MTA/RAD Deal: More Traffic, Less Parking and Parks
By Lori
LeBoy
In 1958, when the Municipal
Transit Authority acquired the land at 100 Sunset for its bus terminal, the
planning Department approved a usage that would benefit the community as a
whole. Public transportation was intended to serve all citizens by not only
providing transportation but by limiting the need for individually owned motor
vehicles thereby lessening congestion.
It seems ironic that RAD Jefferson’s
proposed development would conservatively add over 1000 car trips daily to the
already bottle necked traffic in the Venice corridor. It is my contention that
if the MTA intends to relocate, this parcel should continue to serve the
community as a whole as per the Planning Department’s original
intent.
There are two applications for
this treasured and rare piece of public land that could be instituted
concurrently. Both better serve the community in terms of highest and best use
than RAD’s proposal, which would serve only a small percentage of the
community and cause hardship to the
majority.
There is a gross shortage of
parking and parks in Venice. Venice is unique in its coastal location and
diverse population. The people who reside here are desperately in need of a
park. We need a place for outdoor concerts, art exhibitions and just somewhere
to sit peacefully and get to know our neighbors. Additionally, many residences
do not provide parking for their occupants let alone the people who come to
visit.
Were the Planning Department to
allocate this land as a public park with underground parking, it would serve the
community as no commercial development ever
could.
The growth and well being of any
city depends on many things besides increased property tax revenues. We need to
develop quality of life, not just buildings. There is almost no open land left
in Venice that has not been targeted for structural
development.
In my extensive travels
throughout the world I have never been recommended a particular place based on
its proliferation of condominiums. I have, however, been advised not to miss
several cities because of the abundance of
parks.
In any respectable General Plan,
a percentage of parks and parking are almost certainly included. Why not
continue to consider these aspects of a well rounded, well conceived plan in a
city’s ongoing growth.
As far as
MTA’s need for a new location, revenue should be generated through a bond
initiative if the city is unable to provide the necessary dollars through taxes
that citizens have already paid. It is unfair and inappropriate to ask
tax-paying citizens to pay additionally by sacrificing their quality of life so
that the MTA can have a new terminal, virtually free of
charge.
Regarding the few low income
units that RAD offers as a trade off for allowing numerous exceptions to the
Venice Specific Plan, how can the City look their constituents in the eye and
say, with a straight face and a clear conscience, that the need for low income
housing justifies these variances when on Dec 6, they stood by and allowed 52
families to be evicted from Lincoln Place, a bastion of low income housing? 80
more families face the same fate. Why? To make way for luxury condominiums.
Posted: Wed - March 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM