ANALYSIS: WeHo 40 Strategic Plan is a road to nowhere

WeHo has charted a course for the future, but where will it take us? Is WeHo moving forward or merely running in circles?

The city this week released the preliminary WeHo 40 Strategic Plan, the much-hyped “community-driven roadmap to the year 2040” cooked up by City Hall and a small army of urban planners and consultants. Nearly a year in development, the document aims to guide the growth, development and governance of West Hollywood over the next several decades, promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion while balancing economic growth and environmental sustainability. 

“Roadmap” is the wrong word. The Strategic Plan is more of a manifesto — a collection of aspirations, mantras and mission statements. It has a destination in mind but isn’t sure how to get there. 

The plan takes pains to persuade readers that it was written by the people, for the people, essentially. But a deep dive raises questions about who helped craft this far-reaching plan and whether the conclusions it contains actually reflect the research it was based on.

WHY IT EXISTS

The WeHo 40 Strategic Plan was commissioned by City Council last fall to fill the shoes of the city’s last strategic plan, published in 2003.

“The need for this strategic plan arises from a desire to proactively shape our City’s future,” it reads. 

Whose desire?

For its writers — the consultants, city staff and a select group of “community partners” — the Strategic Plan presents an opportunity to leave their mark on the future, to see their utopian dreams come to life or their career ambitions take flight. The lead consultant group, Gensler, is after all an architectural firm. Who better to take on designing public spaces, infrastructure and large-scale developments in WeHo than the firm that laid the groundwork for it?

For city leaders, the strategic plan is a public relations tool. By presenting a long-term vision, they are re-affirming the legitimacy of their governance and enshrining the WeHo “brand” on the local and national stage. By outlining bold goals in areas like sustainability, affordable housing, and social services, the plan positions West Hollywood to qualify for grants and investment opportunities. 

Most importantly, it will appease a broad array of stakeholders — residents, developers, business owners, NIMBYs, progressive activists, and outside investors — without directly addressing the tensions between these groups. It lets City Hall say, “We’re addressing these issues,” without having to solve them immediately. By laying out a long-term vision, the plan buys time, creates a buffer against immediate backlash, and suggests city leaders are taking action.

GOALS, ACTIONS AND FLUFF

Most of the WeHo 40 Strategic Plan’s 122 pages are just filler — repeated statistics, unnecessary diagrams, info boxes and an endless variety of catchphrases and buzzwords that obscure more than they reveal. 

We’re introduced to concepts like “shade equity” (the lack of and need for tree canopies or structures providing shade in public space) and “queering spaces” (transforming spaces to be more inclusive and affirming of LGBTQ+ identities). 

We’re advised over and over to “meet community members where they are” and instructed to do things like: 

“Shift the conversation on housing insecurity and homelessness to foster productive dialogues that identify collaborative, actionable, and community-oriented solutions”

“Celebrate West Hollywood with joy and healing to ensure the process was uplifting.”

“Spearhead an initiative to invest in the act of social prescription, an emerging practice in healthcare that introduces a systematic approach to addressing social/ mental needs and well-being through participation in cultural activities.”

When boiled down, the plan lays out a series of six broad goals — maintaining WeHo’s image, addressing the housing shortage, improving public safety, boosting the economy, addressing climate change and increasing government transparency and public engagement — and the action steps it recommends the city take to meet them. 

Each goal also comes with a list of “what’s not working,” some accurate, some debatable. Among them:

“Perception of ‘safety’ is highly variable among residents and more nuanced than traditional public safety data can capture.”

“The City’s famed LGBTQ+ businesses are seen as increasingly homogeneous, catering almost exclusively to cisgender gay men.”

“West Hollywood’s high-cost environment makes it difficult for new small businesses to enter the market.”

The plan’s weaknesses — including the vague language and lack of detailed accountability — limit its potential efficacy. Without clearer timelines, metrics for success, and specific funding strategies, many of the initiatives risk falling short.

The plan throws its weight behind many of the “alternative policing” ideas that WeHo residents rejected in recent years — like relying more heavily on the Block by Block security ambassadors.

“Complement public safety services with additional unarmed community safety programs and programs offering effective alternatives to justice system involvement,” the plan recommends.

Research conducted during focus groups with residents this past spring found that “there was a sense that Block-by-Block Security Ambassadors are ‘better than nothing,’ but few felt they had a significant impact in improving the safety of the City.”

The Strategic Plan, however, portrays the public’s opinion very differently. 

“Provision of unarmed security ambassadors to complement traditional law enforcement as support for response to non-violent incidents has been viewed favorably by many residents,” it reads.

Why doesn’t the Strategic Plan reflect the research its own writers conducted?

The disparity feeds into suspicions that many of the conclusions its recommendations are based on were in fact predetermined.

The plan is a big fan of multimodal transportation, envisioning WeHo as a “haven for pedestrians and cyclists.”

“Micromobility is becoming an increasingly important transportation option for residents and visitors, but existing infrastructure must be improved to make these options safer,” it reads. “This will require a re-imagining of the City’s street network, so that those who travel car-free can benefit from high-quality infrastructure that is safe, convenient, and accessible.”

City Council is preparing to sign off on this comprehensive vision even as the community is being told the proposed protected bike lanes on Fountain Avenue that have proven so contentious are still a “pilot project” and “not a done deal.”

“Over the course of 11 months, the WeHo 40 project team collected feedback from more than 6,000 community members and stakeholders using a range of tools and formats, like statistically-valid citywide resident surveys, targeted community focus groups and 1000+ survey responses collected over the phone and online during two separate survey periods, each with a statistically-valid, representative sample of West Hollywood residents,” the plan says.

Whether the plan captures the wants and needs of residents is an open question, but it certainly reflects the agendas of the project’s senior “Action Team,” whose five members include the owner of a diversity employment firm, a commercial real estate insider, an urban planner, a prison reform strategist and a progressive activist. 

Listed next to the consultants (Gensler, Designing in Color, FM3) as co-authors are “community organizations,” “business community” and “core coalition” — but not the names of the people or organizations that comprised those groups. 

How can a plan that espouses transparency as one of its main goals be so vague about its authors?

Residents deserve to know everyone who influenced the grand plan that will affect their lives for decades to come.

Best case scenario, WeHo 40 will be another shiny pie-in-the-sky plan that the city will soon forget about. At its worst, the plan is another subversive attempt at social engineering that has become all too common in West Hollywood.