Cahuenga Peak to become the newest Hollywood park?

hollywoodsign.jpgMack Reed at LA Voice wrote in response to the prospect of a development that could block the view of the Hollywood sign: “Does anyone remember that the sign used to be nothing more than a big-ass advertisement for a 500-acre subdivision called HOLLYWOODLAND?”

Councilman Tom LaBonge apparently doesn’t see the irony in stopping the development that the Hollywoodland sign once promoted. According to his weekly newsletter he’s been able to raise $4.5 million to buy Cahuenga Peak, as he calls it, for the city, “still shy about $1.5 million that we have been told is the asking price for the land. However, it’s puts us closer to our goal of buying this property for public use, ensuring it will remain open space forever.”

La Bonge adds: “I absolutely will not allow any structures to mar this pristine hillside that, in due time, will afford hikers a near 360-degree panoramic view of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley.”

If you’d like to contribute a donation to purchase Cahuenga Peak, contact Larry Kaplan at the Trust for Public Land at 213.380.4233.

(photo by Tony Pierce)

CategoriesLA

4 Replies to “Cahuenga Peak to become the newest Hollywood park?”

  1. Ahem.

    Yes, it may have started as an advertisement for a real estate tract, but it has stopped having that function decades ago, don’t ya think?

  2. Oh, I was wondering why I had to climb under a fence to get to Cahuenga Peak. I guess it’s private property. Assholes!

  3. I was more pointing out the fact that the Times, in a not-uncustomary rush to find a villain, failed to point out the obvious.

    This said, I think it’d be a crying shame to see anything more built above the current development line. We’ve crowded the coyotes and chaparral enough.

    Oh, and it would pretty much ruin the damn view of the sign. (would all the postcard companies sell older pictures out of nostalgia? or airbrush the McMansions out of the newer ones?)

  4. Sounds as though someone picked up a gem under the City’s nose. Can’t fault the buyer of the property for wanting to maximze his return.

Comments are closed.