Quote:
Originally Posted by LAisthePlace
I think it is a bit reductive and in most ways mischaracterizes Weinstein's POV to say he just doesn't want his view blocked (that may be a secondary, or tertiary reason).
From what I've read about him it seems that he truly believes that if you build new apartment buildings in anything but the richest neighborhoods, even if you build on parking lots you will be displacing people (i.e. indirect displacement) and that itself is reason enough to not build anything except deeply affordable housing. A debunked theory that causes more harm than good when it blocks much needed housing.
Its sort of a weird, reductive combination of NIMBY and PHIMBY (Public Housing in My Backyard) viewpoints which makes him the most dangerous man in trying to actually fix the housing crisis with more homes as well as build Los Angeles more sustainably and urbanly.
That being said, I think we on this board (and other like minded people who want to see more housing in Los Angeles) do our sides view a disservice when we reduce his viewpoint down to just not wanting his views blocked instead of the much more insidious reason.
I thought the LA Times Board Editorial (great to see them on the "good" side of the fight) put the argument against his POV quite well
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...lement-lawsuit |
I don't think it is reductive. rom what I read his foundation is controversial for many things not least of which for selling drugs to AIDS patients at market price (non-profits usually take a loss) and spending Medicare aid on politics. Weinstein is a sheister and I wouldn't put anything past him.
Quoted from another LA Times article :
Early in that fight, public affairs consultant Steve Afriat, who was lobbying City Hall on behalf of Crescent Heights, asked for a meeting with Weinstein to hear his concerns. Afriat said that during that meeting, Weinstein complained that the Palladium would block his views of the Hollywood Hills.