Editorial: Developers Who Do Us Favors

The spin doctors are busy these days. I notice that whenever a developer is expected to comply with the General Plan, it always seems to be phrased in some quaint way to indicate how it was done as a favor to the local residents or neighborhood.

Is there an illiteracy problem amongst developers? The language has always seemed quite clear to me, for instance the Sunland-Tujunga-Lake View Terrace-Shadow Hills-East La Tuna Canyon Community Plan states, “To promote and protect the existing rural, single-family equestrian oriented neighborhoods in RA zoned areas and “K” Districts. To caution against possible precedent-setting actions including zone variance, conditional use, or subdivision that might endanger the preservation of horsekeeping uses.”

I am still waiting for the developer who comes to one of our horsekeeping neighborhoods, and says, “I’d like to preserve the quality and character of your community and open spaces. I’d like to build some homes that equestrians could afford. What exactly do equestrians look for in a home and what amenities would sell?”

I’m still waiting, though, and, it will probably take the nether regions to freeze over. Alas, someday a developer may actually propose a plan that takes into account more than the minimum acreage, knows what slope density means and doesn’t need to be compelled at the neighborhood’s time and expense to comply to the General Plan.

It would even be unique for a developer with a high density subdivision plan to just admit they were wrong instead of trying to convince us they’ve done us all a big favor when they finally find out they need to comply to the zoning in our neighborhoods.

Of course, listening to the rumor lines on the machinations between developers and the Scenic Plan, and developers in Chatsworth, the newest craze may be to attempt to rewrite the General Plans.