Don't know anything about this specific instance, but Abundant Housing has a good rep in the housing world. Not even sure what the implication is here -- that an organization that's only purpose is to build affordable housing to address the city's massive housing crisis made up a project for the sole purpose of having a run-down building in the shape of a chili bowl torn to the ground?
Calling AH "a real estate industry lobbying organization" is creative, to say the least. In the sense that all housing is "real estate," it's like calling a food bank a "big farmer/supermarket chain lobbying organization" when trying to get donations to feed the hungry.
There are many beautiful buildings in this city that have stood tall for a hundred years and could continue to do so for many more -- some of which are lovely multistory residential buildings, that, if proposed today, would no doubt be opposed by Esotouric. Obviously this chili bowl in disrepair did not compel people to give it landmark status. It was super cute in its heyday, but I can totally see why it went that way.
You should know about this specific instance, and that's why we have shared all relevant links and documents. We hope you'll read closely, as it raises great concern. The deliberately deceptive messaging from Abundant Housing LA about a non-existent apartment project, for the purposes of derailing a landmark nomination, renders any member of AHLA leadership unqualified to serve on a public planning commission.
If you like what AHLA stands for and don't like what they did here, let them know.
The Chili Bowl was not in disrepair. It was, until the property owner evicted the tenant in 2020, a Michelin starred sushi restaurant, Shunji. Contrary to your assertion, we are not anti-development; we're anti-corruption. And Abundant Housing seeks to make public policy, which is the definition of lobbying.
I accept your account of the bowl not being in disrepair. I also accept that AH opposed its landmark status. I don't see any proof (and I reviewed the above documents) that the apartment building proposed was made up for the purposes of depriving this building of landmark status. Projects are stopped or cancelled or delayed all the time for various reasons. I mean, what would be the purpose of opposing its status except to build something there?
Thanks for reviewing the docs and keeping an open minded. Indeed, what would be the purpose of opposing if there is no project planned? And since no project was ever proposed for this parcel, why did AHLA say that there was--and explicitly describe it as a 24 unit TOC development?
We reasonably assumed that there was a project, and we have kicked ourselves for not realizing that there was no application on file with the city as the comments from Abundant Housing membership and the official statements from the organization were received by the city.
We took AHLA's statements in good faith and so devoted an enormous amount of volunteer time to trying to get the building moved safely off the parcel, ideally with landmark status. Discovering that the project was fake was an upsetting shock.
Perhaps the owner wanted the option to use the Chili Bowl site as a staging area for construction, or hoped to expand the project to bridge Wellesley Avenue between the Chili Bowl and Jan's Liquor, or intended to submit an application for a smaller TOC project. But there is nothing to confirm any of this in the public record.
Done, email and message sent.
Will write emails
New Gay tour looks very interesting. Babs
Don't know anything about this specific instance, but Abundant Housing has a good rep in the housing world. Not even sure what the implication is here -- that an organization that's only purpose is to build affordable housing to address the city's massive housing crisis made up a project for the sole purpose of having a run-down building in the shape of a chili bowl torn to the ground?
Calling AH "a real estate industry lobbying organization" is creative, to say the least. In the sense that all housing is "real estate," it's like calling a food bank a "big farmer/supermarket chain lobbying organization" when trying to get donations to feed the hungry.
There are many beautiful buildings in this city that have stood tall for a hundred years and could continue to do so for many more -- some of which are lovely multistory residential buildings, that, if proposed today, would no doubt be opposed by Esotouric. Obviously this chili bowl in disrepair did not compel people to give it landmark status. It was super cute in its heyday, but I can totally see why it went that way.
You should know about this specific instance, and that's why we have shared all relevant links and documents. We hope you'll read closely, as it raises great concern. The deliberately deceptive messaging from Abundant Housing LA about a non-existent apartment project, for the purposes of derailing a landmark nomination, renders any member of AHLA leadership unqualified to serve on a public planning commission.
If you like what AHLA stands for and don't like what they did here, let them know.
The Chili Bowl was not in disrepair. It was, until the property owner evicted the tenant in 2020, a Michelin starred sushi restaurant, Shunji. Contrary to your assertion, we are not anti-development; we're anti-corruption. And Abundant Housing seeks to make public policy, which is the definition of lobbying.
I accept your account of the bowl not being in disrepair. I also accept that AH opposed its landmark status. I don't see any proof (and I reviewed the above documents) that the apartment building proposed was made up for the purposes of depriving this building of landmark status. Projects are stopped or cancelled or delayed all the time for various reasons. I mean, what would be the purpose of opposing its status except to build something there?
Thanks for reviewing the docs and keeping an open minded. Indeed, what would be the purpose of opposing if there is no project planned? And since no project was ever proposed for this parcel, why did AHLA say that there was--and explicitly describe it as a 24 unit TOC development?
We reasonably assumed that there was a project, and we have kicked ourselves for not realizing that there was no application on file with the city as the comments from Abundant Housing membership and the official statements from the organization were received by the city.
We took AHLA's statements in good faith and so devoted an enormous amount of volunteer time to trying to get the building moved safely off the parcel, ideally with landmark status. Discovering that the project was fake was an upsetting shock.
There is actually a TOC project that was proposed in 2017 by the same property owner for the 12300 Pico block to the west, but it appears to to have stalled in 2018. This was for 65 units. https://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/search/encoded/MjE3NzQ40
Perhaps the owner wanted the option to use the Chili Bowl site as a staging area for construction, or hoped to expand the project to bridge Wellesley Avenue between the Chili Bowl and Jan's Liquor, or intended to submit an application for a smaller TOC project. But there is nothing to confirm any of this in the public record.
Done emails sent. Not surprised by Bass, just another politician. She has exhibited corrupt tendencies for a while now.
Thank you. It may not be an accident: There are two more Abundant Housing LA people nominated for Planning Commission posts by Mayor Karen Bass.
1) Jaime Del Rio / North Valley Area Planning Commission (Organizing Director, Abundant Housing LA) https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=23-1200-S70
2) Haley Feng / West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission (Occupation: was Communications Manager / Digital Advocacy Manager for Abundant Housing LA, now Assistant Project Manager for Thomas Safran & Associates—the developer implicated in the Curren Price indictment!) https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=23-1200-S64