Oppose eliminating R1 Zoning in residential neighborhoods.
Slow down on R1. A city council vote should not alter the fundamental character of the city. ut it to a vote and let the people speak. Too much too fast. Other actions take years, why rush this when we're just coming out of Covid lockdown.
This law should be decided by a ballot vote of all registered voters in CC.
Oppose R1 Zone elimination. It should not be decided by CCCouncil.
My family opposes R-1/2 Zone elimination.
The mayor and a few members of council have taken it upon themselves to fast-track an inadequate solution to a problem that seems to have been 3 peoples wish to change the lives of all constituants of Culver City. It's clear you 3 want to force this through as you are up against some kind of federal funding problem you want existing home owners to solve without thinking through. You have not listened to the Realtors and Investment Groups in that what you are opening up is a great pandora's box that cannot be stopped. Our homes in most cases are the ONLY investments we have made in our lives. We bought in R-1 which cost us more than buying in R-2/3 and we have been paying the taxes and the school taxes on that purchase. You are inadequately taking our lives and abusing what we have on a short sighted idea that is clearly not thought out. Investors and builders have to have deep pockets in order to build units and they will cost no less than any new construction. How much will you gain in low income housing in our neighborhoods. Not much. Stop this easy solution you have half-baked and rethink the best solutions for Culver City. Our neighborhoods can take only so much density until you will make this like Hollywood. Look where that got them. Opposed.
It seems the do-gooders and sageburners of Culver City have worked themselves up into a tizzy about the lack of affordable housing in our fair city. This is by no means a new rant against an unfair world. Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's my wife and I also bemoaned the exorbitant price of home ownership.
We spent a month of Sundays, away from NFL football I might add, lookie-looing into open houses all across West LA. And each week we scratched a new neighborhood off our list of possibilities:
Cheviot Hills -- No way
Pacific Palisades -- Uh-uh
Mar Vista -- Too pricey
Santa Monica, even South Santa Monica - No can do
Marina del Rey -- Yeah right
It wasn't until we found the shittiest house in dumpy, frumpy Culver City (this was before all the overdevelopment) that we had decided if we pool our scant savings together, eat ketchup sandwiches for a year, paint and repair and pour sweat equity into the home, that we might be able to make this happen.
But apparently that's not the path others want to take.
They would like to up zone our quiet, modest neighborhood and take huge swaths of R-1 homes, that others like myself sacrificed for, and turn them into R-4 zones, allowing developers to swoop in and put in high-density housing, if they promise to make a certain allotment for low income earners.
One need only read the shady dealings of one Donald J. Trump and his coldhearted father, land developers in NYC, to see how those promises can be skirted and exploited for cash.
Well I'm not having it. Because, if successful, this will eat into my stay-out-of-a-dirty-nursing home retirement money. It will lower the value of my property.
As you might imagine, I've already tangled with a few of these nudniks who want to mess with the most valuable asset I and my family own. And though I am not unsympathetic to young families who would like to own a home in Culver City, particularly teachers, firemen, and other public service workers, I would provide them a map of our fair city.
And instruct them to look into more affordable homes in the surrounding areas:
That's how things work. Always have and always will.
Also, ketchup packets are free at almost any fast food restaurant.
Oppose elimination of R1. We have a diverse community. Our school district is one off the most culturally diverse in the nation. Our climate and location drive housing values, not exclusivity.
I would also like to share that I oppose the removal of or changing the R1 or single family home zoning in Culver City. Studies show that removing this does not create more affordable housing. Providing a developer rights to put a 4 or 6 plex on a R1 zoned property does not solve for anything other than developers making more money.
I own a home in Culver City and I am a builder who has built 2 homes for a client on a lot in the R2 area of Culver. These house sold for close to 2.2 mil, more than most of the single family homes you can purchase in the R1 areas except of course the brand new ones. Also, I have noticed the newly developed apartments along Washington Blvd close to the downtown area, the monthly rents in these places are going for over 3000 for a single to over 7000 for a 3 bedroom. This is affordable Culver City housing that has gone through the city these past 2 to 3 years? What can we expect in the rezoning of our precious R1 areas? Sitting down with the residents of Culver to figure out a real affordable housing solution is the only way the council will get buy in from the community.
My family opposes eliminating r1 zoning in my area.
I too oppose eliminating R1 zones. I was just pointing out in previous comment two things:
1. The city has had opportunities to establish affordable housing on the Washington Corridor and has not taken advantage of that in the newest developments.
2. Building condo's in the R1 will do exactly what is being done in the R2, units that are not necessarily affordable or certainly not more affordable than many of the single family homes we already have.
We strongly oppose eliminating R1 Zoning in residential neighborhoods.
Every property owner in Culver City should be opposed to the removal of R1 Zoning since it changes the plan made by Harry Culver over 100 years ago and that has worked well for the century. If you change the zoning you will be taking my property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and will owe each owner of a single family home restitution for the money you are taking by a type of condemnation. Reconsider. If not, expect to be voted out of office.
To whom it may concern,
My name is Steve Raiken. My wife and I have lived in Culver City for 33 years. 5 years renting a house in Lindberg Park and 28 years as a homeowner in Vet’s Park. We love everything about Culver City. When we first moved here Main Street had only one restaurant, a traditional Mexican eatery. Sepulveda had Sorrento’s and Roll & Rye, Shakey’s and Petrelli’s Steak house. We raised our daughter in Culver City. She and I were in the Culver Y Indian program. One year I was big Chief (no longer politically correct). I have known good and bad in Culver City and certainly know our history is tied to the sunset laws and deed restrictions. I also know how Culver City has changed into a city where its teachers and public servants cannot afford to live. It is also a town where we can meet our civic leaders on the street or behind a deli counter and have. We can engage politically as much as we want. Our daughter learned how to be an activist in Culver City at age 6. ( A story for another time.)
We are opposed to the proposed Culver City housing plan for the reasons listed below:
There is a lot of data in the report projecting population and affordability. I have not seen a correlation between population projections and impacts on schools and public service. We have amazing police and fire service. Will the existing departments be spread to serve a larger population, or will their budgets grow to meet the population growth? If so, how will the city reshape these services in order to reduce the power of the service unions. Where will property for new schools be acquired? When will the roads and sidewalks be redone instead of patched? Has there been an assessment of our water, electricity, Garbage collection or sewage infrastructure?
The plan as proposed will change my neighborhood from 90% homeowner to conservatively 50% renter. How did we go from restricting the development of McMansions to the development of every square inch of land for multi-tenant rentals? The plan will increase tax revenue and property value (an end run around Prop 13) making the idea of a starter house in Culver City a fantasy. (it is never a good idea to increase tax revenue as it will be spent). Santa Monica has not improved the quality of life for its residents with their exponential growth and tax revenue.
What about Climate change impact? Replacing back yard foliage with hardscape or roof tops will contribute to more greenhouse gas. What part of the plan is for safe parks and open space?
What does low-income housing mean? One of my daughter’s friends is a teacher in CC. Her first year as teacher she qualified for a low-income unit. She beat out other applicants because she was deemed “ a more desirable low income applicant”. Will landlords really be color blind? She had to re-apply every year and no longer qualified as “low income” after two years. This is not permanent housing. Culver City does not have a diversity problem. When my daughter was at Farragut elementary the principle said that Culver city schools were teaching children from 140 different countries. What change in population the Culver City housing Plan is aiming for?
I do not see this proposed change will possibly meet its intended goal of keeping Culver City Middle Class. It will only enrichen people like myself with inflated property value. It won’t provide a better life for anyone. It might make me feel less guilty but also less content. I also am failing to see the discussion of the unintended consequences of the proposed plan. While there are a lot of statistics in the plan I was unable to find a discussion about Why Not? Without that we will not know where the potholes are. (no pun intended).
Thank you for reading my comments. I hope you can achieve a more nuanced dialog about the concerns of our day.