ABOUT THIS BLOG

In Field Notes, NBC News will shed light on the stories that don't always make the headlines as well as offering analysis on the big and small stories of the day.

Regular contributors include NBC News correspondents, producers and staff based in bureaus across the country and on assignment.

Click here to read more about the journalists behind this blog.



Big flap over Hollywood landmark

Posted: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:44 PM


HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – New York has the Statue of Liberty, San Francisco the Golden Gate Bridge and Hollywood has that sign up in the hills overlooking Tinseltown.

It was constructed in 1923 as an advertisement for a real estate subdivision called "Hollywoodland." Later, the sign fell into disrepair and was acquired by the city. In 1949, when it was being renovated, the last four letters were removed, leaving the present-day Hollywood sign.

VIDEO: Saving the Hollywood sign

Now, fans of the sign are up in arms about plans by a group of Chicago investors to develop 138 acres of nearby land as lots for luxury homes. Promotional material touts the property as a perfect spot for multi-million dollar mansions with spectacular 360-degree views of Los Angeles. But one city official claims if those plans were carried out, the result would be huge eyesore.

"It's a crazy idea," said Los Angeles City Council Member Tom LaBonge, "I'm not going to let it happen. The city is not going to let it happen."

Now, LaBonge is trying to find a way for the city to purchase the land, perhaps calling on Hollywood luminaries to ante up the money to acquire the property. One sticking point: the city believes the land is worth only $6 million at most, while the investors are asking $22 million for it.

"It's a fair market price," said Sarah Blanchard, a realtor who represents the sellers.

But at $22 million, the investors would be reaping a huge profit. They acquired the land in 2002 for only $1.7 million at a time when no one in Los Angeles thought it could be developed because it was inaccessible, surrounded entirely by city property. But the investors did their homework and found a loophole in their favor.

Like finding ‘a Van Gogh at a garage sale’
The property was originally bought by billionaire Howard Hughes, who had successfully sued the city and won a one hundred foot wide easement, still valid, to construct a road up to the peak of the mountain. Hughes had planned to build a love nest there for his girlfriend, actress Ginger Rogers. But when she danced out of his life, telling people she didn’t want to be cooped up on a remote mountaintop, he left the acreage vacant.

"The more we learned about the property, the more we realized we’d found a Van Gogh at a garage sale," said Keith Dickson, one of the partners in the investment group, Fox River Financial Resources.

Councilman LaBonge argues that the land and the views are valuable but that his constituents want the mountain left as it is. "It is the dream, the beauty of the land, that is what Los Angeles is about," said LaBonge, "That's what Hollywood is."

Hollywood is also about making deals, and that's what the city is looking for as it tries to preserve the land surrounding the world-famous sign.

See the link to George Lewis’ report on the controversy over the Hollywood landmark on the Nightly News with Brian Williams on Monday evening above.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

why don't they deem the land and the sign as a historical landmark so it would be protected as such and couldn't be sold to the money-hungry land-rapers. Why do they feel the need to develop every bit of green on a hill?
Let them develop it.  It would prove what everybody already knows....that everything is for sale in Hollywood and nothing is valued.  Los Angeles is the ugliest city in the United States anyway....might as well make it uglier.
"It is the dream, the beauty of the land, that is what Los Angeles is about."

Your kidding right Councilman?  That's beautiful?  Maybe if you've never been anywhere outside L.A., besides Barstow, that's beautiful.

If it was good enough for HH to build on in 40's, then why not some 21st Century developer, isn't THAT what LA is all about.
I am so sick of developers. We've already got enough unused new housing around - stop dumping your cheaply-built eyesores on an already over-developed nation. They're ugly and unnecessary, especially when infringing on landmarks and natural oases. Stop rampant building.
Highest and best use is still the American way for real estate.  No un-constitutional eminent domain is necessary because the developers already own it, fair and square.  And with government entities crying about always needing more tax dollars, this represents an opportunity.  Instead of trying to deny the developers, Los Angeles should instead negotiate covenants with the developers so that the taxes will be taken care of, the utilities, parks and amenities will be well-built, and the development will be beautiful from all viewing angles.  
WHY NOT ASK ARNOLD FOR THE CHEESE, THE GOVENATOR SHOULD BE ALL OVER THIS
Highest and best use is still the American way for real estate.  No un-constitutional eminent domain is necessary because the developers already own it, fair and square.  And with government entities crying about always needing more tax dollars, this represents an opportunity.  Instead of trying to deny the developers, Los Angeles should instead negotiate covenants with the developers so that the taxes will be taken care of, the utilities, parks and amenities will be well-built, and the development will be beautiful from all viewing angles.  
OH YEAH!  Like we need MORE development with the freeways and surface streets already clogged to standstill and while we're continually freaking out about water shortages - - not to mention the "E" word (i.e., "Earthquakes).

For ONCE - do the right thing and leave it open and visible and undeveloped, ya greedmongers!!
I think, whatever it costs, the rich people of Los Angeles and the movie moguls and their dragoons should just buy whatever is needed to preserve the famous signage. Indeed, it should be declared a national landmark or monument and so be preserved in perpetuity for the enjoyment of all. It would be as sad for America as the loss of any really great cultural or historical icon. In a way, a great majority of Americans alive today have grown up with that sign. For some not always clear reason, we actually love it. Somewhat mystical, but true, I believe. Take it away and we'll never feel quite the same again and that is sad to contemmplate also.
Sarah Blanchard must have smoked some really bad dope in CHI town to come up with that "Fair Market Value"
Bull Shit. My suggestion to the L.A. Official's is to use their political power and condem the land under "Right of emminet domain", send those Chicago "Investors" their orignal purchase price and tell them they made a bad investment.
Just leave the landmark as it is, amidst green hills for thousands to view, not a pile of housing to clutter up God's creation.  "I will lift up my eyes to the hills."  
let them build the houses, Hollywood is a thing of the past, Those self important people down in that area are part of the problems with America any way,
Am I First. The Rich will definatelly get their way as all officials pockets will inherit hugh earnings for years to come. The Land will be developed & you canno't fight city hall which will read hugh profits. VERY HUGH. We may be in a Recession,but the wealthy are in a Procession. MONEY
The city should just conviscate the land via eminent domain and pay the developers a tad more than the 1.7M they paid for it and if that does not work then stick the developers in environmental impact study hell for a few years - the last thing the area needs are a few more huge mansions on the hill side ...HD.
THE CITY SHOULD EXERCISE "EMINENT DOMAIN" IF THE GREEDY INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS CONTINUE TO BE UNREASONABLE.  IT IS TIME SOMEONE TOOK A STAND AGAINST OVERDEVELOPMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF HISTORICAL AND AESTHETIC VALUE.  THE HOLLYWOOD SIGN IS KNOWN IN MOST PARTS OF THE WORLD AS A LANDMARK  TO HAVE IT PLOWED UNDER IS UNCONSCIONABLE!
All you have to do is what we do in Phoenix - have the city pass an ordinance forbidding building on anything steeper than a 10% grade.  That will keep the greedy developers off the mountain!  Long live the Hollywood sign!
A SIGN saying "Hollywood" should be a national landmark?  How about getting the celebrities to "sponsor" our National Parks, Forests, Woodlands so more people can use them.  
I feel "Preserve Hollywood sign" is more of a Celebrity Worship issue, than a practical solution.  For the money amounts being bandied about, it might as well be Washington DC.  How about a laser "Hollywood" sign projected onto the smog in the valley?  
I lived in LA for many years and I can attest to the fact that Hollywood has long since passed from being representative of what is good in America to being the cesspool of America.  Do something constructive in Hollywood.  Build the big beautiful homes and hopefully the ugly sign will fall over during the BIG ONE!
Why do you all hate developers so much?  Unless you live in a tent and you are willing to give up your right to procreate, you need development.  Likewise most of you people hate farming, cars, fuel, electricity and making money.  You need to get rid of your shelter (unless it is a tent), start eating off the land(roadkill), start walking, get rid of your computer (it uses electricity) and forget about making money.  Yeh, I thought that you wouldn't like that!
It's a cheap, cheesy tourist attraction. Raze it and put up some over priced mansions on steep, unstable soil and watch them disappear too. Then the Cali taxpayers can pay for the homes that were destroyed....now that's California Dreaming...  
Cptn Kirk is right.  Unless you live in a tent, you're part of the problem too.  Live in an apartment?  You're part of the development problem.  Live in a single-family subdivision?  You're part of the development problem. You shop anywhere?  You continue to add to the problem.  Before any of you were there, it was all pristine wilderness.  All of us helped mess it up, and don't forget it.
Let it go to arbitration..... fair to everyone.  Personal opinion?  The city will "lose" at end up paying somewhere upwards of $ 15 million for the land
Why can't they do both?  Build the unneeded houses around the ugly sign.  
I'm in Development and I say, "Leave this simplistic, yet superb, display of American Culture alone". It stands for a lot of hopes and dreams for all Americans. All the city has to do is apply particularly "harsh" conveniences on the property that will make it unprofitable to build on. I see cities, townships & boroughs do this everyday. Next, It will be just a matter of time before someone determines that a little spot in Ellis Island can be developed into, "Great Beachfront Property".
Lived there, ran around the sign many times, great spot to see everything. I think the city will purchase the property at a price that will make the people from Chicago happy and LA will keep its landmark.People get a life; if the ones of you that are so negative about the sign, the developers and the city owned the land your song would be sung in a different key. Why be so shallow.
Who cares...All this other stuff going on and they have to wine about this crap? Relocate the sign, or raise the money to buy out the investors.
Do you live in a developed area? Do you hate the developer for lovely view from your home? Why not reclaim all the property along the PCHighway,shut down Aspen and every other beautiful location. If the location is zoned for residential use (it means Humans)
Let them develop it; LA has no history and no sense of preserving anything that is NATURAL! However, the development should be somewhat pleasing; LA needs to TAX the property and then use those TAX DOLLARS to beautify something else--how about a neighborhood playground in a run down neighborhood--or several playgrounds/parks in many run down neighborhoods!!!!! Why is it the RICH always gain; don't we have a sense of helping people anymore???
My family and I visited that hilltop sign in 2002. It was a dream come true for us.  The excitement was magical and to this day, it brings us great joy when we talk about it.  We are not actors or even wannabe actors...just plain people.  But for those who aspire to be actors, I imagine that sign represents their dream and to all of you movie lovers "HOLLYWOOD" is where it all began.  Leave the sign...it is one of California's greatest landmarks.
I've lived in L.A. for 40 years, and have never considered the sign a landmark. I'm puzzled why an insignificant sign gets to much adoration. If you can remember Hollywood & Vine some 30 years ago, it was great-  but Hollywood now is an embarrassment. Normal people know that.
If only we had never let the original developer put up the sign then there would be no problem.
"let them build the houses, Hollywood is a thing of the past, Those self important people down in that area are part of the problems with America any way,"

I agree! I know this one place in Oregon that definitely needs to be brought into the 21st Century! We need to bulldoze the "old, historic downtown" in Grant's Pass (what delapidated buildings!) and put up some new sports bars and high-rise, low-income, invite the illegal aliens, tax-subsidized housing. Then let's dam up that stupid Rogue River (whitewater is so passe!) so we can fill the canyon and have a nice breeder reactor on it. Then let's get rid of that antiquated, useless "caves monument" so we have a good place to store our spent plutonium for the next 580,000 years.

We should never stand in the way of progress. It's un-American!
Everyone calling for the city to use "EMINENT DOMAIN", obviously don't have a clue how it works. Stealing someones land, that they paid for, just to leave it vacant, can hardly be justified as being  for the public good. Any court would have to call it what it really is.....stealing.
Greenary is a rare sight in Los Angeles as it is presently. 17 years ago when I moved from New York is was because of what LA had, to be specific the City of Pasadena. Lots of space, clean streets, and the most beautiful weather in the world. Lately is over clogged freeways and city streets, a smog fill environment and yes, lots and lots of unused new develop so called "lofts" and "condominiums" that no one can afford that has made Pasadena and other cities in Los Angeles look like Brooklyn or the Bronx, over populated...Do we really need more developers sacrificing the little we have left of nature itself?
Private ownership of land is keystone to supporting our culture.  Anytime you start throwing around the ED words, it usually means that taxs payers are going to be hit with a bill they can't afford to force somebody to take less than they deserve.  Ducks Unlimited uses voluntary donations to buy the land it needs for its preserves.  Let the people who care form a foundation and pony up the funds to pay the legal owners of this land the true fair market value.  Then the government won't need to milk the tax payers to maintain the land.
I have no issue with the notion of paying a fair market value for the property. (After all, where are all those rich Hollywood celebrities supporting the Democrats whow want to "tax the rich" now?)

But the notion that the city pass laws that would retroactively prohibit contrstuction on the property -- which was purchased with the understanding that no laws would do so -- is effectively government confiscation.  Call it what you will, but some people see no problem in taking the rights from ANOTHER group, especially one they do not like.

Thus begins the road to evil -- with good intentions.
let them build. so that the people living up there are breathing in all of that brown smog.
I say bulldoze the thing!  It's a fitting and appropiate way to communicate what the truth of the situation is..."Americans are for Sale!".  Bulldoze history and memories for more run-of-the-mill yuppie birdhouses.
Build the stupid things, that way the next time a dumb kid drips a match and burns down California, those burning eyesores will be up high for all to see!
It is no secret that the American God is The Almighty Dollar. What's the fuss? Americans will finish ruining their country and the rest of the world for the sake of a Dollar... What else can you expect from a people so smart that they worship their National Institutions, yet have hunted the symbol of America (the Bald-Headed Eagle) to near extinction? Go USA!!!
It's an 'Historic' structure. It belongs to California. Outside developers have no care for the lands they are developing except to make as much money as possible, then they (the spoilers) can afford to live somewhere that hasn't been despoiled, while we get to live in the @#$@ environment they defiled to get rich with.These greedy philistines are searching to build everywhere that is now beautiful, but won't be when they leave.
Let them build thier houses. In a couple of years they will become part of a forest fire, earthquake, landslide or something. think of how much more they will be worth when they become beachfront property. Who really cares anyway. California thinks too much of itself.
Pardon me LA is not the ugliest city in the world, Chicago is! Grey, dirty, bleak and windy...unless your rich.
Nere in New Hampshire we learned what it is like to lose a national treasure when the Old Man of the Mountain collapsed a few years ago. That was a treasure. The Hollywood Sign is more like "trashy glitz," which Hollywood seems full of these days, However, it has become a landmark, and doesn't anyone see the true irony here: that sign was originally built to advertise a development. If the Hollywood rich want to put in the dollars to save the sign, let them do it. Personally, I'd rather see the money go to something a bit more meaningful, say, perhaps, our nation's poor and underprivileged, but I have to admit there is not much glitz in doing that.
I was born & raised in California, the sign, although not “The Statue of Liberty”, is a very important part of the states history, not to mention, an important attraction to the thousands of tourist that visit the state. I can remember family and friends from back east visiting, and the first thing they wanted to see, was the Hollywood sign. The state is over run with million dollar homes in every direction, but there is only One sign! Let it stand, as it always has, do what ever is necessary to protect.
What's next?  The Grand Canyon??? Why dont' we put condos at Zions park while we're at it!! I am SOOOOO sick of developers!!!
It seems to me like poor ignorant people not wanting investors willing to take risks to spend their millions of dollars in their economy.   I for one praise the investors, they saw something that everyone else didn't.   I say if the people of LA want to stay in this recession then so be it, I have yet to meet someone from that area of the Country who were not egotistical air heads.   I say go ahead with the development knock down that hideous sign and stick it to the smog loving man!!!
I love the people saying "the government should just take the land."  What if it was your land, your investment that someone wanted the government to take?  It's OK to trample on some Chicago investor's rights, but what about when someone wants to take your rights?
Has anyone done enviro impact studies yet.  Seems Cali has a problem with drainage and mudslides, paving over compounds and creates this.  Then govt bailout for all the affluent on top of and at the bottome of a poorly drained developed hill that lose the mega mansions due to a mudslide
What's next...Billboards hanging from Golden Gate Bridge.  I bet these 'developers'wouldn't put up with this sh*t in their backyards.
I don't give a rat's a$$ about the hollywood sign. However, when those ugly, pretentious mcmansions slide down the hill, and the taxpayers have to pay for the damages, via increased insurance bills, increased taxes, etc. - that I give a damn about. If not a historic landmark, then surely environmental impact or "buildable" studies would hold them off indefinitely.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):