“One battle after another” is the title of an Oscar-nominated film—but it’s also how WeHo residents feel about confronting corruption in the City.
Today, we need to talk about the rally that Mayor John Heilman and LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath have had the audacity to organize to show support for three subway stations in West Hollywood instead of one.
This is why residents need to oppose this rally and this initiative:
A few weeks ago, a high-ranking City official was asked during a neighborhood meeting whether the City had any preference on how many K Line subway stops should be in WeHo. The answer: “whatever Metro decides.” And, when asked when the subway would actually be built, the response was: “Not at least until 2040.”
Allow me to explain why the City is so eager to push for three subway stops in a city barely 1.9 miles across. Their goal isn’t transit—it’s payback to developers.
Here’s the truth: unlike Beverly Hills, which resisted, West Hollywood quietly and quickly accepted Sacramento’s SB79 initiative. SB79 forces the City to allow the equivalent of forty 100-unit apartment buildings within its tiny radius—and thousands more under the Transit Overlay Plan. That’s where the subway comes in. The Transit Overlay Plan allows developers to build 7+-story buildings, without parking, within a one-mile radius of “major transit hubs.” By lobbying for three subway stops, the City is giving developers carte blanche to build massive, luxury apartment complexes all over WeHo right now—not in 2040, but immediately after the subway stops are officially designated — with no legal requirements they be affordable.
Make no mistake: City Council doesn’t care about the subway. They won’t be around 15 years from now to take credit for it. What they do care about is currying favor with developers who fund their campaigns and/or advance their political careers. The subway stops are just a pretext to allow developers to bulldoze rent-controlled buildings, homes, and entire neighborhoods, replacing them with luxury apartments.
And yet, no one in City Hall wants to discuss the consequences of this over-densification. Nothing in the City’s plans guarantees affordability. So far, WeHo has approved only luxury developments—like the $24 million apartments at 8899 Beverly Blvd—and barely 1% of the moderate-priced housing it promised. There is currently between 10 and 15% vacancy rate in the city due to lack of affordability. Adding additional expensive units won’t solve any housing issues or help any residents. The only benefit goes to developers.
Residents raise concerns about the lack of parking in these new buildings. The City’s response? “People will just use public transportation.” Really? Who’s going to rent a $5,000/month apartment and give up their car?
Environmental risks are shrugged off too. Building a subway here would dewater the high aquifer beneath WeHo, destabilizing the ground and threatening surrounding structures. And public safety? Narrow, winding streets could turn a disaster into a human tragedy like what happened in Pacific Palisades if emergency access is blocked by over-densification.
Housing, safety, and quality of life in West Hollywood can—and must—be pursued without endangering or displacing its residents. If the Subway lines move forward unchecked, West Hollywood as we know it will be destroyed.
To borrow a line from another classic film, “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown”—except today, it should read: “Forget it, residents, it’s West Hollywood.”
The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of WEHOonline.
All these comments mostly highlight SB79 and the concern of more luxury 7+ developments with little to no parking that take away existing affordable housing, which all should be of major concern. What is not mentioned is where these actual subway/rail line stations will be located. (Yes it’s 20-30 years away and we’ll all be dead but…) We’ve all seen the massive changes to Wilshire that’s taken 10 years and absorbed entire corners and adjacent so where TF are these stations gonna be: SMB and San Vicente: are we ripping down the police station, Roccos or Rage/Beaches? SMB and La… Read more »
Just to be clear: it is not “corruption” to have a council that has different policy objectives and priorities than this one very NIMBY writer. Many people want better transit, more density and housing. And developers, who sound scary to some, are just “home builders.” It’s not only OK to support building more density, it should be the preferred option. That’s not corruption. That’s progress.
Building more UNAFFORDABLE apartments with no parking spaces is not progress, except for developers, WeHo has approved barely 1% of the moderate-priced housing it promised. There is currently between 10 and 15% vacancy rate in the city due to lack of affordability. We don’t have a housing crisis. We have an AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS. Adding additional expensive units won’t solve this crisis or help any residents. The only benefit goes to developers. THIS IS CORRUPTION, NOT PROGRESS
When a council member’s campaign has been paid by developers and the council is beholden to developers instead of residents it is the definition of corruption. Don’t try to gaslight us. We know you’re paid by developers or, as you sweetly describe them in Disney style “home builders “
We need as much housing as much transit as possible. This isn’t Mayberry. No, someone renting something for $5000 will not be giving up their car, but why would someone pay $5000 for a place without a parking space? Most of the new housing built that is claiming it is luxury is not really luxurious. Lots of it sits empty because there is no vacancy tax. A quarter of all new construction should contain low income housing.
Unfortunately, WeHo Council has ZERO commitment to AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WeHo has approved barely 1% of the moderate-priced housing it promised. There is currently between 10 and 15% vacancy rate in the city due to lack of affordability. We don’t have a housing crisis. We have an AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS. Adding additional expensive units won’t solve this crisis or help any residents. The only benefit goes to developers.
I attended the K-Line rally and not once was there any mention of there being three stops. I asked one official who spoke that day about the impact of SB79 on the neignorhods near those transit hubs. I got a blank stare.
WeHo wants 3 stops. Heilman was very clear in his speech. Check this https://metro.weho.org/ You always get a blank stare from officials when you confront them with the truth
No where in the WeHo K-line signage nor text made available on WeHo placards was there a menton of three stops. I may have missed Heilman’s mention of three stops but its all inline with the majority of the City’s leaders and other officials that overdevelopment is the way of the future. To think people will give up their cars now becasue there is a high rise built near a local bus stop or a subway 20+ years in the future is sheer madness. Ignoring realty and the facts? Baffling. How did Trumpism infect our local goverment?
Judging by the number of impassioned comments here, the possible pending L.A.Metro Board approval of three West Hollywood subway stops, seemingly allowing for hugely increased West Hollywood apartment/ condo development scale under SB79, is an important and contentious topic, worthy of immediate exploration and explanation by those in power and in the press. I find it curious that, with the exception of John Heilman, I am unsure of our City Council’s views on what appears to be a rather existential question. I wish Heilman and his colleagues would address this concern, promptly and directly. And if worse comes to worse… Read more »
So an owner of a self-driving car won’t want designated parking or are you envisioning a city of Waymos 🤔
If I had to speculate, I would foresee a mix of tenant-owned cars parked onsite for those who could afford the expense, tenant-owned cars self parked offsite at lower cost, and Waymo’s/ public transportation for other tenants.
I find this article disappointing in that it displays total ignorance of state law that requires cities to build more housing regardless of whether or not they get any number of subway stops or any other form of mass transit. Beverly Hills made a terrible mistake in resisting the state by failing to submit a housing element that outlined a plan to meet its state requirement for new housing units. During the three years its housing element was rejected for being insufficient, it opened itself up to “builders remedy” developments, i.e., projects that don’t need to meet any local zoning… Read more »
Hello Robert You’re either misinformed or trying to hide what’s going on. The subway stops make a HUGE difference because they trigger the Transit Overlay Plan which allows developers to build 7+-story buildings, without parking, within a one-mile radius of “major transit hubs.” So, sorry Robert, the subway stops would trigger a HUGE DENSITY INCREASE in addition to what SB79 dictates. It looks like you love density but please don’t pretend the subways don’t make a difference. Thanks
I’m not hiding anything, and I acknowledged the overlay zones that come with transportation corridors, including subways. My point is that we can’t override state law, including the need to satisfy the state’s housing element requirements. Attempting to insulate WeHo from change, especially the growing subway system, will only isolate residents from access to easy transportation and stifle economic growth. We can either meet the future and maintain as much control as possible over the inevitable growth, or we can become a place in which no will want to invest because we’ll become choked by traffic.
Hello Robert. Respectfully, your comments don’t make any sense . You say we need to maintain as much control as possible but residents are completely ignored by council members who are “streamlining” the process to allow massive buildings with no setbacks, no affordable units and no parking spots Is this what you call maintaining control? Then you mention the housing needs. There is an AFFORDABLE HOUSING shortage. As the article clearly outlines, the City and developers are not interested in affordable homes. How does this over density help the affordable housing crisis? You end up saying that no one will… Read more »
What nonsense. Have you never been to NYC or London? An area as densely packed as West Hollywood should have at least three if not more subway stops. And it should be served by more than one line. La brea. Fairfax. La cow Ava. San Vincente. Downey. Metropolitan areas with good subway systems have multiple stops just a few blocks apart for the convenience of riders. They will have express lines that do not necessarily stop at every stop to shorten longer commutes. a single stop in West Hollywood will simply mean few use whatever line passes through the city.… Read more »
Bravo!
Hello John Please read the article again. This is not about the subway itself. It’s about how having 3 subway stops would trigger the Transit Overlay Plan which allows developers to build 7+-story buildings of unaffordable units, without parking, within a one-mile radius of “major transit hubs.” The result will be disastrous for WeHo and it won’t have any positive impact on affordable housing. The only ones benefitting are developers and council members paid by them
West Hollywood residents like to listen to rap and hip-hop music,in bars and everywhere else,then get mad and scared when it turns into a ghetto..! 🤣
Wow these comments are wackadoo. I’ve lived at sunset/doheny since 2003. I would love a subway connection at SM/SV and all down the blvd. I really don’t understand the uproar here. Get off my lawn! We’ll all be dead before it’s built.
Hello Please read the article again. This is not about the subway itself. It’s about how having 3 subway stops would trigger the Transit Overlay Plan which allows developers to build 7+-story buildings of unaffordable units, without parking, within a one-mile radius of “major transit hubs.” The result will be disastrous for WeHo and it won’t have any positive impact on affordable housing. The only ones benefitting are developers and council members paid by them
You sound like a broken record
That’s because people are not picking up what he’s putting down.
Exactly, thanks so much
Fantastic article, and if more people went to City Council and City Planning meetings, and saw firsthand how the bulk of our City Council and some other city workers dismiss and ignore public comment – even if opposition is overwhelming – that they always side with developers. Most of us that are informed know they have ties to developers and push though everything developers want against the residents’ interests. For a city barely two square miles in size, three subway stations are ridiculous. Even worse, routing the line along San Vicente would be an environmental disaster (La Cienega means swamp… Read more »
Its bad enough we already have so many transients/homeless each day coming into the city. If the subway is approved it wont be good 🙁
Just wait till the stops open in Beverly Hills… 🙁
Thats ridiculous. If the homeless want to beg in BH there are five bus lines that take them there now.
I’m sorry, but this argument ignores more than 20 years of City advocacy for a subway in West Hollywood—long before “density bonus” policies were even part of the state conversation let alone “transit overlay plans”. It also overlooks West Hollywood voters’ overwhelming support for Measure R and Measure M, which have funded Los Angeles County’s historic transit expansion over the past two decades. There are legitimate concerns about any project of this scale and investment, and reasonable people can debate them. But suggesting that support for the K Line is somehow about “payback to developers” because some of us may… Read more »
Respectfully, no conspiracy theory here, it’s simply that many residents don’t want West Hollywood and the Boystown area in particular destroyed by vertical development under the guise of 3 subway stops along Santa Monica Blvd.
Since SB79 apparently takes effect as soon as a line is approved, and, if we didn’t have a city council hellbent on rezoning R1 neighborhoods (ZIP) we would feel differently. We did not vote for a complete rebuild of West Hollywood, but you are ok with this?
Exactly!
That’s not how SB79 works. The construction of 3 subway stops isn’t just going to automatically raze every building in WeHo. The current owner must be willing to sale and they can decline. Even if WeHo becomes denser in the future, such change won’t be dramatic overnight. It will probably take DECADES, long enough for you to not even experience it anymore (because dead).
Stop this panic and misinformation campaign you’re attempting to do. It’s ignorant and dumb.
Sorry, Alex but that’s how SB79 will work. If you attend Council Meetings, you’ll see how the City is hellbent to replace homes with massive buildings ASAP. The minute someone sells their home, vulture developers, with WeHo’s support, will turn it into a building of unaffordable units, with no setbacks or parking spaces. Weho Council is “streamlining” the approval process of these buildings. It’s going to take months, not decades for this destruction to take place. Wake up!
You have an opinion and that’s great. But we have a city council that’s not giving both sides of the argument and should now go out again for public comment. The argument changed dramatically after SB79 was signed by Newsom over the objections of both Bass and, as recently reported, by LA Metro. Ask Jon Heilman why we need THREE stations in WeHo. Please take a drive down Wilshire and see what’s happening there.
Exactly right, Pedro. When residents were polled about the subway years ago, no one mentioned that having 3 stops would rigger the Transit Overlay Plan which allows developers to build 7+-story buildings of unaffordable units, without parking, within a one-mile radius of “major transit hubs.” If the poll took place today, with this information in the open, the subway would be overhwelmingly rejected.
Yeah considering the almost decade that Wilshire has been torn up, and it’s a much wider Blvd, this entire scenario is unfathomable 😬
Alex, in effect, that is how SB79 works. If you’re a renter in a rent-stabilized unit and the building is sold and demolished because of SB79, you’re out. If you’re a homeowner who invested a lifetime of savings to live in a sunny, quiet neighborhood, and the house next door suddenly becomes a seven-story building with no setbacks, you lose sunlight, privacy, and peace — you will most likely need to move, even if you can’t afford to. And that’s not counting the many properties developers already own (I know of five on my street alone). If you think this… Read more »
Truth! The Thursday, Feb. 19 @6:30pm Planning Commission public hearing will discuss the project noted above where the city loses out on afforable housing benefits. The developer claims they’re building “storage units” — with windows and a balcony? Do they think we aren’t watching? Please come to the meeting!
Exactly. The Council’s corruption is blatant and disgusting
All it takes is for one or two R1 zoned homes in a neighbohrood to be bought by developers who then build taller buildings and all the surrounding homes are going to want to get out as the character of the neighborhood they invested their life savings in is destroyed. The rest will fall like dominoes. Who wants to buy a single-family home next to a seven story monstrosity? The council doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the residents of West Hollywood. They care about who is going to fund their political ambitions. Wake up and smell the coffee. These… Read more »
Exactly!
One can look at the east side of La Cienega Blvd just north of Holloway Dr to see this process in action, where multiple single family homes have been replaced by luxury condos/ apartments. One single-family home remains.
In addition to the inherent unpleasantness of living submerged between two towers, an additional factor decreasing the longterm likelihood of that home’s existence is that any future prospective home buyer would surely be competing against developers with a far different economic rationale and far deeper pockets.
Exactly
Thank you, Pedro. Facts matter. Sadly, many comments on this topic seem oblivious to what SB79 is actually about.
People leaving comments ignoring SB79 are developers’ cronies, just like in council meetings
The concerns are not about ‘we are not going to ride the subway until 2040’, it’s about the corruption that would allow developers to destroy West Hollywood in the interim. When residents were polled about their support of their metro line years ago, none of the information about corruption was disclosed and it wasn’t about 3 stops, just one. If weho does a poll today about residents support for 3 stops of the metro line, now that we know the corruption it brings with it, I guarantee that there’s an overwhelming opposition to it. Our concerns are not about a… Read more »
This is not about riding the subway or not, it IS about development, in particular, letting developers profit from destroying neighborhoods where they can’t currently build such large scale buildings. Unlike “schools” and “parks”, doing this would displace hundreds of people including those most vulnerable, like tenants in rent stabilized houses and apartments, and retired homeowners who bought homes decades ago and today have limited income. This is not a “conspiracy theory”, as anyone whose gone to multiple city council or city planning meetings knows. Many of our city representatives (including a majority of city council) are heavily supported by… Read more »
Measures and Propositions are a terrible way to govern and a good way for special interests to pull the wool over the uninformed public. Other than that, name 20 ten year olds that want this.