Only two blocks SW of the Hart/Bassett neighborhood near VanOwen and Kester, is this frightening slum district which is also home to the DMV. The LAUSD has proposed buying 22 single family homes just to the NE of here to build an elementary school.
VanOwen, w. of Kester, is decaying, overcrowded, filthy and dilapidated. Lou Dobbs and Caesar Chavez could make thousands of speeches about this inhumane environment which is a horrible and unsafe place to raise a family. Why not buy out the slumlords who own these properties? Then condemn and demolish these tenements instead of an intact, well kept street of homes!
Maybe I just don’t understand zoning, but common sense tells me that you try to build something better by removing something bad. The slums of VanOwen are a good place to start.
Senor Cardenas and LAUSD, are you listening?
Here in Van Nuys 
also, isn’t there already an elementary school just a few blocks away right there on vanowen, across from the hospital? seems like it would be better to spread 2 schools out a little more rather than to build another one right at kester & vanowen. though i do agree that the condition of those apartment houses is horrible and i don’t think it’s a good idea to tear down houses for this purpose. what about the old american red cross site on sherman way??? it’s just sitting there forlornly getting vandalized.
LikeLike
Those projects require approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council but new LAUSD schools don’t. There is no independent review of the alternatives that can be discussed in public.
But LAUSD must comply with CEQA, whether or not they are beholden to the city Planning Commission.
LikeLike
Mitch-
Thank you for the clarifying comments. I guess I am arguing from a logically but not legally correct perspective. It seems crazy that the positive effect of building a school cannot somehow include other benefits and roles in its construction.
LikeLike
Andrew, as a professional planner, I think you have a good understanding of zoning. Patrick seems to have a good understanding of CEQA. When it comes to this issue, however, neither of you realizes that LAUSD doesn’t have to play by the same rules.
LAUSD is not beholden to the City of Los Angeles and its zoning. It can put schools wherever it wants. Your frustration stems from the fact that LAUSD doesn’t want to explain why it wants to remove 22 single family homes instead of the nearby “slum district” you documented, nor does it have to.
Bear in mind that, even with the recent real estate boom, single family homes are far less expensive than income-generating multi-family and commercial properties, even those as poorly maintained as these. In South Los Angeles, I was privy to an LAUSD school site that conspiciously avoided a large parcel of land occupied by Wells Fargo Bank and its parking lot. Yes, we need banks in South Los Angeles, and yes, the homes on the other side of the street were cheaper, but doesn’t Wells Fargo have an easier time relocating its branch than families have relocating their residences?
Zoning and CEQA are powerful tools that organized groups can use to oppose development projects. Those projects require approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council but new LAUSD schools don’t. There is no independent review of the alternatives that can be discussed in public.
I think the solution is obvious but not politically viable. LAUSD could be forced to work with the City and its planning staff on locating sites for schools and having them validated in a public hearing process. However, the prospect of new schools being postponed by political bickering over urban planning concerns is frightening. The ends may justify the means in this instance.
LikeLike
http://www.laschools.org/peir/docs/NOA.pdf
Looks like they did a district wide EIR in 2004. Hmmm…
LikeLike
Is there any organized opposition to this? May I suggest that whomever is involved not waste time fighting it based on emotional arguments about cozy neighborhoods? Instead find a CEQA attorney or advocacy planning group. The best way to fight a project is to poke holes in it’s environmental review. CEQA only requires that someone raise a “reasonable argument” in order for the environmental determination to be challenged. I use CEQA daily and I am not aware of a categorical exemption for condemning entire neighborhoods.
LikeLike