Old Hollywood vs. Condos
By Julie Haire | From Online Only | Sept. 5, 2008
Built in 1915, "Tara," on its woodsy lot, may be surrounded by a condo complex if the city has its way.
Credit: Save Tara
UPDATE: On Oct. 30, the state Supreme Court ruled that West Hollywood officials failed to follow proper procedures in evaluating the new complex's effect on the environment.
In West Hollywood, Calif., a city known for palm-tree-lined streets dotted with condos and apartments, sits a grand mansion nicknamed Tara for its resemblance to the famed house from "Gone With the Wind." Built in 1915, it was donated to the city in 1997 by its owner, Elsie Weisman, who lived on the property from when she was a girl until her death, at age 100, in 2000.
Designated a city landmark, the main house is a large, white Colonial building situated on two-thirds of a lush acre filled with tropical plants and native trees. Now city officials have decided to develop the prime piece of real estate, converting it into a 28-unit low-income senior apartment complex that would be erected in an L-shape around the old mansion. Plans also call for a pocket park in the front yard that would be open to the public.
Neighbors, as part of the "Save Tara" movement, opposed the development from the the time of the city's announcement in 2004, claiming it would essentially strip the property of its beauty, not to mention destroy century-old eucalyptus trees and a thriving bird habitat. There are now two lawsuits pending: one that claims there was never proper public comment regarding the property's future and another accusing the city of fraud. The former has gone to the state supreme court after the city appealed the court of appeals ruling in favor of the community in February of 2007.
Both lawsuits are being funded by Weisman's son, Dick, who says he has documents that prove that the city has flagrantly disobeyed his mother's wishes.
"It went through all the different phases of the city [process, and city officials said] they would keep it as is and use it for any recreational purpose," says Weisman, now 82, who was born and raised on the Tara property. "After my mother died, they changed their mind." Weisman says he had wanted to develop the property himself and was denied by the city because of its landmark status.
Councilman John Duran, whose vote in May of 2004 in favor of development broke the tie within the council, claims Elsie Weisman was lucid and had the advice of counsel when she specified only two conditions with the donation: that she could remain on the property until her death and that her tenants could remain for an additional six months.
In an emotionally charged issue like this, there are, predictably, many discrepancies between the city and Tara supporters about the issues surrounding the property and the four-year-long fight that has ensued.
Tara supporters claim the city, counter to state law, decided privately and in advance what should be done with the property and the community was only able to weigh in on it after the fact – and only about issues such as the size of the structure. (Community input was in part responsible for the scaling back of the new building from four stories to two.)
"Don't let them tell you that they explored other options," says Jack Merrill, who served as the Save Tara movement's spokesperson for three years. "They had some pat answers, but there were never really any studies done as to alternate uses. And, of course, there's so many wonderful, creative things that could be done with that property and make it good for the entire public, not just a few seniors."
Councilman Duran disagrees, saying if the development was predetermined, the property would look exactly as it was initially proposed. "Through various hearings that occurred before the planning commission, before the historic preservation commission, before the public facilities commission because there were uses as a park, and ultimately through the council," says Councilman Duran, "it went through many revisions trying to respond to the different voices that were being raised."
Allegra Allison, a Tara tenant for 20 years, has lead the fight for preservation, devoting herself nearly full-time to the cause. Allison says the development in itself will inherently kill the property – the trees, the natural habitat, the character of the house. "It's something the city should be proud of, and we can use it," says Allison. "We need the green space, we need community space."
But the city council contends it weighed many options, among them a community center, but the conditions – namely visitor parking – were not amenable for other uses. And the city maintains that affordable housing is desperately needed in West Hollywood, as evidenced by a waiting list that's seven years long.
The way Allison and other supporters tell it, the process has been a tangled web of political favors, paybacks and retribution, as well as conflicts of interest among people in top preservation and housing posts and allegations that, in an underhanded move, officials bussed in groups of retired Russian-speaking seniors to support them at hearings. (West Hollywood is home to a sizeable Russian community.)
Tara became city property in 1997, and now the city wants to turn it into senior housing with a L-shaped condo building on its grounds.
Credit: Save Tara
Councilman Duran says accusations like that are a default position for the disgruntled. "If you look at the resumes of a lot of [the officials in question], they're just people from the community," he says. "And are there some who are a little more pro-development? Yes, that's true. But there's also some that are anti-development. The historic preservation commission had a lot of split votes on what to do with this property, which suggests a rigorous debate – not that anything was preordained. That's part of the public process."
Further, Councilman Duran says, part of preservation is adaptive reuse, and the City's stance is that they've achieved multiple goals with the project: senior housing, a park and preservation of the property. Former spokesperson Merrill, though, says that rationale just doesn't suffice. "The entire property intact is what's key. You go in the back, and you feel like you're on a farm at the turn of the century."
Peggy Kennedy, whose bedroom and kitchen windows look out onto Tara's back yard, has doubts that Elsie Weisman's wishes are truly being fulfilled. "Maybe adding a few bungalows on the property or using the house itself as senior housing might be within what she would have wanted," she says, "but to have her property dug up and developed? No, I don't think that was ever what she wanted."
They say nothing is permanent in Hollywood, and now the California Supreme Court, who is expected to make its decision on the city's appeal this month, will get to decide if that's true.
Julie Haire is a writer in Los Angeles.
Comments
Submitted by Cookie at: November 3, 2008
UPDATE: California Supreme Court Decision came down on 10/30/08. The verdict is the City of West Hollywood violated CEQA and must vacate the approved permits for the project, most likely will have to redo at least a portion of the EIR under court supervision. (City will try to get out of this, of course.) Key points in Opinion were that the City cannot contend it really considered "other options" after it had already loaned project developer $500,000 which was to be paid back in receipts from finished project. More details later...but basically the court upheld that citizens were right to sue, and that the City must correct its violations.
Submitted by Fuhrman at: September 23, 2008
The West Hollywood City Council is spending incredible sums of public money to try to get a few units of "affordable housing" built for their friends; If you add the cost of the City employee time and legal costs, they could have bought each of the future tenants million dollar mansions. What a waste of money in their quest to destroy this beautiful and historic property. Bravo to those that are trying to save it.
Submitted by Patrick Faas at: September 23, 2008
‘Nothing is permanent in Hollywood’, harsh realism in an earthquake zone. But does nothing have any value either? You cannot create something old. Things grow old slowly, and when they do, they become rare and precious. Historical buildings are irreplaceable. Who purposely destroys the irreplaceable? In Holland, where I live, any building from before WWII is considered historical and may not be destroyed. Some more recent architectural masterpieces have acquired the same ‘historical’ status. Consequently, protected buildings make up a large part of our cities. From a European perspective, it seems incomprehensible that old buildings are not even better protected in California, where such crucial connections to the past are comparatively rare. Old buildings produce civic pride well beyond their gardens, and are therefore the concern of the whole community. They give the entire city an identity (and inspire romance). Who can be so cruel and selfish, as to deny future generations that link to their past? Who can be so careless about their own legacy? Glory from personal riches vanishes quickly, but the destruction of communal heirlooms will be resented for ever and ever.
Submitted by Cookie Crawford at: September 23, 2008
It’s been stated in the public record by council members who visited the late Elsie Weisman that she believed the entire property she was gifting to West Hollywood would be preserved rather than redeveloped. The City's intent to build new structures at Tara against her wishes is tantamount to elder abuse, and certainly won’t encourage future donors to give West Hollywood their historic structures for safekeeping. On October 16, 2006, Councilman Sal Guarriello said on television, "I received a call from Elsie Weisman…When I went into the house, right away she said to me, strong woman at her age, “I want to gift this land to the City of West Hollywood.” I said, “What do you mean by the City of West Hollywood?” She said, “The community.” I said, “Do you have next-of-kin? I mean, you’re willing this to the community, the City of West Hollywood?” She said, “Well, I have a son.” I said, “And you don’t want to give this to your son?” “He wants to redevelop this, and I don’t want it. I don’t ever want to see anything done to this property.” I says, “Well, what does he want to do?” She said, “He wants to build condos.” I said, “Mrs. Weisman, do you realize that by building condos on this piece of land what it would bring you with this market that’s going in this year of ’97?” I said, “It could be close to fifty million dollars. That’s a heck of a thing to put in your pocket.” She said, “Mr. Guarriello, I said I want to give this land to the city and the community of West Hollywood. No development.” And that’s why I can’t understand...It was my mistake by not going out and seeing Ms. Weisman with an attorney to have everything bona fide and written and signed the way she wanted this property to go…And that’s why I can’t support the project, because she must be turning over in her grave for what we did to this piece of land.”
Submitted by Geoff at: September 23, 2008
The City Council stated explicitly in a public meeting that alternative uses were ruled out in review because they did not include the development of rental housing they had already secretly decided should go there. They said the tennants HAD TO MOVE because there was NO TIME LEFT and TERRIBLE THINGS WOULD HAPPEN if everybody didn't do exactly what the City Council wanted RIGHT AWAY. That was four years ago. Sound familiar?????
Submitted by Kilroy at: September 20, 2008
Apparently, a cultural resource for the entire community is trumped by housing for twenty follks, in a city of 39,000! Parking? Please, there's space in back and the entire lower level of the 8000 Sunset complex, five buildings away!! Gay wedding chapel? Hello? John Duran is a stubborn mule on this one. Too bad. Gay men who don't care about historic preservation...imagine! Poor Elsie would be so sad right now. Go to http://www.savetara.org and get the sad facts...
Submitted by Nanette at: September 11, 2008
This will be a tough one considering how the legal contract is prevailing. Focus on the intent and it will be trumped by the "legal" contract. It has only city landmark status, which is not good enough. Time to get tough. Focus on the community to come out in FULL FORCE. Make enough of a problem for politians and you can force the issue. If there isn't enough community support, go higher to all the preservation groups and start contacting high profile land use experts. Sad to say that only those who were involved legally in the lower cases have the right to testify and submit their case in the Supreme Court. Move your voice to a higher level. When they hear the case make sure you show up in Sacremento and get plenty of media and PR.
Submitted by Ken at: September 11, 2008
The article states Elsie Weisman was lucid at the time of signing her will, enough to establish her intent for her West Hollywood mansion, Tara; the city also established the mansion as a city landmark. Any questions? Yes, in these days of changing land uses and master plan revisions by local land use boards and city councils, a secure method to better transfer landmarks as a public trust should be provided by an attorney. Hollywood is known as a tear-down capital for private owners; bigger and better mansions are built over smaller mansions; so no surprise by that approval by city council, the usual request. The low income use aspect in a valuable neighborhood has also been contentious in many communities, also no surprise there. Without knowing anyone in the article, the intent appears to be "Tara" was donated by Elsie for a lifetime of residency in West Hollywood, hometown pride and appreciation, rather than to the State of California or the nation, even though the state and nation provide more preservation programs, incentives, security, and oversight. These landmarks should be on a state or national register; why not prevent further confusion and challenges in court that way? Local land use designations can be changed. Wills lead to court arguments over a valuable estate such as Tara. Was this preventable as a land trust, maybe not; always consult a land use attorney on the finer details of land. Reminds me of the old saying, no good deed goes unpunished. In this case a valuable land can easily be changed to the next "higher and better use" especially by local government, for local government. How can a city council change land use designations from low density single family to high density multi-family in a West Hollywood neighborhood, with or without the required infrastructure improvements? That's a question for the West Hollywood City Council, to include access management, roadway level of service, and neighborhood fit; better ask a lawyer.
Submitted by Ann at: September 11, 2008
Folks can see a little bit of TARA in Atlanta at the Margaret Mitchell House & Museum. The door from the movie set has been in Atlanta since 1959 when it left the Deslou studio grounds, Come to Atlanta for a tour. I am there on Tuesday and Friday. Ann in ATL