There were many plans developed for Plummer Park which were not necessarily to benefit the community, but to benefit needs for parking in the area. These plans are now not possible since the State has recalled Redevelopment Funds. I was not at any of the 70 planning meetings that were held over the past 20 years, but I have talked to people who were at those meetings. The plans were presented to Committees and Boards who were basically disinterested and the plans were presented in a way that was tantamount to, “This is what we are doing, isn’t it nice?” My opinion is the loss of the Redevelopment money warrants a new plan and that demolishing this building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, would be shameful and not in the best interest of the community.

with all respect, Aaron Blevins, that is a terrible photograph of the buildings, prominently featuring the dog poo trashcan and Hvac unit.

anyone walking around the building can see the neglect and disrepair that Mr. Duran flat out denies. are we going to trust his word or our lying eyes?

historians and architects have unanimously declared this building to be of national historic significance but our council’s “tear-em-down three” Heilman/Land/Duran who have no expertise whatsoever disagree.

in true neo-con style they want to present the residents with a new scorched-earth reality to ram their vision down our throats.

My guess is that the hostility that exuded from the podium comes from a deep seated anger towards the community for foiling the ludicrous “Master Plan” for Plummer Park. Instead of grabbing $14 million in redevelopment funds from the state they were handed Term Limits by the voters as a result.

So the “Tear-Em-Down-Three” managed to turn a reasonable and common sense proposal with broad public support that was enthusiastically endorsed by every single written comment, letter and every single public speaker including the city’s own commissioners (soon to be ex-commissioners, I surmise) completely on its head to make sure the city will do exactly the opposite of what the public input asked for.

Ironically they thereby managed to make the perfect case why Term Limits were so badly needed in WeHo (and why they won by a landslide) and why we need meaningful campaign finance reform: Council members have little regard for the actively engaged residents since they are mainly beholden to their big money donors, mostly city contractors and special interests from out of town.

I am not holding my breath for this council to come up with meaningful reform but sadly it might come to us from the rubble of Great Hall/Long Hall.

Very sad how disconnected the city council is out local interests. They sight an old community study and have not taken into account the loads of development dollars from the state. We need to start from scratch instead of picking and choosing which parts of the old plan can go forward. Cheers to Stephanie and Cathy for their passion!

Great Hall/Long Hall is a National Register Landmark. This is an honor that most cities are proud of.
I understand that only West Hollywood and one other city have ever opposed a nomination.
I believe that other City was Fresno.
Mr. Heilman and Ms. Land appear to like sterile parks (with venue potential) and don’t like opposition.
Mr. Duran wants their endorsement for his Supervisors race.

Mr. Duran says that “his vision” is that the park be more active than passive. “His” vision.
Currently the large portion of green space in the park is mostly used for sunbathing.
People walk on the paths and sit on benches under the large trees which the City plan called for removing.

Yes, the Fickett library was demolished, in West Hollywood Park, after a group of residents attempted to save it.
There is nothing lovely in its place. It seems that’s where a small plot of useless cement lies.

Mayor Pro Temp D’Amico is right that something smells here..but, it isn’t just the building.

As residents of this neighborhood, don’t we have ANY say with what is to be done with this public space? No one who lives in this neighborhood wants this. I don’t understand how a city council can operate like this, with no community input. This is open space where our children and animals play. West Hollywood has enough parking spaces. Leave this land alone.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend Mondat night shame of a city council meeting. Watching the replay online, it made me wonder…again, who Heilman, Land & especially Duran believe they represent? Not the residents. Duran said it himself. Quote: My Vision”

Looks like 3 members of the Council have already spent their “thank you” from the developers and now have to scramble to deliver before they are voted out. Follow the money.

The buildings are only vacant because WEHO asked those who were happily using Great Hall / Long Hall, to vacate. The LA Audubon Society and the Russian Language Library had to leave. While it is true that from many angles the buildings appear unattractive. The roof tiles have needed repairs for at least 10 years. The courtyard has been on lockdown for at least 5 years, the 150 year old olive tree in same courtyard going unappreciated. I am quite sure roof repairs, paint, electrical and technological upgrades could easily be made at much less than even the cost to destroy the buildings.
They have always talked “open space” as the goal requested by the people, not true, they do not want park users to have any place to hang out that goes unobserved. The sheriffs need to be able to stay in their cars and drive around to see who is where doing what.

Thank you Aaron for your front page story. What I find most troubling about our city council actions the other night is that, in the scheme of things it really has little to do with Great Hall/Long Hall or Plummer Park. What is has to do with is the “creative” way in which our city works and how the voices of the people were disregarded. Councilmember Duran keeps talking about how open space is a top priority for the residents and I do believe that might be so. Here is where the creativity comes in. We are told that our Nationally Designated Historic buildings (the ONLY WPA buildings in West Hollywood) are to be demolished because you, our constituents want open green space. We are NEVER asked, since you the people want more open green space would you like us to accomplish that by: (A) Demolishing our Historic buildings, (B) By possibly relocating our 2 southern tennis courts. or (C) Some other way that does not destroy what little history we still have in our city. We were NEVER given options. We were only told, we are doing this for you, you should be grateful that our city wants to spend the money on you.

I agree with Mark Naegle who says “This is open space where our chldren and animals play. West Hollywood has enough parking spaces. Leave this land alone.”

During the City Council meeting on Monday (December 2nd), Mayor Pro Tem John D’Amico proposed the immediate repair, re-opening and re-programming (use) of the Plummer Park’s Great Hall/Long Hall structures, but the council ended up by voting 3-2 to demolish these historic buildings instead. Mayor Pro Tem John D’Amico was absolutely correct in proposing these historical buildings be preserved and repaired for our community use and pleasure, after all Plummer Park really does belong to “We the People.”

“We the People” of West Hollywood simply do NOT have any rights nor the ability to be heard by the members of the City Council, namely: Mayor Abby Land, Councilmember John Duran and Councilmember John Heilman.

According to these Councilmembers “We the People” simply do not know what’s best for us and therefore the Council must make all decisions that have a direct affect upon the citizens’ welfare and quality of life with a deaf ear to the people of West Hollywood. This form of “Public Policy” is the “Standard” for our City Council as it applies to Real Estate development and Land Use in our City.

The Great Hall/Long Hall which is on the National Register of Historic Places has been neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair for too many years and “We the People” residing on the East-Side of West Hollywood DO NOT want more “Green Space in Plummer Park.” We the People” want to be able to utilize the facilities we actually now have and we want our facilities maintained in proper repair as is mandated by the California Building Code.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 3402 – MAINTENANCE
“All buildings and structures, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. All devices or safeguards required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures.”

Section 3403.5 – Historic Buildings. “Repairs, alterations and additions necessary for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or continued use of a building or structure may be made without conformance to all the requirements of this code when authorized by the building official, provided the building or structure has been designated by official action of the legally constituted authority of this jurisdiction as having special historical or architectural significance.”

In order to make positive changes within our community, we must elect a new City Council … and that day is rapidly approaching. Replace Land, Duran and Heilman!

In the meantime Councilmembers keep your hands-off our Plummer Park!

Be careful of the word open space or green space. Mature trees cannot grow on to of a parking structure. Great Hall/Long Hall was always in the way of the plans for underground parking from Santa Monica Bl to the tennis courts. Plummer Park is very important to many of us on the east side of town. People love the park and city council should be aware of that. Also, what is the resolution of the bonds sold by the city counting on redevelopment monies.

Aside from the fact that I think these historic buildings should be preserved, what happened at the City Council meeting was a sham. The motion on the agenda was ignored and a new motion, which had received no public notice and was not on the agenda, was rammed through in spite of clear public sentiment against it. Lip service was paid to community involvement, as it has been all along with this project. I was at one of the “community input” sessions back in the early 90’s at which community members were supposed to give their opinions of what should be in the park, and it turned out that they only wanted us to vote on 3 different designs that had already been chosen without any community input. Many of us left in disgust, and a complaint to onbe councilman’s office elicited a dismissive response. No wonder so many of us gave up trying to participate, when all they wanted was the window dressing of having solicited community input. Now the City Council would like to pretend that they’ve sought community involvement all along. They pay lip service to it, and then totally ignore it in order to fulfill their own desires for another building on which to place their names on a prominent plaque. What they did may have been legal, according to the City Attorney, but it was neither ethical nor honest.

Councilmember John D’Amico
I just watched the 5a discussion online from home since I am a bit under the weather and the motion not previously disclosed to the public brought forward by Duran. Nor even requested by the public as far as I can tell. I have to say I admire your political ethics even more now and know that your action in bringing forward 5a was both responsible, a honest representation of the residents wishes and clearly supported by the public who attended. I don’t see how history will shine a good light on what Duran brought forward and or the dismissal of the residents desires. Along with both Heilman and Land supporting it. Thank you so much for your item. I am extremely grateful to have your leadership on council. And I stand in full support of 5A, your leadership and at a deeper level the ideal of a city council that represents the residents. I am deeply shaken by what I watched tonight and more committed now than ever to do all things possible in the weho community to have the residents properly, honestly and ethically represented in our government. Again much appreciation to you and your leadership.

I’ve participated in Pl. Park discussions for many years and there were written resolutions ” do not demolish these building until we find others around Pl. Park”. We spoke about car-wash place or across iton Martel, or even Palladium. Instead some of our authorities were so persistent to demolish the houses that they evicted immediatelly thooe big perfect Russian library which we volunteraly created for many years and all Russian neighborhood used it with pleasure. Now we lost the opportunity to use it because it was replaced to a room without capacity to function.
Why all dicussions about recommended changes you decided to make are without our neighbors. You ignore us completely. Even a trafle request that I asked about installing a picknic round table close to kindergarten for approximetely 16 people seems unsolvable. (every evening our neibiurs different nationalities intertain with pleasure there from 8-10p.m.). All the best. Sofia Gelman

Every now and again I applaud efforts from longtime council member John Duran to keep Weho “The Creative City.” This applause is always tempered by some inane pronouncement and all that goodwill swirls away, flushed down the loo with an absurd and insensitive proposal like destroying, DESTROYING Great Hall/Long Hall. He has put himself in league with the Development at All Costs Consortium, working Illuminati-style to decimate this city and build it up, up, up. They overburden the east side with huge developments (good luck driving down La Brea in six months) claiming to care about the citizenry, yet they really are just building toward an end game of leap-frogging to state office off the backs of Wehoans while developers and consultants and attorneys funnel monies to their endless elected office campaigns. The damage they’ve done is irreparable, as personified by the Ed Fickett Library, demolished under cover of darkness while streets were blocked for a visit from President Obama, acting like thieves in the night. I am ashamed of this city: I am ashamed of gay men who don’t know for historic preservation and never defer to the greater judgement of others: I am ashamed of their neglect and their imperious declamations from the dais: I am ashamed of a populace that does not do enough to speak out and allows the sitting council majority to prey upon this disinterest and foment it further: I am ashamed of a progressive city held under the yoke of three near-lifetime dictators who follow the footsteps of tyranny. This is not an understatement: if you want more details of this treachery, why stop by 1336 N. Laurel and say howdy, and be prepared for an engaging kiki earful.

I left early during Monday’s meeting because the sound system was so bad at the beginning that I couldn’t hear a thing. I am sorry I did leave because what I didn’t expect was that Duran/Land/Heilman would pull the rug out from under John D’Amico’s plan to refurbish the Great Hall/Long Hall building and use it for community events, which is part of the purpose of any park. What is Duran talking about when he says people want more green space. There seems to be enough green space in West Hollywood, most of which is untouched. Where are the crowds of people at West Hollywood Park which seems empty most of the time. Laurel Park up the street from me doesn’t seem to attract many residents. People want a lot of things in a park, benches to sit on, trees to flourish, children playing, music drifting in from the buildings, stage readings, folk dancing, baseball, whatever…. A park should have many appeals, and D’Amica and Prang want for us what the people want – and that is a park that appeals to many. The Fickett Library was demolished one day with no advance notice to anyone. It was typical of part of the Council which is to pretend to listen to the group, nod heads in understanding, and then just do what they want. It’s a disgrace, really. D’amico and Prang are the only ones covering the backs of the residents. the next election, I hope, will get rid of those who do not seem to pay any attention to what we, the residents, want and need for our neighborhood.

Roy hits the nail on the head, this city council acts with imperious disregard for anything but their political egos. Many of them I once considered friends. Now, in the words of Jeanne Dobrin, “you people are disgusting”. Ever wonder why the street by Trader Joe’s is blocked? Gee, wonder who lives up the block. Ever see an orange Cadillac parked however the owner pleases? It’s not just actual councilmembers, ever wonder why 24 hour fitness can’t operate a full 24 hours in WeHo? World-class wannabes with provincial personalities.

Twenty four years in WeHo – the longest I have ever lived in any one place. In 1989 a local group did not want children in Plummer Park. They took it to the City Council (some of the same members were there even then). It had to do with Head Start – at the time housed in the landmark WPA buildings that are now threatened. They felt that a pre-school should not be in “their” park. I was not familiar with WeHo city business but I had a child in Head Start and I was enraged. Outraged. Infuriated. So I got the children an attorney and he appeared and spoke for the kids. Today there is a pre-school still in the park although it resides in a trailer – while the lovely room in Great Hall/Long Hall is empty. The promise had been a new pre-school. But the Head Start and its successors remain today. The pre-school could easily go back into the WPA site and the trailer could be removed (more green space) but the real issue is this: Those are buildings are solid, well constructed and moreover National and State treasures. There is no logic or reason for them to be demolished. The gain in green space is 3500 square feet. An alternative plan by a licensed, local architecture shows how the park can keep them and still gain green space. I would expect this kind of stubborn, dogmatic behavior from the GOP but in WeHo – land of equality – hardly. Most people only behave like Councilpersons Duran, Heilmann and Land when there is some profit to be gained. CP D’Amico proposed a reasonable (actually interim) motion to at least do the code required repairs until a formalization of some plan is made. This was not discussed. So it is not so much about love of the old and lack of desire for the new but a bully pulpit used by a gang of three to have their way no matter what. Despite over 2,000 residents who worked very hard to save these buildings for history and future generations. What am I missing?

With regard to the comment I made yesterday in this matter: It has come to my attention that comments I made regarding the licensed architect and the plan she created” were incorrect. I should have said she is a trained and degreed architect but has not obtained her license in the state of California yet and the plan I made reference to was not an alternative plan for the park. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

URGENT DEADLINE JANUARY 2 2014
The West Hollywood City council invoked the Brown Act on December 16 2013 as a way to keep people from commenting on the Plummer Park demolition proposal.

According to the Brown Act section 54952.6 discussions prior to a vote are part of the deliberative process. The move to demolish proposed on December 2 2013 was never discussed with the community before the council voted on it that night.

In other words, ‘ we got the shorthand version and our deliberative process was curtailed’ which appears to be illegal. I am not an attorney, just read the Brown Act brochure online.

If I read it correctly, we have 30 days from December 2 to draft a letter to the council for them to cure or correct the problem. Their vote would also be null and void.

Is there an attorney among us who would be willing to draft a letter to the council members?
If not we’ll have to move to Plan B. I don’t mind looking for/paying for an attorney to draft a letter if necessary.

I don’t think it would cost that much.

After January 2 2014 the park will be in a very vulnerable position.
Th council will probably initiate a sudden demolition after January 2, and we’ll be given the ‘privilege’ of voicing our opposition after the dirty deed has taken place.
Sort of like a cat who has had its vocal cords cut( I know, horrible image)