Hollywood sign supporters get 16 more days to raise funds to buy nearby land

Preservationists fighting to protect 138-acres of land near the Hollywood sign have been granted a reprieve.

They will have 16 more days to raise the $12.5 million needed to purchase the land from a group of Chicago investors. The deadline for the sale was Wednesday, but the owners agreed to extend it until April 30, according to Los Angeles City Council Member Tom LaBonge.

The owners, Fox River Financial Resources Inc., bought the land from Howard Hughes' estate in 2002 for $1.7 million. They put it up for sale two years ago. The property is zoned to build four luxury homes.

LaBonge said $11 million has already been raised, and $1.5 million is still needed to purchase land. Two donors stepped forward Wednesday to help the effort.

Philanthropist Aileen Getty and the Tiffany & Co. Foundation said they would donate a $500,000 matching grant if the community raised $1 million. Getty and the Tiffany Foundation each previously donated $1 million to the campaign.

Over the weekend, supporters held a fundraiser at Lake Hollywood Park.

-- Kate Linthicum

Photo: Los Angeles City Councilmember Tom LaBonge conducts an interview for a media outlet following a press conference with officials from the Trust for Public Land. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Gaucho420]

Is there a website where people can donate?

[kiron]

I want these guys to manage my portfolio.
Buy the land for $1.7 million after 8 years extort the residents of Los Angeles for $12.5 million for a 700% return over 8 years. What an investment!!

[Scott]

Tear it down!

[The Bell]

Something is fishy about this deal.

The owners are willing to wait until April 30th? Set to net a 735% profit, they bloody well ought to be. Actually ought to be expropriated, if it really concerns the city that much.

[M]

So why hasn't the land been taken by imminent domain for the price the Chicagoans paid for it? LAX took over a good percentage of homes in Westchester and Playa del Rey for "noise and safety" concerns. Many small homeowners were sent packing without a choice. (Later some of that land went to higher density private housing.) If other countries can nationalize property and business, why can't Hollywood (or LA County) "localize" this property for the historical benefit of the county? Developers have most always been given whatever they wanted in Southern California...even now when those four luxury homes would likely sit and half rot from a bad market. Do these guys really deserve a tenfold return on their investment by demanding this ransom from a trust?

[Russell Jefferson]

That sign is meaningless and purposeless. Give that money to save some teachers jobs. Use that money to help all the homeless living under that sign. Get a grip, that sign is about as important as the bush its nestled in.

[It Is What It Is]

If it is Chicago "investors" you know it is mob-related.

[Laura]

So let me get this straight. Our Hollywood darlings can't scrounge up the extra $1.5M to save a landmark in the town that employs them? Amazing.

[Alan]

Let's see, the developers bought the land for 1.7 million, stand to make 10.8 million on the deal if they get their asking price (over a 600% return on their investment), and won't come down 1.5 million to close the deal. That's disgustingly greedy by any standard.

[Jin]

Hey everyone! Go to the website and give a donation to do your part. If everyone that supported the cause donated even a little bit, then we'd have had enough by the original deadline. I'm a poor college student, but I put in $25 just now because it's something I believe that will give to future generations of Angelenos.

[Mike]

They will never be able to build up their. The owners of the land found that out otherwise during the boom you would have had houses or other projects by now. Its now time to dump the land with a threat tu build all sorts of stuff. Maybe they could put a huge faris wheel or magic mountain ride! What better way to dump the land at a high price then get the news papers, radio, and TV to run stories. Then people will donate all their hard earned money to save the sign. Like the sign is going away. You people are being duped to pay top dollar that is basically worthless to the ones that own it now. I bet they can't even get a permit to rake leaves up their little alone build a road and houses.

[Erik Roth]

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

[David]

Two words: Eminent domain.

[Randa Cardwell]

If the land was sold in 2002 for $1.7 million, and we are in a recession, then why is the asking price of $12.5 million not being challenged?

[Bryan T]

I'm a strong preservationist, but I think this deal is garbage. Blow the deadline and tell these investors that they can have $5 million, take it or leave it. Then the extra money can be spent on saving other worthwhile properties.

[Erik Roth]

p.s. Statement by Russell Jefferson merits consideration, and yet, strong dissent.
Despite my earlier cynical comment ("Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."), I disagree that money would be better spent than on saving this land, the view of it, and the sign, for all it represents. The question is not whether to buy (and save the peak for the public), but how much to spend.
Certainly our teachers and the homeless must be better served. But this should not be considered a Sophie's Choice.

"Crops can be replanted. Stock can reproduce. So can human beings.
But the land is not like these. Once it is taken away, it is gone forever."
~ Navajo Councilman

According to this article: "... $11 million has already been raised ...."
I suggest the investors consider half of that an offer they shouldn't refuse.
If they balk at that, seize it for eminent domain, and send them back to the Fox River with next to nothing.

[dan]

supply and demand... they got it, some one wants it, gotta get it.