web analytics

Venice Update

News of Venice, CA and Marina del Rey CA

PLUM Meets Tuesday; Discuss Appeal Fees

cf

Fees that people pay to appeal a land use project can more than double. The PLUM (Planning Land Use Management Committee) of Los Angeles will meet tomorrow to discuss these fee increases at 2:30 pm in City Hall, Room 350.

Activist David Ewing wrote to Vince Bertoni, LA Planning Director, the following letter.  You can email him at VinceBertoni@lacity.org.

Hi Vince,
I think this is a truly misguided response to the level of pushback on planning decisions. The people’s access to the courts provides invaluable feedback to planners and politicians about what’s working and what’s not. When pressures become volatile, access to our courts is a relief valve for legitimate frustrations and an avenue to reform. It is also one of the hallmarks of our civil society that distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes.

It’s shocking to me that a City like ours, that styles itself as an inclusive, progressive, sanctuary city, and has a 14-1 majority of Democrats on the City Council and a mayor who is now making a name for himself as a leader on the national stage, would entertain such a tone-deaf and regressive measure. In the city with the greatest income inequality in the country, deliberately raising a financial barrier to people of limited means is a pernicious solution to a problem that those people did not create and from which they suffer the most harmful impacts.

Please help our political leaders rethink this wrong-headed measure.
David Ewing
Venice, CA

Comment (1)

  1. Nick Z

    I’m not exactly sure how to interpret this chart. If the CAO estimate of costs is correct, it costs ~$13,000 every time an appeal is filed by someone other than the applicant (this would be all the appeals that Mr. Ewing files). The appeal fee currently, at $89 covers less than 1% of that cost (percent cost recovery column)? So every time Mr. Ewing files an appeal, taxpayers are covering the other 99% of the $13,000 cost and he only pays $89? And he has a problem with paying $271, or 2% of the cost? Seems like major freeloading on taxpayers to push his personal agenda, but that’s not really a surprise as he is the kind of freeloading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.