A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Pricing: Lincoln Place Apartments
Read the original blog post
Topic Rating: 3.4Topic Rating: 3.4Topic Rating: 3.4Topic Rating: 3.4Topic Rating: 3.4 Topic Rating: 3.4 (141 votes) 
December 19, 2012
2:26 pm
Venice Rob
Member
Forum Posts: 1417
Member Since:
January 20, 2012
Offline
13
3.7

Venice WatchDawg said
Aimco is the, or is one of the, largest rental property owners in the US and has units all over the country. While fighting, what I see as, an unreasonable effort by a group of tenants to somehow squeeze the various owners into selling the property to a "Tenants Collective" run nonprofit, to be funded by Uncle Sugar and the City of LA, and maintain LP as low income housing. They had grand plans that included a mag-lev train on Lincoln with a big station in the Ralph's parking lot.

The historic designation was, in my opinion, a ploy to devalue the property even more and buy more time to set up the funding that never materialized. AGAIN – STICK IT TO THE "MAN." Maybe I'm not the right guy to ask, but there are plenty of other properties in Venice that should be designated as "historical" over this typical-looking apartment complex that was terribly outdated in function, layout, and design, no matter who designed it…

Did they think that any of that 10 year stall, was gonna affect anything but leave a broken down eyesore bringing down the area for a decade? And maybe that WAS the point…  Aimco makes plenty of $$$ in other areas and wrote off huge amounts of tax money and had enough money behind them to wait this one out. And the squalor generator/anti gentrification league were able to keep the largest parcel of residential property in Venice, funky for another ten years.

I know nothing about Aimco but I did meet the former owner, Jim Bisno, who once courted me to be his PR flak and facilitator to the people of Venice on the project when his firm owned it. After a few meetings and a detailed discussion of his plans, I realized that he had no intention of providing ANY affordable units because condos were all the rage at the time and he was not intending to operate any rental component…. so I suggested that he work out a deal with a local housing nonprofit like VCHC to take over, rehab, and rent out a few of the buildings at the SW corner, kind of behind 7-11 to sweeten the deal, make the protesters look foolishly unreasonable, and actually provide some real affordable housing within walking distance of the "transportation corridor" (Lincoln).  That was the last time I was contacted by Mr. Bisno… he was an unreasonable man who was eventually "waited out" and sold the property below value, with all of the contention to Aimco. I wonder how many of the original protest/lawsuit tenant leaders have actually moved back in???

Watch for more of this on smaller properties around Venice as the "old guard" sees their crummy old Venice slipping away.  Aimco will make their money back in spades by charging market rate rents that could not have been imagined when they bought the property – At least the eyesore will be going away…   

This project was more like a hysterical preservation.

December 19, 2012
6:16 pm
cch
Member
Forum Posts: 576
Member Since:
August 18, 2010
Offline
14
0

I think people think of Village Green when they think of Lincoln Place.

I notice they are keeping the creepy Brasilian Pepper trees.

Village Green has lofty sycamores, very different feel.

Too bad they are putting in freeway landscaping.

Please look at the pedestrian landscape of the occupied rehabbed units.

December 19, 2012
7:04 pm
RJ
Member
Forum Posts: 224
Member Since:
August 10, 2009
Offline
15
3.7

Low income or not thats a rip off for that sq footage. Especially for being east of Lincoln.

December 19, 2012
7:32 pm
shantyirish
Member
Forum Posts: 898
Member Since:
July 8, 2010
Offline
16
3.7

I always wonder why private enterprise should be required to provide 'affordable units' on their dime.

Is it not the purview of government to use taxpayer dollars for a taxpayer benefit like 'affordable units'?

I have such a problem with government telling a landowner, hardware store, car wash, or dentist what they can charge? It just seems like a socialist path rather than a freedom path!

 

Shanty

December 19, 2012
8:10 pm
Shane
Member
Forum Posts: 2120
Member Since:
June 16, 2009
Offline
17
0

Perhaps because politicians realize there are more renters that vote than landlords?

December 21, 2012
10:09 am
Venice Rob
Member
Forum Posts: 1417
Member Since:
January 20, 2012
Offline
18
0

shantyirish said
I always wonder why private enterprise should be required to provide 'affordable units' on their dime.

Is it not the purview of government to use taxpayer dollars for a taxpayer benefit like 'affordable units'?

I have such a problem with government telling a landowner, hardware store, car wash, or dentist what they can charge? It just seems like a socialist path rather than a freedom path!

 

Shanty

Pretty soon I will have to call you comrade Shanty.

December 22, 2012
8:59 am
Mick
Milwood
Admin
Forum Posts: 279
Member Since:
February 10, 2011
Offline
19
2.3

shantyirish said
I always wonder why private enterprise should be required to provide 'affordable units' on their dime.

Is it not the purview of government to use taxpayer dollars for a taxpayer benefit like 'affordable units'?

I have such a problem with government telling a landowner, hardware store, car wash, or dentist what they can charge? It just seems like a socialist path rather than a freedom path!

 

Shanty

Affordable housing is essentially infrastructure, a public good, like roads, or parking spaces, or clean air. A lack of affordable housing has negative effects on the local labor market, and on transportation.  So the government attempts to maintain this public good by requiring that new construction not alter the balance of affordable housing. Similar to the requirement for parking spaces.

A developer benefits when they build expensive housing on a cheap lot. The problems that it causes are borne by the community. In economic terms it's a negative externality, like pollution.  The requirement for affordable units mitigates this externality, and prevents developers from benefitting at the expense of the community. 

December 22, 2012
6:51 pm
dexter
Member
Forum Posts: 479
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
20
0

back in the day we paid 350 for a one bedroom. witha a family of four

December 22, 2012
6:57 pm
zappaman
Member
Forum Posts: 1859
Member Since:
February 12, 2010
Offline
21
5
"I solve problems. That's what I do for a living."
December 22, 2012
8:01 pm
cch
Member
Forum Posts: 576
Member Since:
August 18, 2010
Offline
22
5

back in the day we paid 350 for a one bedroom. witha a family of four

 

Tough, I used to pay .25 for regular gas. It was 1.00 in three months.

 

Had me a bitchen' place on Pacific for $70 a month.

 

 

December 23, 2012
12:42 pm
Shane
Member
Forum Posts: 2120
Member Since:
June 16, 2009
Offline
23
5

I used to live with my parents. Didn't pay anything.

December 23, 2012
5:43 pm
shantyirish
Member
Forum Posts: 898
Member Since:
July 8, 2010
Offline
24
5

It always interests me to see comments like Micks. He is right about housing may be an essential infrastructure, but where in the Constitution does it say that private citizen constructing housing has to provide this essential service? I agree in that if a density bonus is offered than a developer has the choice to take advantage of that offer and build an affordable housing unit(s).

 

Is food, teeth cleaning, gasoline also an essential infrastructure? If so then in Micks opinion those private business ought to give away free or greatly reduced hot dogs, teeth cleaning, or fuel!

 

I still feel that if government feels housing is an essential 'right' well then tax us and build the housing. Rent control is socialism, price control is socialism, on and on.

 

Venice is hip and it costs alot to live in a hip place, be it Venice, Vail, or Aspen. That's life folks!

 

Shanty

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: wp_sferrorlog

Currently Online: eric, Brad Neal
39 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 32

Members: 19667

Moderators: 2

Admins: 4

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 37

Topics: 8646

Posts: 62811

Newest Members: bluesuperman

Moderators: ModBot (9), CanalsAdjacent (0)

Administrators: Bret (8421), EmilGH (108), eric (235), Mick (279)