OPINION: WeHo Council’s Plummer Park Decision — ‘Truly a Machiavellian Moment’

Truly a Machiavellian moment. Nicolo himself would have nodded and murmured ragion di stato – “I did it for reasons of states” and he would not have cared what anyone said or thought about his actions. Pro bono public, a phrase co-opted by the legal profession in an attempt to make holy the actions for which they do not charge, was often used to not explain but simply imply that reasons for certain actions were for the good of the state – not the public, but the state. Thus, we have an action by our City Council that completely ignores the public’s wishes yet claims to provide for the betterment of the city – as though the residents were a separate entity.

Pity that we have a City Council majority whose senior members’ fevered fantasies would allow it to absolutely disregard the wishes of the citizens they are sworn to serve. A travesty of the democratic process and a damned shame, for we deserve better than this. And, to hell with Machiavelli.

Pity that the majority of the West Hollywood City Council displays a lack of a sense of history, which is quite surprising to me. West Hollywood reverberates with history, and to remove two buildings essential to the history of the area is to be deaf to the entreaties of the residents and blind to the value of good design and for the better uses for the Great Hall and Long Hall.

Of course, over the past several years the sound of gnashing teeth, an indication of extreme frustration from at least one of the senior council members, has provided a background song for their interpretation of “what the city needs.” We are supposed to understand that the city is some amorphous entity devoid of citizens, which requires the absolute guidance of an imperious design in the imagination if our council. We have a General Plan, which is often altered to accommodate a changing world.

“What the city needs” is not always what the residents want. The “city needs” at Plummer Park will give us, in exchange for two historical buildings and a pleasant park, a few acres of grass – for which we must care with water and fertilizer and constant mowing – atop an underground garage which will appease commercial interests. More cars on our crowded streets. In order to construct the garage, many of the shade and flowering trees are to be removed – for the remaining soil depth cannot allow them to prosper and survive. Small trees in boxes will be their replacements, and a sterile landscape, flat and uninviting will be the legacy of the council’s decision.

As for Councilmember John Duran’s desire for active sports on the proposed lawn – which? Soccer? Volleyball? Perhaps simply a free range for the burgeoning number of children in West Hollywood? Ideas regarding recreation in parks certainly differ, and mine were formed as a boy knowing the Boston Common and Gardens and the “green necklace” — the parkland surrounding Boston that was designed by Frederick Olmsted, who also designed Central Park in New York City. A park is a place of ease and repose where the paths wind a bit between flowers and shrubs and shady trees, where there are benches and nooks with tables for picnics, with vistas that do not overwhelm and, of course, a respite from automobile, truck and bus exhaust and noise.

Many who still use the existing park recall the sounds of birds when the Audubon sanctuary was there – as well as the Los Angeles Audubon Society offices and bookstore. That the Halls are redolent of acrid odors, drenched in stale urine, according to one remark, is the fault of the authorities at City Hall in failing to maintain, let alone rehabilitate, these structures.

Whatever happens the residents will somehow adapt. But will they feel anything akin to our late General George Patton’s experience, as he stood on the field at Thermopylae, “history rippling through the air and tugging at my feet”? Or will they hear only the screeching of car tires in the garage below?

Once again I say ‘to hell with Machiavelli!