Lincoln Place Tenants Win One in Court


By Sheila Bernard
Two matters were before the appellate court relative to Lincoln Place. It is important what the outcome was, but even more important how the parties see the outcome and what will happen as a result.

In LPTA v. City of L.A., tenants alleged that the City had no right to grant owner AIMCO the right to demolish and redevelop Lincoln Place based on a nine-year-old EIR which did not take into account the State finding that Lincoln Place is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

The court ruled against the tenants and affirmed the ruling of the lower court, that indeed the City did have the right. The court held that the subdivision plan was legal, and that all the mitigating conditions that go with the subdivision plan are not “empty promises” but are binding and must be met before any demolition can take place.

In 20th Century Architecture et. al. v. City of L.A., the preservationists alleged that the City had no right to issue demolition permits for the Lake Street buildings, because it would be contrary to City law to do so given the State finding that Lincoln Place is historic, unless the City makes a finding that preservation is infeasible. The appellate court ruled with the preservationists and reversed the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court ruled that way to underline their ruling that the owner cannot demolish any buildings at Lincoln Place until they have met the conditions of the subdivision, which are binding.

There are a couple of dozen conditions of the subdivision. They include the following: before any buildings are damaged, they must be photographed to historic architecture specifications and they must be offered for sale, so that a suitable buyer can move them to a new location. Before any other buildings are built, the 144 units of permanently affordable “replacement rental” housing must be built to house seniors and others at Lincoln Place who qualify. Other tenants at Lincoln Place, rather than being evicted, are to be given the option to move within the property while the demolition and construction proceeds by phases over a ten-year period.

The most amazing thing is the divergence of spin on the appellate ruling. AIMCO’s spin is: “Court paves way for demolition.” The tenants’ spin is: “ Court halts demolition. Court halts evictions.”

Both spins are right. Yes, the court ruled that AIMCO can demolish Lincoln Place. But AIMCO must do it according to a subdivision that they and the previous owner spent ten years litigating, a plan that will take another ten years to complete and involves no evictions. Yes, the court halted demolition. The court put in place a permanent injunction against any demolition unless the subdivision conditions are met, and they emphasized that conditions of approval of a subdivision are not “empty promises.”

AIMCO seems to think that of the couple dozen conditions of approval of the subdivision, they only have to meet two: the one about photographing the buildings and the one about putting the buildings up for sale so they can be moved off the property rather than being demolished. They served Ellis Act notices on about 25 households, with 75 more planned. AIMCO seems to think that the conditions requiring the relocation of tenants within the property rather than evicting them are empty promises, and that they are only bound by the conditions that they choose.

It is our task now to bring a little reality to the situation. Not only is AIMCO abusing the Ellis Act on its face; they are also using the Ellis Act in direct contradiction to the ruling of the appellate court.

It is our belief that AIMCO does not want to complete the condo project granted them by the appellate court. They don’t want to spend ten years, and they don’t want to limit themselves to the 850 units the project calls for. We tenants also do not want the condo project, because it will ultimately result in the destruction of Lincoln Place.

The question is now, as it has always been: how do the people assert their right to equal protection under the law, when enormous corporations hold themselves above the law? And how do we improve the law so that it really protects the fairness and the sustainability of our society? And the answer also remains the same: we keep on fighting until we achieve a fair outcome.

Posted: Mon - August 1, 2005 at 08:15 PM          

©