OPINION: Activists Use Fear Rather Than Fact to Oppose Redevelopment of WeHo’s Plummer Park

I think than an active and engaged citizenry is always a good thing, as opposed to those who sit at home muttering under their breath but not getting involved. Such engagement was central to the formation of the City of West Hollywood in 1984. Disparate groups with little in common came together to negotiate and strike a balance among their competing interests. Once upon a time that is how things were done in West Hollywood. But now something has gone terribly awry.

That is apparent in the debate over the proposed redevelopment of Plummer Park, where the discussion has evolved into heated debate. In any debate, we each are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own “facts.”

The group that calls itself “Protect Plummer Park” (PPP) is of the opinion that the approved project is ill-suited for Plummer Park. Ok, that’s their opinion. Unfortunately, PPP has projected its own version of the “facts” to crusade against approval of the project through what has been a very public process. Here are a few examples:

Statement: “There was no public process on the Plummer Park Project.”

Fact: There has been a public process over several decades, beginning in 1994 and continuing to the present with over 100 documented public meetings. Ironically, public records reveal the names of the founders of PPP and many of its earliest followers on sign-in sheets and transcripts from public meetings. There was a rigorous public process, and members of PPP participated in it.

Statement: “The Plummer Park Project will close the entire park for over two years.”

Fact: The project was always to be done in phases to keep the park open and available to park users throughout the process. The awful truth is that PPP used scare tactics to gain supporters to thwart the project, telling elderly residents they might not live to see the day when the park would reopen, and telling parents that their kids would have no park or play equipment nearby.

Statement: “The City is demolishing Plummer Park to build parking lots.”

Fact: The original project involved the removal of a surface parking lot to create more green park space. Parking was to be provided underground instead (see following comment).

Statement: “Great Hall/Long Hall is being torn down to build underground parking.”

Fact: Underground parking is no longer part of any plan for the restoration of Plummer Park.

Statement: “The City is going to destroy 60 ‘old growth’ trees.”

Fact: The City Council has gone on record that it has no plans to move forward with the previously approved underground parking, and all trees will remain in place (a majority of which are not significant “old growth” trees.)

Statement: “The City has already issued immediate demolition permits for Great Hall/Long Hall.”

Fact: If the City Council directs that the project should move forward, the previously approved plan calls for the removal of Great Hall/Long Hall, a step that has been part of the public record for years, but no technical permits (such as demolition permits) have been issued of yet.

Statement: “Plummer Park is a neighborhood park, not an urban park like West Hollywood Park.”

Fact: While Plummer Park is located in our Eastside neighborhood, it is a park for the entire city, not just those that live adjacent to the park–just as West Hollywood Park is for all the city’s residents and visitors, not just those on the Westside. West Hollywood is an urban in-fill city and all of our parks are urban parks. Plummer Park, at 8.5 acres, is larger than West Hollywood Park, but it has far less open space for grass and trees. If you compare the two parks, West Hollywood Park appears to be far bigger because of all of its open green space. Plummer Park is cluttered with asphalt and buildings — hardly the hallmarks of parkland.

Statement: “A Change.org petition has over 2,000 signers opposed to the Plummer Park Project.”

Fact: Technically true, however the information about the project on the petition is factually inaccurate and downright misleading. Plus, fewer than five percent of signers live in West Hollywood.

Statement: “We represent a majority of the community, which is opposed to this project.”

Fact: Totally misleading and unverifiable. Plus, please stop saying “we” because, while you represent PPP, your numbers are few and include too many supporters misled by dubious statements. Also, you don’t speak for me or anyone in my network of friends and neighbors who have worked long and hard on Eastside issues. So, instead of “we,” just say “members of PPP.”

Great Hall/Long Hall are Works Progress Administration (WPA) buildings. Like the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Obama Stimulus) the WPA’s sole purpose was to save and create jobs and do that almost immediately. WPA slapped up thousands of utilitarian buildings, many of which did not stand the test of time. The rental property I own in Silver Lake was one of the few residential WPA projects in California. I think my property is a real beauty, but it is not by any means historic because of its WPA origins. A little known fact is that the noted architect Richard Neutra designed housing for dock workers in San Pedro. It was built to serve an important purpose at the time and, since it no longer serves that purpose, those buildings no longer exist.

Great Hall/Long Hall has served its purpose. Now it is time for it to go so we can restore Plummer Park to being a real park, with more open space and fewer buildings. Plummer Park’s current configuration may have met the needs of unincorporated Los Angeles County, but it does not meet the current and future needs of the City of West Hollywood. Federal open space guidelines say that for every 1,000 residents, there “should be” three acres of open space. Built out before cityhood, West Hollywood has only 17.85 acres of park space, a meager .52 acres per 1,000 residents. Will the removal of Great Hall/Long Hall to create an open, green lawn cure our open space deficiency? No, but it is a step in the right direction.

Like so many others, I have invested time to build on our success as a city and as a community. That is why it pains me to see a group like Protect Plummer Park subvert our public process and lead many to believe its version of the “facts.” What good is a rigorous, exacting planning and entitlement process if, in the end, the ultimate decision hangs on the distortions of a group like PPP? The misrepresentations and hyperbole of Protect Plummer Park must not prevail. West Hollywood deserves to have beautiful parks with lots of open space for grass and trees. The approved project at Plummer Park is a badly needed investment in the city’s Eastside. I urge all of West Hollywood to check the facts on the Plummer Park Project at http://chn.ge/18Pmrzt. Then please join me and many others to Restore Plummer Park and, more importantly, restore the integrity of our public debate.

Rob Bergstein is a member of Restore Plummer Park. Bergstein also was a 2013 member of the city’s Eastside Task Force. He currently serves as a West Hollywood Human Service Commissioner and as a volunteer with the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department. He was a member of the Eastside PAC from 2004 to 2012, a member of the city’s Rent Stabilization Commission from 2009 to 2011 and a member of the city Disability Advisory Board from 2002 to 2003. He is the founder (in 2001) and current captain of the SoFo (“South of Fountain”) Neighborhood Watch Program.