Hollywood sign coverup part of campaign to purchase Cahuenga Peak
A nonprofit group plans to cover the Hollywood sign with a banner urging "Save the Peak" this week, announcing its effort to purchase nearby Cahuenga Peak from private developers for $11.7 million.
The leaders of Public Trust for Lands intend to disclose their acquisition effort publicly for the first time Thursday morning in Hollywood. They say they have raised about half of the asking price for the 138-acre mountaintop parcel from a Chicago investment group.
They have an April 14 deadline to seal the deal. The investors purchased the mountain site west of the Hollywood sign from the estate of Howard Hughes in 2002 for about $1.7 million.
The aircraft and filmmaker tycoon bought the mountaintop in the 1930s and planned to build a love nest there for actress Ginger Rogers.
Investors had hoped to sell the land for as much as $40 million for home sites. Their plans prompted Hollywood-area City Councilman Tom LaBonge to ask for the San Francisco-based land trust to help preserve the mountaintop.
But police took the edge off the trust's planned surprise by announcing that the Hollywood sign would be covered Thursday as part of “an international campaign” and would remain draped “until further notice.”
The e-mailed “community alert notification” to Hollywood residents urged that they “not be alarmed” because the 450-foot-long landmark “will remain in place and there will be no changes done to the sign.” Police said the notification was issued “so we do not receive phone calls from worried citizens.”
A spokesman for the San Francisco trust, Tim Ahern, said Monday afternoon his group was still awaiting permission to cover the sign from Los Angeles officials and the Hollywood Sign Trust, which maintains the sign. “The police department jumped the gun,” he said. Monday night, Ahern released details of the proposed acquisition.
-- Bob Pool in Hollywood
Photo: Reed Saxon / Associated Press








This is all so typical of LA. It's sort of like Parisians tearing down
the Eiffel Tower to build condos, or New Yorkers moving the Statue of Liberty of the Bronx so they could build a shopping mall on that cool little island.
Only in LA do monuments and the city's history mean nothing. Of course these developers want to tear it down and build houses for the rich. Who cares that the Hollywood Sign is an international symbol of the movie industry? Profit is everything in LA.
Posted by: eric erickson | February 09, 2010 at 08:43 AM
I'm all for saving the peak but, to cover the landmark until further notice?
Maybe the sign obscurers could put up a backdrop at the locations around LA (base of sign, top of arclight groe parking garage, griffith observatory) for tourists (you know those revenue generating pests) to snap a picture in front of, after all, they were "close enough" to the sign for it to count.
Posted by: Jim | February 09, 2010 at 09:09 AM
I'm excited to see this temporary change in the LA Landscape. What a bold statement!
Posted by: Jeff | February 09, 2010 at 09:34 AM
Aren't these rains enough to demonstrate that NO HOMES should be built on any more hillsides? Sell the land to a public trust for open space.
Posted by: Carol | February 09, 2010 at 09:40 AM
The Hollywood sign should not be covered.
It should be sold and go to the highest bidder.
Like the Industry itself.
Posted by: Alan | February 09, 2010 at 09:40 AM
Cover our beloved sign? Why? The sign is on public property. What's this all about? Who authorized the sign to be covered? This is an outrage and something should be done.
Uncover the sign! Now!
Posted by: Carl_W_Goss | February 09, 2010 at 10:03 AM
It's the TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND.
Posted by: LKitsch | February 09, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Isn't it time to get rid of that commercial eye sore? What a waste of real estate. Think of all the mansions that could be build on the site, adding jobs and tax revenues to the community. Then all the homes could be evacuated during fire season, adding more fire fighting jobs to the economy. Only to be followed by more evacuations during the rain, for mud slides, and have tax payers foot the bill again.
Posted by: tom | February 09, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Eric, before you go bashing the entire population of Los Angeles, you may want to give the story another quick read. The investors who bought the land and intend to build are a "Chicago based investment group". And also Jim, I think that the temporary sign cover up is a great idea, what better way to bring attention to the situation and potentially garner the balance of the funds necessary to purchase the land back from the developers?
Posted by: mark | February 09, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Why are these land-buyers given the tag "developers" when they are doing everything but developing the area they purchased?
Posted by: Asim | February 09, 2010 at 04:46 PM
I once lived in the "TRIANGLE HOUSE" last house before the sign it was a magical place just looking outside the livingroom window all you see is HOLLYWOOD i felf like the luckiest girl is the WORLD.....BLESS HOLLYWOOD
Posted by: Darling NIKKI | February 09, 2010 at 06:07 PM
Uh, I think y'all should quit hyperventilating and reread the article. The developer has no plans to do anything to the sign nor do they own the land where the sign sits. They own the nearby peak and that is the one they want to develop. If anything, the land trust is causing all this uproar by making you all think the sign is in danger. And that is the point.
Posted by: Kristian | February 09, 2010 at 07:35 PM
We're going on Honeymoon to LA in April, if you could have the sign uncovered by then it would be most appreciated :)
Posted by: Andrew | February 10, 2010 at 05:59 AM
eric erickson -
Typical LA bashing. Did you even read the article? A CHICAGO group owns the property and wants to build houses.
Posted by: Richard | February 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Kristian: it is not only the sign itself that is the icon. The hill it sits on is part of the view and value of the sign. You couldn't pick up the sign and place it at Hollywood/Highland and think it would have the same cache or meaning as a landmark. Similarly, if the hill to the left of the sign was cluttered with homes, the view of the sign and the value of the sign itself changes.
So you're wrong, the sign is in danger.
Posted by: Sabio | February 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Isn't it time to get rid of that commercial eye sore? What a waste of real estate. Think of all the mansions that could be build on the site, adding jobs and tax revenues to the community. Then all the homes could be evacuated during fire season, adding more fire fighting jobs to the economy. Only to be followed by more evacuations during the rain, for mud slides, and have tax payers foot the bill again.
Posted by: TypeKey | February 10, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Here is the developers vision from 2007 http://bit.ly/90cHed. The Trust just needs to come up with some extra money for the 140 acres, they have been reviewing for a number of years.
Where is Mr. Eli Borad or Mr. Rick Caruso as this would buy a big favor for other projects?
How about one of Hollywood's elite stepping forward as this is less than what one makes on a movie and they could call it Tom Hanks Peak.
Posted by: SoftMirage | February 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM
I really think someone should buy the peak, and commercially develop it, put a tram in there, maybe some mountain bike trails, and definitely a big house with a long curvy driveway that resembles a racetrack....
Posted by: freshcoldbeer.com | February 13, 2010 at 04:43 AM
I think that keeping the Holywood sign is a great idea! This is something that has been there forever and I think its worth keeping!
Posted by: ecigs | February 19, 2010 at 01:00 PM
How can they possibility cover up an attraction like this?
One of the biggest draw cards in the Hollywood area, and known world wide.
I know...lets fill the Grand Canyon with dirt so we can build condo's on it...great idea....
Came on LA get with it...........
Posted by: Shane from South Australia | March 24, 2010 at 07:11 PM
The Hollywood sign is something that has been there forever and I think its worth keeping! The Hollywood sign should not be covered.
Posted by: Max Furniture | June 19, 2010 at 01:04 AM
I think the investors who bought the land and intend to build are a "Chicago based investment group". And also Jim, I think that the temporary sign cover up is a great idea, what better way to bring attention to the situation and potentially garner the balance of the funds necessary to purchase the land back from the developers.
Posted by: Homesure Services | July 05, 2010 at 10:50 PM
If the hill to the left of the sign was cluttered with homes, the view of the sign and the value of the sign itself changes.
Posted by: Positive Quotes | July 16, 2010 at 12:33 AM
Think of all the mansions that could be build on the site, adding jobs and tax revenues to the community. Then all the homes could be evacuated during fire season, adding more fire fighting jobs to the economy.
Posted by: Eco Friendly | July 16, 2010 at 02:04 AM
"The Hollywood Sign is an emblem not just of this town, but of the creative dreams of people everywhere. The view of Hollywood Sign is instantly recognizable, and presides center stage over the largest urban park in the country. Pilgrims from around the world visit it daily, hoping to capture a bit of the glamour it represents. It would be devastating for the view, and the surrounding parkland, enjoyed by so many, to be destroyed. I live within view of the Hollywood Sign and am passionate about joining my peers in Hollywood to save this famous landmark
Posted by: Bathroom Furniture Vanities | September 06, 2010 at 03:55 AM