Ventura-Woodman Project’s Drawbacks

I question The Times’ conclusion (Valley Perspective, Oct. 9) that objections to the Ventura-Woodman project “are of dubious merit or outweighed by the good points” and that “the project’s pluses more than offset the minuses.”

How can this newspaper, after all these 5 1/2 years of coverage and letters, not understand that the “good points” and “pluses” are still not addressing the gross objection of this community: simply that any project over two stories is too big for the site! Right now nothing will reduce the existing congestion and pollution. We thought that the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan would eliminate the creeping attempt at overdevelopment. After all, many years of study went into the plan. It is a law!

I am a member of the Sherman Oaks Woodman/Ventura Project Committee and must set the record straight. The present blight is the city’s fault. It has never enforced the ordinances for the maintenance of empty buildings. City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky has long had community calls about this problem.

A year ago, a film company was able to use the location for a movie. In a few hours the lots and buildings were spruced into life. It took far less paint and nails than the amount used to cover graffiti for 5 1/2 years.

MARIA ABONDOLO

Sherman Oaks

* I would like to remind you that the blight you wrote about was created by the city not issuing an ordinance to have the property maintained. I can’t see why the developer and Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky should be above the law in not adhering to the Specific Plan.

To allow this three-story monstrosity of a building to be built in our neighborhood astounds me. To house senior citizens in 84 sardine-tin-size apartments seems so wrong when many empty apartment houses close by lie empty and would be much more suitable for our elderly citizens. Peace and quiet, the oldest right afforded us, will not apply to citizens housed on congested, dangerous, noisy, polluted Ventura Boulevard.

KATHERINE LITTLE

Sherman Oaks