Hooray for Councilman Tom LaBonge — he’s heeded the cry of the city, given into his heart and declared his commitment to protect L.A.’s greatest historical-cultural asset from the kind of trashy developments that are destroying so many of the our neighborhoods.
A lot of people have been worried that LaBonge had lost his way and was stooging for the greedy special interests who don’t give a damn about L.A. 
but he sent out a mass mailing this week to the public, his colleagues on the City Council and, most importantly to the mayor, asserting his own values and his independence of thought..
Of course, there are questions about the details and nuances and especially his commitment to preserve the Southwest Museum as a living museum and not let it be destroyed by the Autry Natonal Center which has yet to prove itself financially viable or respectful of the history, culture or art of the West.
But here’s what Tom had to say about keeping Griffith park “a park for the people” so you can judge for yourself:
September 17,2008
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your recent communication concerning historic-cultural designation for Griffith Park. All of us share a
great love for what I consider this city’s most treasured and greatest gift, Griffith Park.
Currently, the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission has taken this historical designation under consideration. They will be
making a recommendation that, once approved, will be forwarded to the City Council for deliberation.
I have encouraged the Commission staff to have a thoughtful discussion with Department of Recreation and Parks staff to
interpret exactly what a historic designation would mean to the park and its operation. I have always been a proponent of
preservation. It was my idea to apply for historic designation for the Griffith Observatory in 1976. I want to make sure
other buildings, like the Greek Theater, get their designation to add to the nine existing historic sites in the park.
Additionally, the second and most current draft of the updated Griffith Park Master Plan will be reviewed soon. I want to make sure that historic designation would not conflict with the Master Plan when it’s adopted.
Griffith Park is currently more than 4,218 acres: One of my major goals is to expand the park to the west, especially the
area near Cahuenga Peak and the Hollywood sign. Additionally, I want to connect the park to the Los Angeles River and
its revitalization.
There’s a lot of misinformation out there. I hike to Mount Hollywood every morning and there have been fliers stapled to trees accusing me of supporting development in the park. I do not endorse any development plans in the park. All of the items mentioned in the emails are things I rejected years ago when I opposed the first draft of the Master Plan. That is why I formed the working group to create the second draft.
If you would like to hike with me to discuss this further, please call me at my office at (213)485-3337. Additionally, on Tuesday, September 23 at 4 p.m., I will lead a tour of the park by van for all interested parties. On that same date, I will lead a hike to Mt. Hollywood from the Fall Equinox SunsetHike. See attached flyer.
I am honored to serve this City and protect and enhance Griffith Park. My primary objective is to do what Colonel Griffith Jenkins Griffith wanted: to keep Griffith Park a park for the people.
TOM LaBONGE
Councilmember, 4thDistrict
cc: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
All Council Members
Van Griffith
“I do not endorse any development plans in the park. All of the items mentioned in the emails are things I rejected years ago when I opposed the first draft of the Master Plan. That is why I formed the working group to create the second draft.”
If LaBonge and his people knew anything about PR, that statement would have been at the top of the letter in 24-point, boldface type.
Politicians think we have very short memories, and most of us — and the lazy press who don’t Google the records — do, too.
Therefore, anyone who has the letter must keep it, underline the statement and throw it back in his face when he backs or suggests any more ideas to fix what ain’t broke.
Perhaps the Autry Museum would benefit from replacing its curator? I have been there and it is BORING! The history of the West is not dull and yet, this museum is.
There are many ways to make the museum more up-to-date with interactive displays that will appeal to young and old alike, however they have to have a curator with vision, a creative mind, and then give him or her the funding to build the displays and buy or build replicas of the artifacts.
The Autry cannot remain the same as it is or it will continue to lose money year after year. It’s boring and that’s why it’s a failure.
I’m stunned this obvious spin fools an old newspaper man like yourself, Ron.
There are so many ways in this letter that anyone could slide out from under fully approving the Historic Application, it’s ridiculous.
You must remember that this letter is from the person who apparently held a secret meeting with most of the GMs in the City and ordered them point-blank to fight this application outright just after the application was announced. It’s also the same man who has told various members of the public ‘mano y mano’ that he will not relinquish any of the control he’s had over the park to anyone else, ever.
Look:
#1 — LaBonge himself put all those development plans into the Master Plan draft in the first place. There are plenty more in his head where those ridiculous ideas came from, and he never gives up on a plan. 10 years later, if he sees an opening for one of the old schemes, he’s all over it again. Absolutely relentless.
#2 — Every chance he gets, he builds something on undeveloped land without real public process or going through proper Rec and Parks’ processes. In fact, here’s a very recent example. Rather than improving what was pre-existing in the area, he’s already ordered Rec and Parks employees to work on a brand new picnic area in the burn area of Mt. Hollywood on previously undeveloped park land… and it’s all of 150 yards from the previously existing picnic area! Rather than improve what was already there, he wants a new one practically next to the old one and simply orders it done. Typical LaBonge.
Ask the Pan Pacific Park Advisory Board what they thought of the ‘public process’ that recently gave another huge chunk of public open space there to yet another new museum for $1 per year. Guess whose district this is in? (Come on, guess!)
#3 — This letter leaves it wide open for him to blame Rec and Parks for not ‘doing its homework’ well enough and/or the Cultural Heritage commission the same so he can create an excuse to either kill the application outright or approve the Griffith Family’s application with B-I-G changes:
1. exclude the interior/unbuilt areas of the park, and
2. exclude the land the Autry sits on.
Then the ‘historic monument’ will be swiss-cheese. A piece here protected and honored, a piece there and so on. Basically exactly like the park is now, in fact!
The result is the park as a whole will not have the review, protection, or the funding available that a whole Historic Monument would have… and chunks will continue to be available to special interests like The Autry at the Councilmember’s now-infamous bidding.
Many other parks in Los Angeles are already Historic Monuments. It’s simply criminal that Griffith Park, with its rich historic connection to everything Los Angeles, may be deprived of the same.
So silly me… I have to remain skeptical.
La Bonge should state why he spent $40 million during a budget crisis to build a zoo compound for a single elephant, even though they are highly sociable creatures and suffer when kept in isolation.
The man is about development, not the public interest.
Tom LaBonge’s letter appears to be a mastery of DOUBLE TALK!! Thank you, Kristin and others for catching this. Now we need to educate the public with what he should have said if he was being truly transparent!!!
Tom LaBonge’s record speaks much louder than his word-craft letter. Don’t be fooled! Double talk understates it. Take a look at his record on the entire Griffith Park master planning effort, for example. The draft (Melendrez)that the public first saw was not the first draft at all. It was the second draft after his office reviewed and put their stamp of approval on it. When the public rejected it when it was first made public, Tom greatly resisted. He instructed the “Working Group” to just, in his words, “strike out the parts you don’t like.” The problem was, it was so bad it had to be completely redone. In more recent times he tells everyone that he rejected the Melendrez Plan. Imagine that! The public’s memory is not that short, Councilmember!
Tom LaBonge’s record speaks much louder than his word-craft letter. Don’t be fooled! Double talk understates it. Take a look at his record on the entire Griffith Park master planning effort, for example. The draft (Melendrez)that the public first saw was not the first draft at all. It was the second draft after his office reviewed and put their stamp of approval on it. When the public rejected it when it was first made public, Tom greatly resisted. He instructed the “Working Group” to just, in his words, “strike out the parts you don’t like.” The problem was, it was so bad it had to be completely redone. In more recent times he tells everyone that he rejected the Melendrez Plan. Imagine that! The public’s memory is not that short, Councilmember!
I attended all 3 community meetings at Fellowship Hall regarding the proposed Master Plan. Everyone (equestrians, hikers, bicylists, park users)agreed on one thing – no more development. As everyone knows, when the plan finally was made public, there was development. This plan would not have been made public, in my opinion, without city officials first seeing and approving it.
Tom has long been a proponent of getting a funicular between the Greek and the Observatory and of establishing soccer fields at the Toyon Landfill.
His letter states, “I have encouraged the Commission staff to have a thoughtful discussion with Dept. of Rec. and Parks staff to interpret exactly what a historic designation would mean to the park and its operation.” I interpret that to mean that while he is saying one thing, he means quite another.
As for his last paragraph (“I am honored to serve this City and protect and ENHANCE Griffith Park. My primary objective is to do what Colonel Griffith Jenkins Griffith wanted: to keep Griffith Park A PARK FOR THE PEOPLE.”) Those words I put in upper case have double meanings.
Tom has his agenda.
If Tom and others are against “development” in the park, why then aren’t these same park advocates up in arms over the “development” of the Autry National Center?
Let’s talk about commercialization at the park’s main entrance… remember the days when you couldn’t see the large illuminated Zoo sign from the freeway? You actually saw a park?
Autry’s supposed expansion will create a monster structure in Griffith Park that is all about commercialization. The zoo sign will pale in comparison to what Tom is pushing on the park with this massive development.
How can the proposed new Autry, at a whopping 300,000 sq ft of development, get so little attention and outrage from the park community?
Tom LaBonge’s letter is just his latest example of double-talk, lies, and blather.
First, he says that it was his idea “to apply for historic designation for the Griffith Observatory in 1976.” In 1976, LaBonge was a 23-year-old first-year staffer for Peggy Stevenson. Does he seriously think anyone believes that the Observatory was made a monument because he had an idea? When I was 23, I thought it would be a good idea to put a man on the moon. But I certainly didn’t take credit when it happened, and I don’t think anyone believes I was responsible.
Then, Tom says that all of the development ideas in the Melendrez Master Plan were, “things I rejected years ago when I opposed the first draft of the Master Plan.” The truth is that at one of the earliest meetings of the Master Plan Working Group, where principals of the Melendrez Group addressed the panel to explain their plan, Melani Smith was asked why the plan which was dated October, was not released to the public until six moths later. Her answer was that it was in the Councilman’s office for those six months. She added that nothing was written into the plan without Councilman LaBonge’s approval. Sounds unbelievable, doesn’t it? If you want proof, you need only listen to Recreation and Parks’ tape of that meeting.
Further, as recently as last year, Tom LaBonge said that he supported a funicular from the Greek Theatre to the Observatory. And as recently as last month, he said he wants a parking structure at the Zoo.
Finally, Tom declares that because he rejected all the development in the Draft Master Plan (complete lie), “he formed the working group to create the second draft.” It may be true that he formed the working group, but it was not because he rejected any development in the Draft Master Plan. It was because groups of concerned citizens, outraged that the City would publish such a daft and wrongheaded plan, met with Recreation and Parks staff and demanded that the public be involved — in the form of a working group. After months of foot-dragging and stalling, when Recreation and Parks — and Tom — realized the public wasn’t going away, a working group was reluctantly formed. The public’s concept of the working group was that it be composed of representatives selected by neighborhood associations, neighborhood councils, and other park user groups. Most members of the group were selected that way. However, Tom muddied the process by also hand-selecting a few of his own stooges and dolts. Thankfully, most of them have stopped participating altogether, so that the working group has progressed and almost completed a useful document. Occasionally though, one of Tom’s puppets wakes up at a meeting long enough to toss out red herrings and generally waste the contributing members’ and City employees’ time.
So make no mistake about it. Tom is dead set against an historical designation for Griffith Park, and will fight tooth and nail to see that it does not happen.
Given that the Griffith Park Draft Master Plan Working Group, welcomed, and at its August 7, 2008 public meeting, voted unanimously to endorse historic designation for Griffith Park, the Councilmember can be satisfied “that historic designation would not conflict with the Master Plan when it’s adopted.” Unless, that is, the phrase “when it’s adopted,” means that the re-draft the Working Group has spent three years rewriting with the help of the public will now be discarded, and planning moved back behind closed doors ultimately producing a document that is not compatible with preservation goals.
The sentence, “I do not endorse development plans in the park,” is not meaningful because there are currently no major plans in place to develop Griffith Park. The one that exists, the Autry’s doubling in size, is unconditionally endorsed by the Councilmember with no concern for the numerous zoning variances and exemptions involved that will create precedents for same throughout the Park. So it may be true that he does not endorse development plans in the park today, but the statement sidesteps future development plans in the Park…those that might be put forward next month or next year.
Here is the statement from the Councilmember I want to see. “I support the Griffith Family’s application for L.A. Historic-Cultural Monument status for ALL of Griffith Park. I urge the Cultural Heritage Commission to approve the application and send it forward to City Council where I will vote for it and ensure its passage and adoption by my elected colleagues.”
Given that the Griffith Park Draft Master Plan Working Group, welcomed, and at its August 7, 2008 public meeting, voted unanimously to endorse historic designation for Griffith Park, the Councilmember can be satisfied “that historic designation would not conflict with the Master Plan when it’s adopted.” Unless, that is, the phrase “when it’s adopted,” means that the re-draft the Working Group has spent three years rewriting with the help of the public will now be discarded, and planning moved back behind closed doors ultimately producing a document that is not compatible with preservation goals.
The sentence, “I do not endorse development plans in the park,” is not meaningful because there are currently no major plans in place to develop Griffith Park. The one that exists, the Autry’s doubling in size, is unconditionally endorsed by the Councilmember with no concern for the numerous zoning variances and exemptions involved that will create precedents for same throughout the Park. So it may be true that he does not endorse development plans in the park today, but the statement sidesteps future development plans in the Park…those that might be put forward next month or next year.
Here is the statement from the Councilmember I want to see. “I support the Griffith Family’s application for L.A. Historic-Cultural Monument status for ALL of Griffith Park. I urge the Cultural Heritage Commission to approve the application and send it forward to City Council where I will vote for it and ensure its passage and adoption by my elected colleagues.”
The outrage over Tom LaBonge’s manipulative actions regarding the Griffith Park Master Plan are finally being aired. If the Park advocates are concerned about unnecessarily commercialization of the Park, they should support the position just taken by the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council on the bloated Autry Museum expansion.
The Neighborhood Council is adamantly opposed to the Autry’s Phase 2 which includes the construction of a parking structure. If that structure is allowed, does anyone doubt Tom LaBonge will cite it as a precedent to building parking garages for the Zoo and other venues? And then the People’s free park will be free but the parking will not? The Autry Expansion is a dream for Tom because it sets the stage to roll out massive development plans.
The Neighborhood Council also concluded that the variances for the height of the Autry Museum building are unnecessary because Autry is practically tearing the existing down to rebuild it. Therefore, there is no reason to grant variances as the Autry has the capability in the reconstruction of the building to fully comply with the proper height limits of most of the building except the tower.
The Neighborhood Council also concluded that it is unnecessary to expand the Autry Museum so large in Phase 1 on taxpayer owned land in Griffith Park to enable the Autry to move the Southwest Museum from land Autry privately owns in the Arroyo Seco. This conclusion is just plain logical. Why is Tom LaBonge supporting an offensive plan of the Autry to move the Southwest Museum from private land to a completely unnecessary expansion on taxpayer owned parkland in Griffith Park? The entire idea was stupid from the start.
People need to focus on the terrible precedents for over-commercialization of Griffith Park that will be set by the current Autry proposal. Let’s work together to defeat the Autry proposal so as to force the clueless Autry Board to downsize to a more reasonable project.
That is what the County does. The parks around Santa Clarita (Michael Antonovich Open Park Preserve) are free, but you must pay to park in the dirt lot! They don’t clear the trails. They don’t pick up litter. They don’t DO anything, except for collect the money and ticket those who don’t pay.
I have just one question for Ron. Where in Tom’s letter does he say that he will vote for Historic-Cultural Monument status for Griffith Park or that he will ask that his fellow councilmembers to vote for it?
didnt van griffith die in the 80′s?
Tom LaBonge is an ignorant, arrogant buffoon. He has displayed not one ounce of courage or leadership on any issue. It’s pathological.
He only came out for Griffith Park after 95% of the community indicated it felt that way. And that’s simply not how things should get done.
None of the great causes in history, e.g., Civil Rights, would ever have gotten done if all of our leaders were as spineless as Tom LaBonge. He never does what the people elected him to do: LEAD.
Instead, he waits until the community almost riots in anger over an issue that he has not supported (or taken any position), then comes over to that side, and claims the victory and kudos for himself. He’s a total joke.
To Mr. LaBonge: Please stop taking credit for other’s ideas. Please start getting in front of issues. They are either meritorious or not. Please stop being so ridiculously arrogant. And please do what the people elected you to do: LEAD.