commercial (luxury hotels, office
buildings etc) and only 1/3 housing As a sop to the community, the plan called
for “saving” some 87 acres of the wetland with no provision for its
ownership or maintenance. Adding insult to injury, a major roadway was
designated to cut through the miniscule wetland to be “saved.”
As this application wended its way
through the City process in the early to mid 80’s, FOB and its allies
attended hearing after hearing in opposition. But the City, lead by then
Councilwoman Pat Russell and Mayor Tom Bradley, consistently supported the
project which won City approval. The plan then went to the Coastal Commission
where, with the support of Russell and Bradley, it was approved virtually
unchanged. During this time the opinion of many governmental and academic
agencies were sought by FOB and its allies. All these studies suggested that the
wetlands were far more extensive than the Summa plan called for and emphasized
the ecologic importance of wetlands.
Soon after the Coastal Commission
decision, we decided to bring a lawsuit challenging the decision. The we now
included FOB, the League for Coastal Protection (LCV), on whose board I served
along with Mel Nutter, former chair of the state Coastal Commission, and the
League of Women Voters. We sought others to join us in the suit among them the
Sierra Club and the City of Santa Monica. All refused. So, the 3 organizations
went to court represented by the Center for Law in the Public Interest (CLIPI)
one of the best advocates for the public in the state.
The outcome of this litigation was a
ruling by the court that the opposing sides had to meet and come back with a
plan that was “acceptable” to both and then to the court. I should
mention that by this time Summa Corp had sold its interest in Playa Vista to
Maguire Thomas Partners whose president was well known developer Nelson Rising.
And so, by order of the court, FOB
& LCV met with Maguire Thomas. We met every Friday morning for a year.
Included in these meetings were experts, our and their’s, on hydrology,
restoration, the extent of the wetlands, housing, development proposals,
traffic, and every other aspect involved in Playa Vista. By this time Pat
Russell had been replaced by Ruth Galanter and the Playa Vista project was a
major issue in the campaign to elect Ruth. The outcome of these negotiations was
a plan that was, in almost every aspect, superior to what had been approved by
the City and Coastal Commission. It included, among other things, a vastly
increased wetlands area from 87 to almost 300 acres, no development on the land
now restored as a fresh water marsh, a complete reversal of the
commercial/housing balance including 1,100 units of moderate income housing, and
a plan for a neighborhood, pedestrian oriented community.
Though I supported the final
compromise agreement, I did not agree with all of its provisions. I think we
made a mistake in agreeing to development of any land west of Lincoln Bl., but
felt that we had come up with a plan that was generally acceptable to both sides
and to the court.
At the time,
rejecting it was a deal breaker for the developer and would have landed us back
in court where, as future litigation by others proved, victory would have been
iffy, at best. We felt that we had come up with a plan that was generally
acceptable to both sides and to the court. That feeling was confirmed after an
extensive series of presentations we made to a host of community groups, many of
whom came out publicly in support of the plan.
Enter Marsha Hanscom and a number of
others who have, in the ensuing 15 years, brought countless legal actions
against this compromise, virtually every one of which has been rejected by the
courts. It is certainly possible that the same outcome could have been achieved
in a more positive manner by the Hanscom faction. By badmouthing and
mischaracterizing the original settlement agreement, they created unnecessary
bad blood between environmental organizations. We never had any objection to
attempts to gain more acreage, in fact, would have been delighted by that
achievement, but could not stand by and allow hard-won victories to be trashed
by these newcomers to the battle over Ballona. It was both sad and disgusting
for me to hear and read the personal attacks on Ruth Lansford and Ruth Galanter
especially those suggesting that they had some ulterior motives for their
actions.
During those years ownership
of Playa Vista has changed hands more times than I can keep up with and with
those changes so has the commitment to the plans we originally agreed to. I will
not defend what I consider the atrocious buildings that now line Lincoln Blvd. I
believe that these lawsuits have resulted in one very positive outcome, the
possible preservation of the land west of Lincoln as open space, and many, many
negative outcomes. Primary among them is the loss of a coherent plan for the
entire development that many of us felt was very innovative and a precedent for
the entire city.
I do not deny that
the development will very negatively impact the already intolerable traffic
conditions on Lincoln Blvd. But, as events have unfolded, there was never any
chance that we could prevent some development at Playa Vista or that the
development would be significant and
dense.
From the beginning of this
process the forces favoring development were significant and very powerful and
the opposition was also significant but far weaker. Do I feel that the
opposition was let down by the Sierra Club and the cities of Santa Monica and
Culver City who have subsequently expressed opposition? Yes I do! Do I feel that
revisionist histories such as the one Davis would have us believe are
distortions of what really happened? I most certainly do!
Now the State owns Ballona, including
everything west of Lincoln and Area C which is east of Lincoln and north of
Ballona Creek. It will take 3 to 5 years to plan restoration. Meanwhile, the
Trust for Public Land, which brokered the State deal, will take over maintenance
of the wetlands.
It’s now time to
concentrate on coming up with a good restoration plan for the wetlands and that
means relying on science, not politics or hyperbole or dogma. The Friends have
almost completed the dune restoration on the west, the freshwater marsh is in
place on the east and functioning well above anyone’s expectations, and
now it’s the salt marsh’s
turn.
The history of Playa
Vista/Ballona is not easily reduced to the simplistic 20/20 hindsight that Davis
has presented no matter how popular it has become. Some will accuse me of simply
stubbornly supporting an outcome that I was involved in shaping and I will admit
to some of that. But I also stand by that outcome as a vast improvement over
what we were facing 17 years ago against all odds. I cannot help but wonder
where all the opposition, including Mr. Davis, was in 1986.
Moe
Stavnezer
************
Anna
Haag
Dear John and other Friends of
Anna,
I
am saddened to read about the loss of Anna Haag. For many years (until I married
one) Anna was the epitome of a hot-blooded Italian. Her passion was in your
face, and for a reserved do-gooder from New England she was a breathtakingly
tempestuous spirit.
I remember the
fact that she refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance - something unheard
of in my experience - but in retrospect a daring and committed act of defiance
against the injustice she saw. I can still hear her voice - and hope I always
will.
Lance
Diskan
Posted: Sun - February 1, 2004 at 06:31 PM