Peter Ostroff's column:

Thumbs on the Scales, a Quick Turnabout

Lots going on in our little slice of paradise so I cannot confine myself this week to only one subject.

The Planning staff issued a report on August 28 for the Planning Commission’s consideration this coming Thursday, September 3, of an exception for landmarked houses to the prohibition on short term rentals. This report is an excellent example of abandonment of objectivity in favor of promoting a particular outcome or, in other words, staff “thumbs on the scales”.

When the Council banned rentals of less than one year, some Councilmembers were sympathetic to the story of Debbie Blum who lives in a landmarked craftsman house in the flats and wants to raise cash by offering very short term (two nights) rentals. And they were apparently influenced by the argument that landmarked houses were expensive to maintain and short term rentals of ADUs would help defray some of these costs. So they instructed the staff to propose an exception and present it to the Planning Commission for analysis and recommendation.

This staff report for a Cultural Heritage Commission meeting on September 3 reflects that proposal which should be called the “Blum Exception.”

The theoretical rationale is that the handful of landmarked houses are more expensive than non-landmarked houses to maintain and should, uniquely, be able to obtain income from short term rentals that have been recognized as problematic for several reasons.

In fact, there are dozens, if not hundreds of older houses in BH. My house on Alta Drive was built in 1929. It is expensive to maintain. My current house was completed in 2016. It is expensive to maintain. It is fair to say that all houses are expensive to maintain. And this staff report, because it is offered in service of what is perceived as a Council directive, offers ZERO evidence or discussion that landmarked houses are any more expensive to maintain than any other houses. Likely this is because there is no evidence that landmarked houses are any more expensive to maintain than non-landmarked houses.

Lest you have any doubt, I think that the Blum Exception is a bad idea. It is unfair to all other homeowners because most if not all of them have houses that are just as expensive to maintain as landmarked houses.

Staff reports should be limited to telling decision-makers what they need to know to make a reasoned decision, not what someone wants them to know. If there is any evidence that landmarked houses are more expensive to maintain than many other houses, that evidence should be presented. If not, Blum Exception should be rejected.

***

The BHUSD Board of Education once again has been distracted from its academic mission and this time has become national news. The Board took highly controversial non-urgent action in an unduly rushed fashion. This, predictably, resulted in subjecting the students, teachers and administrators to extraordinary stress and hazards.

Specifically, In the name of the fight against anti-semitism, on Tuesday August 26, the Board adopted, with its customary 3-2 vote, a resolution that provided that the schools would “display” (whatever that means) the flag of the State of Israel during Jewish-American Heritage Month, May 2026, nine months from now.

These actions were as imprudent and rushed as they were unfair to the entire community of students who depend on the District for their education.

The majority again has allowed itself to be distracted from a single-minded focus on academics while in pursuit of political or religious themes or self-aggrandizement. The minority consisting of Board President Rachelle Marcus and Dr. Amanda Stern, the only board members with academic backgrounds or experience, presciently expressed a number of concerns including that the prospect of such displays could threaten the security of the students or teachers. BHUSD Superintendent Alex Cherniss was silent throughout the highly charged Board discussion.

The reaction to the announcement that the flag of the State of Israel would be displayed was fast and furious. One board member reported that they had stopped counting after 450 emails (apparently mostly unfavorable or threatening or both).

On Thursday morning August 28, less than 48 hours later, it was all undone with a statement from Dr Cherniss: “Until further notice, no flags will be displayed on our campuses other than the flag of the United States of America and the flag of the State of California.”

Shortly after the statement was issued, an emergency meeting of the Board was set for Friday afternoon, August 29. The rationale for this emergency meeting was explained on the agenda as necessary due to “threats and disruptions” the nature and timing of which was not stated and to “clarify” that when the Board announced that the flag of the State of Israel would be displayed, it did not mean that the flag of the State of Israel would be displayed. OK – that’s clear.

At the meeting, the Board affirmed that only the flags of the United States, California, Beverly Hills and the District would be flown or displayed on any area controlled by BHUSD.

This episode, however you spin it, was highly embarrassing for the District, the City and the three Board members responsible.

I hope that they will get the message: if it’s not about academics – and injecting yourselves into highly charged political issues or extra spending for uniforms for student athletes are most assuredly not – stay out of it!!

***

The fruits of the Builder’s Remedy “tree” seem closer than ever to harvesting and my how they have grown.

The applicant for the mixed use residential and hotel tower at 125-9 S. Linden, fresh from a litigation victory, has announced that it will seek approval of a 36 story tower, up from the prior 19 story proposal. Similarly, the proposal for 8844 Burton Way has grown to 26 stories.

The Burton Way project application has been deemed complete and the Linden Drive project will likely soon be deemed complete and ready for review by the Planning Commission. Others include 353 S. Beverly (8 stories), 214-6 S. Hamilton (8 stories), 346 N. Maple (12 stories), 401 N. Oakhurst (11 stories), 9430 Olympic (13 stories), 9441 Olympic (13 stories), 9467 Olympic (8 stories), 145 S. Rodeo (19 stories), 232 S. Tower (8 stories) and 9229 Wilshire (14 stories).

It is likely that neither our Planning Commission nor the City Council will have much discretion to deny approval of any of these projects so, before too long, one or more of these projects may be coming to your neighborhood.