I am fascinated by what is going on with the Marilyn Monroe house. I think you should write a history of the house and try and publish like a book so all of the information is together. The story is a perfect example of fraud. Anyhow I hope that I am not being tp intrusive in saying this. I love her house and so I am more bossy than usual. Mom
Wow, lots to unpack here. I think the major ruling is that the issuance of a demo permit does not create a vested right. I worry that CHC/City Planning inaction to issue a hold on demolition in several recent cases is acting as if the demo permit does give vested rights. The judge was very clear that the hold does not fall under planning/zoning law.
It's also clear that the City knows little about the law. The City won the case, but he was clear that the City position was not supported by the cases they cited. This is not a good look for the City Attorney. Also, why no mention of the failure to notify the council district of the demo permit as required by law? If the petitioner was hurt, he was hurt by LADBS failing to do its job in a timely manner. It was the lack of notice that led to the permit being issued prior to people knowing about it.
And in a much more general matter, I fully disagree with the current city law that places the designation approval into the hands of City Council. HCM designation should come from the CHC with PLUM and City Council approval meaning that the designated building shall be placed on the city register. Or, both PLUM and City Council can deny the designation, but its a denial of the designation, not the recommendation. This is how it use to be with the Cultural Heritage Board given full power in designating a building historic. We need to get the CHC out from under the thumb of City Planning and restore their authority.
thank you for all of your work
I am fascinated by what is going on with the Marilyn Monroe house. I think you should write a history of the house and try and publish like a book so all of the information is together. The story is a perfect example of fraud. Anyhow I hope that I am not being tp intrusive in saying this. I love her house and so I am more bossy than usual. Mom
Wow, lots to unpack here. I think the major ruling is that the issuance of a demo permit does not create a vested right. I worry that CHC/City Planning inaction to issue a hold on demolition in several recent cases is acting as if the demo permit does give vested rights. The judge was very clear that the hold does not fall under planning/zoning law.
It's also clear that the City knows little about the law. The City won the case, but he was clear that the City position was not supported by the cases they cited. This is not a good look for the City Attorney. Also, why no mention of the failure to notify the council district of the demo permit as required by law? If the petitioner was hurt, he was hurt by LADBS failing to do its job in a timely manner. It was the lack of notice that led to the permit being issued prior to people knowing about it.
And in a much more general matter, I fully disagree with the current city law that places the designation approval into the hands of City Council. HCM designation should come from the CHC with PLUM and City Council approval meaning that the designated building shall be placed on the city register. Or, both PLUM and City Council can deny the designation, but its a denial of the designation, not the recommendation. This is how it use to be with the Cultural Heritage Board given full power in designating a building historic. We need to get the CHC out from under the thumb of City Planning and restore their authority.