30 petitions

Update posted 3 days ago

Petition to Evanston City Council, Evanston Mayor Stephen H. Hagerty

Stop the Tower in Evanston

Evanston is facing a turning point: does the city want to lure in massive developments that will alter the fabric and face of the city forever? Or do citizens want to support their local communities and investment in citizens' lives and well being? "The Tower," a glassy 37-story building, has been proposed by a private developer, Farpoint. It would be the tallest building (395 feet) in Evanston thus far, would contain 152 rental apartments, 153 hotel rooms, 258 parking stalls, a restaurant space, and a (possible) new home for the Northlight Theatre, (although to move into the building, the theatre would need to raise its own funds or rent from the developer). Developers said they would offer only 15 affordable units in the new building. This is the block, the 1700 block of Sherman Avenue, that is in the heart of downtown Evanston. Not only would the streetscape be altered dramatically (blocking sun, changing wind patterns) but, given the destruction of the existing alley and buildings, it would close local business (Bookends and Beginnings, Alley Gallery, Saville Flowers, and others). Traffic within the already congested downtown area would also be impacted by this development. The development requires a two-thirds vote by the City Council to be approved. Let's start to build a movement from the ground up to stop these private developers from seizing the land, sun, and sky in Evanston. The city residents want good businesses, want the city to thrive and the arts to flourish, and want Evanston to be a good place for everyone. This is not an either-or situation, as supporters of developments such as these often propose: Either we approve it and move into a bright future or we fail to approve it and doom ourselves to failure as a city. Evanston is home to many people of different backgrounds and classes. We need to support more resources for all -not try only to attract wealthy visitors and residents. We need to take the long term view and we need to start by stopping the tower.  

Vanishing Evanston
1,961 supporters
Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to Mike Bonin, Gilbert Cedillo, Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, David E. Ryu, Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez, Felipe Fuentes, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren D. Price, Jr., Herb J. Wesson, Jr., mitchell englander, Mitch O'Farrell, Jose Huizar, Joe Buscaino, Eric Garcetti, Mike Feuer, VNC Board, Rita Moreno, Miranda Paster, Rosemary Hinkson, Holly Wolcott, Shannon Hoppes


The proposal of a Business Improvement District (BID): City File #16-0749(CD11) in Venice was initiated by ex-president of the Venice Chamber of Commerce (VCC), Carl Lambert, in 2013 when he first brought his proposal to the Ocean Front Walk committee, a committee stacked with his business cronies. Go here to watch video Since then, the BID proposal has been working it's way through City Hall and is now surfacing as another giant step in the gentrification of Venice. Many residents, property owners, business owners and stakeholders, are concerned about the impact of the proposed BID and how it will be enforced in Venice.  Here are just some of the reasons why this is not a good idea for Venice, with it's Bohemian past and history of free-spirited, uninhibited ambiance: 1. The process for establishing the BID has not been public or transparent. 2. BIDs in the City of Los Angeles, and particularly their private security forces, have a history of hostility toward homeless and low-income residents resulting in several lawsuits since their inception in the late 1990s regarding unconstitutional practices. 3. BIDs are a form of privatization that harms those that don’t own property and limits democratic control over resources. 4. BIDs are not feasible for all businesses or property owners to pay, particularly non-profits and small business owners. 5. The founding premise for the BID is faulty. It is claimed that a BID is needed because the City of Los Angeles is not providing the proper public services. While it is true that the city is not providing services, the solution is not privatization. We oppose privatization of our public spaces and services. 6.  In 1904, Abbot Kinney deeded Ocean Front Walk to be a public park in perpetuity, which also included sharp restrictions on commerce; therefore the city has no authority to approve a Business Improvement District on this section of Venice. We DON'T WANT A BID IN VENICE - it will destroy the last vestiges of freedom that remain in our community!!!

Benefit Network
674 supporters
Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to Michael LoGrande (Director, L.A. City Planning), Mike Bonin, Eric Garcetti, VNC Board, LUPC , Tricia Keane, Kevin Jones


We the undersigned call for the following:  - an immediate moratorium on the  'McMansionization' of VENICE - an immediate moratorium on Small Lot Subdivisions (SLS) in VENICE - a denial of all Small Lot Subdivisions currently pending for VENICE - no building permits to be issued for Small Lot Subdivisions prior to recordation of final map In VENICE - FULL public notification and participation, as set forth by Federal, State, and Local Law, in any and all proposed developments in VENICE. Additionally, we the undersigned call for full enforcement of  the California Coastal Act, the Mello Act, and the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan, because the cumulative effect of recent development in VENICE is diminishing the quality of life for it’s residents, and negating the purpose of said protections put in place to preserve the Coastal Zone. Here are 3 consistent and repeated ways that the City is ignoring and violating Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (VCZSP):1. City Planning is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (SLSO) to trump the Specific Plan, although the law says that specific plans always trump ordinances. The City is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to allow more units on lots than the Specific Plan allows, and is not requiring any guest parking at all, and is allowing tandem parking that people often don't use, rather than side-by-side parking.2. Allowing buildings to be constructed to the maximum possible size even when the proposed building is totally out of scale with the neighborhood i.e. three story buildings that block all of the neighbors' sunlight in a one-story or two-story neighborhood. The Specific Plan requires an evaluation of the compatibility of the mass and scale of the proposed building with the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning Department does not do this, and they have set up a process where there is no appeal. If the Planning Department continues to get away with this, soon Venice will be all 3-story compounds with very little sun or air between the buildings. 3. The Planning Department is issuing illegal DIRs that blatantly violate the Specific Plan. Then the City says that there's no appeal because the 14-day deadline has passed. The community has no real notice and no opportunity to respond. The City refuses to email citizens a .pdf of the DIRs as they are issued, they only send a mailed copy.Whereas per The CA Coastal Act. Section 30116 Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas – Venice has the following characteristics:b.  areas possessing significant recreational value.c. Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor designation areas.Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income-persons.The public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development.From Section 30250 Location; existing developed area:“In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.”Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities:“Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. Section 30252 (e) and enhancement of public access:Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”

869 supporters