TALK BACK-I am very disappointed in Jack Humphreville. I would expect that Jack would research the facts before writing his March 4th, CityWatch column, which was packed with errors and distortions in order to fabricate a fanciful tale of longtime quid-pro-quo.
The main thrust of his March 4 column was to malign my use of a 245 motion, which is a powerful legislative tool provided by the City Charter. A 245 motion allows a Councilmember to try to override a city commission's bad decision by bringing it to the full City Council for reevaluation.
Councilmembers are asked with some frequency to use a 245, including by community groups who might be upset or concerned over a commission's ruling or reasoning; but we respect the role and work of commissions and so we use a 245 rarely and with great restraint. Still, there are times when I do step in.
In his column, Jack was especially incensed over a 245 motion that was recently approved by the City Council, allowing a property owner, Mr. Arman Gabay, a variance for a home in Bel Air, where large neighboring homes have gotten variances without any ensuing fuss. The reason a variance was both needed and fair regarding this property is that I and others had made the design of the home more difficult by insisting that the property owner preserve a natural creek on the property. This resulted in the home needing to be repositioned, causing a small portion of the home to now be on a slope. The code would require that the piece on the slope be lower, creating a strange roofline. The Zoning Administrator agreed that given the circumstances, an adjustment was in order and allowed for a variance.The local homeowners association did not oppose it. The West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission did, but I felt some common sense leadership was necessary and so I 245’d it. I happened to have known Mr. Gabay for years, but I would have done this whether I knew the property owner or not.
Jack says that Arman Gabay, the aforementioned property owner, "donated $500,000 to the West Hollywood Library Fund, a pet project of Paul Koretz since the days when he was the Mayor of West Hollywood." That would be significant, except that there is no basis in fact for his claim. The truth is, I have been off the West Hollywood City Council for 15 years and the library was built much more recently. More to the point, I never thought this project, to build a County Library at City expense, was a good idea. I have always been dismayed over the lavishness of the funds and expenditures involved, and I was particularly horrified that as part of the project, the old Library building was demolished, for it had been a historic and architectural treasure designed by legendary architect Edward Fickett and should have been preserved. In other words, the new library was the farthest thing from being my pet project--Jack just made that up.
Jack also implies that Mr. Gabay has bankrolled my LA City Council career. Though Jack throws around other larger numbers, what Jack doesn’t tell his readers is that the only contributions I have received in the last 5 years were two $500 checks from Mr. Gabay’s relatives to help fund my 2009 campaign. That’s it!
And so he implies misdeeds where none have occurred." For example, in his March 4 column he mentions that the City's 2013 settlement with Congregation Etz Chaim over a long standing zoning dispute was arranged "naturally behind closed doors" as if something fishy must have been going on – but of course, City settlements are always negotiated behind closed doors: otherwise, we'd be giving away information to legal adversaries at great potential fiscal harm to taxpayers. In this particular instance, the City had been trying to shut down the synagogue for 17 years, but the law is not on our side in fighting a house of worship and so we have lost in court. We could have continued to appeal and wrack up more costs on our side, as well as the attorney fees we would then owe the synagogue after losing again. My view was that we should cut our losses and bring this unnecessary, costly and painful confrontation to a conclusion. I believe that we got the best deal possible, since in the end we would have owed the Congregation far more in attorney’s fees – they had already spent millions to date – but we pushed them to accept a fraction of what they could have gotten in exchange for us putting an earlier end to this battle. None of this Jack mentions. If he wants to offer a different legal reasoning, so be it – but because he wants his readers to believe his own personal narrative, he is loose with the facts.
He says a plan that would allow a non-profit to take over a long-abandoned fire station in Encino has been "scuttled" – due, Jack crows, to a past article of his. Only, once again, he's wrong – the plan hasn't been scuttled and the non-profit remains the only entity that has ever expressed a formal interest and a willingness to pay to rehabilitate this City property at their expense. That's very important, because although Jack calls this a "valuable Encino property," it has become, over the course of time, an eyesore, a place of vandalism and home to transients, and so the rehab costs will be significant. If this plan becomes reality and a lease occurs, the non-profit would assume liability for the property while having a community center, and there would also be the possible sharing of parking and other uses with the local school. Other government entities like LAUSD were contacted to see if they might make use of the property but have never expressed interest in taking over the property, and LAUSD Superintendent Deasy has sent a letter making it clear they have no interest.
The City often leases property at low-cost to beneficial community service providers, and generally does so with success and without controversy, and that's why, contrary to what Jack has stated, the plan has not been scuttled. Presently, the process is continuing, talks are continuing, and the community is being heard. Jack thinks we should just sell the property to a private developer, which might bring a modest, one time sum to the City – modest, because the property's rehab needs are so expensive – but would also likely lead to a local condominium project bringing major traffic and parking woes to that neighborhood. I fought against selling municipally owned public garages because such a sale would have had negative effects on their neighborhoods; I don't believe selling off our municipal properties should always be our default position, and that's a debate that can be had, but by injecting conspiracy into every issue, Jack undermines our chance for having a robust discussion about the actual issues and their dynamics.
In his column about the 245, Jack also complains about Councilmembers "manipulating the City's rules and regulations," but he never acknowledges that our use of 245 comes from the Charter and can be a very fundamental part of the job we do, and may be done on behalf of people we don't know, but who just need a helping hand or to be treated fairly. We're elected by the public – commissioners, no matter how valuable, are not – and so we have every right and responsibility to weigh in, and to go the extra mile to right something that we think is wrong.
I have done but a handful of 245’s since I have been on the Council. They have all been modest issues, and other than the current property, they have involved property owners whom I don’t know personally. They all regarded issues where I thought common sense dictated a different approach than the one that had been decided. For example, one 245 motion involved some nearby residents' opposition to an overheight fence, built to shield the property owners and their celebrity next-door neighbor from invasive and aggressive paparazzi. When I drove the neighborhood, I found that the complaining neighbors mostly had overheight fences of their own, so they didn’t mind overheight fences that violated height limits, just this overheight fence. Personally, I thought the property owner had more reason for an overheight fence than his neighbors, and certainly saw little reason to go after only this one in particular, so I intervened on the property owner’s behalf.
A debate can be had about the use of a 245, and there are certainly two sides to the policy issue being dealt with in my recent 245 motion. But Mr. Humphreville is wrong to create fiction and toss around innuendo in his desire to make his point.
(Paul Koretz is Councilmember for Los Angeles’ 5th District. He can be reached at: [email protected]).
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 22
Pub: Mar 14, 2014