The Votes Are In!
2023 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → 
Letter to Editor: Regarding Kimpton Controversy
Opinion Aug 24, 2016
The increase in gang activity led Mayor Garcetti to allocate an additional $5.5 million to this year’s budget to fight the trend. – Courtesy photo
by
share with
Dear Editor:
This helps a little bit to get more open discussion of complex issues as Steve Mermell and the city council become ever more focused on those upcoming budget deficits, and likely to cut public services without public discussion. We must get more chance for public comments; my letter makes some obvious suggestions.
Thank you for covering the opposition to the Kimpton Hotel. I was one of those speaking for a smaller hotel to preserve green space, present its face to city hall, and save the sister city trees and the dignity of the Robinson Memorial from a tall monstrosity looming right behind it – option 2E.
I wanted an underground garage instead of the city’s deal-sweetening parking variance. There were more than four people speaking for the project, maybe 9 or 10, but definitely more than four times as many opponents.
The Bogaards and Pasadena Heritage weren’t constructive, although they had every right to opine. They focused on homage to Julia Morgan, quick revenue, and a Marengo Street project – not a civic center project, ignoring green space needs, walkability, and avoiding a downtown like West LA. I don’t like the idea of a private equity firm running the hotel, expecting to sell out in less than 10 years.
More important than my views is the way that this and other council meetings treat the public. EIR letters are insufficient – CEQA letters tend to focus on legal fine points and elicited the city’s response that the Robinson Memorial had no historical status. Not only did many who had filled out speaker cards leave without speaking during the three hours of leisurely council talk, but the council members themselves looked just as wasted as I was at 11 p.m. I don’t see how they could have picked up on anything new or important; we all just wanted to get home.
There is a better way. If the council’s private meeting started sooner and council members could question staff in detail and obtain written summaries, the entire public meeting could be devoted to public comment with an intermission every two hours, if needed. Council members and the public would be better able to listen and learn. This would mean one to two extra hours for the council two, three, or four times a year and more respect for the public. It’s not only Trump and Sanders wanting more respect for little guys.
– Bob Snodgrass
PASADENA
