Homeowners must recognize local diversity

Wednesday, February 3, 1999

Homeowners must recognize local diversity

WESTWOOD:

Needs of all village residents must be addressed to revitalize
community

Westwood’s dead. It’s about time someone informed the
homeowners.

Area residents, paranoid of increasing crime, have enacted the
strict commercial growth guidelines outlined in the Westwood
Specific Plan and have robbed the village of all life, creating the
slow and painful economic death of the social mecca which once
thrived here in the ’70s and ’80s.

Westwood used to be a place for college students, area residents
and tourists to hang out and have fun. Today, it is little more
than a stale collection of the typical CD stores, restaurants,
theaters and beauty salons.

A drive-by shooting death in December 1987 and an increase in
crime prompted concerned residents to adopt the reactionary
Specific Plan in 1989. The plan, they intended, would preserve
Westwood as a "retail center that primarily serves the surrounding
community." Westwood residents, out of touch with the needs and
desires of the community, have enforced the commercially crippling
Specific Plan and have opposed major growth, resulting in a village
that is unappealing to students and potential visitors.

Residents drafted the Specific Plan because they fervently
opposed commercial ventures that could have attracted the "wrong
crowd" – individuals who might have led to another surge in crime
and violence rates.

In the past few years, Westwood residents, businesses and
students have been engaged in a bitter struggle over the village’s
nightlife. It began with the village "guardians" wondering: "Should
we allow the innocent act of dancing, or would a nightclub attract
the ‘undesirable’ patron?" Now, businesses need a special permit in
order to allow dancing on their premises.

But it’s not over. The butchering of Westwood Village
continues.

Recently, some homeowners and local businesses appealed to the
L.A. city zoning board about the opening of Illusions, a new
business selling novelty items, as well as smoking-related items,
tattoos and body piercings.

Westwood, and Westwood residents, should work to serve the
interests of all its residents. Efforts like the Specific Plan have
little regard for all three constituencies in Westwood: local
residents, office workers in the Wilshire high-rises, and UCLA
students.

This means that Westwood should not only have posh restaurants
and upscale retail stores. Westwood could have a grocery store as
well as dancing, henna tattoos and body piercing. And yes, Westwood
could – and should – have a nightlife.

If all Westwood residents have their needs met, there is no
doubt that the area will experience a badly needed economic
rebirth.

There’s no question that Westwood’s economy is nowhere near the
levels of earlier decades with fewer people frequenting Westwood
businesses. And while several village revitalization projects are
in the works, homeowners and residents have done more to thwart
commercial and economic growth than to help foster an upswing.

During the ’70s and ’80s, Westwood thrived economically and
socially – all this without homeowner efforts like the Specific
Plan. If the Plan was created to specifically address one isolated
crime incident, Los Angeles’ improving crime outlook should hastens
its removal.

While it’s understandable that residents are concerned about the
growth and crime rates, their paranoia about crime has drastically
weakened the area’s economic health. If Westwood homeowners do not
cater to every patron, they will be unable to resuscitate a once
lively college town.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]