[LosAngelesBeauty]

Why? Read this:


Broad stepping down as head of Grand Avenue Committee
The philanthropist says his goal to lead the project through the city and county approval phase is complete.
By Cara Mia DiMassa
Times Staff Writer

6:38 PM PST, March 5, 2007

Philanthropist Eli Broad has announced that he is stepping down as chairman of the citizens group that has steered the $2.05-billion Grand Avenue project since its inception.

The Grand Avenue project, which eventually could include nine acres of retail, housing and office space as well as a 16-acre civic park around Walt Disney Concert Hall on Bunker Hill in downtown Los Angeles, received approval last month from the city and county.

At a luncheon Monday to honor those involved in the process, Broad said he had wanted to guide the project through city and county approvals before relinquishing control of the Grand Avenue Committee.

"With the development phase beginning, it makes perfect sense," he said.

Broad initially served as co-chairman of the committee and became sole chairman after developer Jim Thomas left the committee two years ago. But it has been Broad's vision that has largely guided the process over the last seven years.

Broad said that he hopes to focus on other projects, including his foundation's work on education and healthcare issues. Along with supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, Broad has recently been a bidder for the Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times. "My plate is more than full," Broad said.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised Broad for having "vision, persistence, tenacity — the will to move this vision along."

Replacing Broad as chairman will be Nelson Rising, a real estate developer who has served on the committee since 2005.

Rising called the Grand Avenue project transformational for the city of Los Angeles. Still, he told Broad at the meeting, "I have no illusions.... No one can replace you."

The Grand Avenue project is scheduled to break ground in October. But late Friday, the owner of the Westin Bonaventure hotel filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asking the court to declare invalid the City Council's and county Board of Supervisors' approval last month of the Grand Avenue project. The hotel contends that the government actions violate the Bunker Hill Redevelopment Plan and provisions of state redevelopment law.

Helen Parker, a lawyer for the county, said attorneys for the agencies and companies named in the suit were reviewing the filing. She said they would have no comment on pending litigation.

cara.dimassa@latimes.com


:yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am not going there again until he realizes that other projects will benefit Downtown LA.

[LAsam]

Sounds like a desperation move to me... try to stall the project as much as possible. I have serious doubts he will really have any success stopping the project.

[RAlossi]

My coworkers were going to take my office up to the restaurant in the Bonaventure's top floor (does it rotate?). I'm sick of the Bonaventure's bitching and moaning all the time. I think we'll try Liberty Grill or some other place instead.

[Wright Concept]

My coworkers were going to take my office up to the restaurant in the Bonaventure's top floor (does it rotate?). I'm sick of the Bonaventure's bitching and moaning all the time. I think we'll try Liberty Grill or some other place instead.

The Buenavista Lounge rotates but the Resturant does not, but you can get items from LA Prime resturant at the Lounge.

[Wright Concept]

The Grand Avenue project is scheduled to break ground in October. But late Friday, the owner of the Westin Bonaventure hotel filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asking the court to declare invalid the City Council's and county Board of Supervisors' approval last month of the Grand Avenue project. The hotel contends that the government actions violate the Bunker Hill Redevelopment Plan and provisions of state redevelopment law.

Helen Parker, a lawyer for the county, said attorneys for the agencies and companies named in the suit were reviewing the filing. She said they would have no comment on pending litigation.

cara.dimassa@latimes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going there again until he realizes that other projects will benefit Downtown LA.

LAB, calm down.

He was just using a scare tactic like he did for the LA Live project and the Mayor foolishing giving in (the reason why he's doing it again) instead of fighting the prick and let him waste his money on a voter initiative that he was going to start, it would be cheaper, let the voters have a say and realize his agenda and put an end to all of this madness.

[RAlossi]

^ But what happens if the litigation actually goes forward, and the project gets tied up in the various courts for several years? It's a very real possibility. I don't know the answer here, but the Bonaventure is probably going to ask for further exemptions in its "settlement" of this.

[Steve2726]

I wish the city would offer them a similar bed tax rebate deal if they would use the proceeds to renovate the fortress-like exterior of that building. They need to open it up to the street and to remake the lower 7 or so floors that are currently mostly vacant. Also, they need to redo the atrium to make it more appealing on the inside.

[Wright Concept]

I wish the city would offer them a similar bed tax rebate deal if they would use the proceeds to renovate the fortress-like exterior of that building. They need to open it up to the street and to remake the lower 7 or so floors that are currently mostly vacant. Also, they need to redo the atrium to make it more appealing on the inside.

That's not going to happen. Most of those blank concrete walls hold support spaces, Convention Floors, storage, emergency exits and other odds and ends for the Hotel.

[Wright Concept]

^ But what happens if the litigation actually goes forward, and the project gets tied up in the various courts for several years? It's a very real possibility. I don't know the answer here, but the Bonaventure is probably going to ask for further exemptions in its "settlement" of this.

It's very possible RAlossi for that to happen.

It's also possible that because the building of the hotel was built and sustained using the same subsidies (Bunker Hill Redevelopment from the Mid-70's) that I believe he's benefitting from, he would have no case.

Fighting it maybe the best thing to keep him from using this as a case the next time any other project Downtown or right near by like around Union Station or in Central City West getting a subsidy for a hotel or convention space.

My point was that he pulled this same stuff on L.A. Live and got his way and now like a bully he's trying to do it again.

[colemonkee]

Is the Bunker Hill Redevelopment plan even binding for the City Council/County Supervisors? If it isn't, he doesn't have a chance in hell. They could take it to mediation and it would be thrown out before going to trial.

Funny how you don't see the Kawada or the Omni Hotels throwing up a big stink (though you wouldn't expect to see Kawada complaining because they need some favors in order to get entitlements for Zen Tower). I think this is a ploy to get some more handouts. Especially seeing that his previous handout really isn't worth much now that the condo market has slowed down...

[Wright Concept]

Is the Bunker Hill Redevelopment plan even binding for the City Council/County Supervisors? If it isn't, he doesn't have a chance in hell. They could take it to mediation and it would be thrown out before going to trial.

I don't believe it is, but I don't have the fine print in front of me and variances have changed since 1976 when the building finally opened.

Funny how you don't see the Kawada or the Omni Hotels throwing up a big stink (though you wouldn't expect to see Kawada complaining because they need some favors in order to get entitlements for Zen Tower). I think this is a ploy to get some more handouts. Especially seeing that his previous handout really isn't worth much now that the condo market has slowed down...

Precisely, which is why I thought that LA shouldn't have given this cockroach one cent in 2005-06. If he want's to spend money to lobby and campaign to voters on it, let him. Then the courts or voters will drop this case like a bad habit because they'll see what he's trying to do.

:tup:

[RAlossi]

Will kids pay for Grand project?
Suit alleges schools being shortchanged
BY TROY ANDERSON, Staff Writer

Article Last Updated: 03/24/2007 09:29:05 PM PDT

Grand Avenue project officials structured the deal in a way that will cost Los Angeles public schools and community colleges $25million over eight years, according to a lawsuit challenging public subsidies for the massive development.

The lawyer representing the Bonaventure Hotel, which sued to block the $2 billion project, has urged the Los Angeles Unified School District and local colleges to join the hotel's March 2 lawsuit to protect a key source of revenue.

Attorney Christopher Sutton claims that city, county and redevelopment officials used outdated documents to structure the project's financing, allowing them to avoid paying education a higher share of property tax and other revenue from redevelopment projects.

"This is a serious transfer of money away from children and schools to the well-connected downtown insiders," said school board member David Tokofsky, who has asked his LAUSD colleagues to consider joining the lawsuit.

"This is enough money to build a new elementary school every eight years," he said.

Supporters say the $2.05 billion Grand Avenue project will revitalize downtown Los Angeles with 3.6 million square feet of development and green space larger than New York's
Central Park. (ed: huh?)

The proposal includes more than 2,000 condominium units, a luxury hotel, entertainment venues, restaurants, and commercial and retail space.

Los Angeles city and county and the Community Redevelopment Agency created a special entity - the Grand Avenue Authority - to administer the project at the top of the city's landmark Bunker Hill.

While officials promised that the project would require little taxpayer funds, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has estimated that $176 million in tax breaks and subsidies will be needed.

Officials eye revenue

Still, the Grand Avenue project has received near-unanimous support from local officials and civic leaders, who tout the potential for a massive infusion of tax revenue - some $109 million a year - for various government agencies.

But Sutton's suit claims that, under the agreement brokered by the Grand Avenue Authority, most of the tax revenue that should be funneled to education will instead remain with the CRA.

The complex issue has its roots in the Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project - which was approved in 1959 and amended in 1970 - and resulted in the development of a prestigious residential and retail area that generates $26 million annually in property tax revenue.

The Grand Avenue Authority maintains that its project is simply an extension of the long-ago Bunker Hill development, allowing it to use revenue-distribution rules in place at the time.

But Sutton says the density of the condominium projects proposed for Grand Avenue violate guidelines of the 1970 amendment.

And he argues that the plan should be amended again - a process that would trigger a reassessment of the area and, ultimately, a more equitable disbursement of tax revenue and more money for education.

That formula could potentially redirect as much as $52 million to other entities over 10 years and $307 million after 40 years, said Sutton.

Under that formula, Sutton estimates about $25 million would go to education during the first eight years.

"It's a question of whether a major amendment is required of the Bunker Hill plan, which would trigger reallocation of the $26 million a year (the area generates in revenue), which goes up every year by at least 2 percent," Sutton said.

CRA officials declined to be interviewed but issued the following statement:

"As a result of a past Bunker Plan amendment, the Agency is already making mandated payments to LAUSD, the Community College District and all other taxing entities. A Bunker Hill plan amendment would not increase these payments.

"The Agency believes that no plan amendment is required. All taxing entities would benefit from the increased tax base from the Grand Avenue Project."

Lease criticized

Sutton also criticized the lease agreement that the city and county signed with The Related Cos., which is developing the project.

He says a $50 million lease payment the county received to jump-start development of the 16-acre downtown park was really designed to quell any objections to the redevelopment plan.

"It's basically a payment so the county will not assert the objection that a plan amendment is required," Sutton said. "And the money being left on the table through that little sweetheart deal is the money that would go to the schools and colleges and other local districts."

Officials with The Related Cos. did not return phone calls.

No county comment

Helen Parker, principal deputy county counsel, said the county is reviewing Sutton's lawsuit and coordinating a defense.

"We don't have any comment on pending litigation," Parker said.

During recent public hearings on the project, Sutton warned the city and county that the Bonaventure would fight an estimated waiver of $60.5 million in hotel bed taxes and $5.5 million in parking taxes for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel that is part of the project.

Sutton said the waivers are unfair to existing hotels and violate existing redevelopment plans for the area. And he said his estimates of the money the deal would divert are conservative.

"The number grows in later years," Sutton said. "This is a very conservative estimate. By structuring the project as a lease, it allows the city and county to approve the project without taking into consideration the impact on other agencies," he said. "In essence, it's a payoff to the city and county to sell out other tax entities."

Tokofsky said the city and county should have better disclosed how the project was being financed.

"We shouldn't be putting all of our efforts into one place, and certainly not without disclosing the finances of such a redistribution of wealth from kids to people like The Related Cos."