They're sticking a "For Sale" sign next to the Hollywood sign.
A Chicago investment group said Tuesday that Los Angeles officials had failed to come up with the cash to preserve the mountaintop next to the iconic sign, so it has put the ridge up for sale.
Cahuenga Peak, the backdrop to one of L.A.'s most famous postcard views, will carry a $22-million price tag, its current owners said, and could attract buyers seeking the ultimate L.A. pad.
But the listing immediately generated loud protests from city officials and Hollywood residents, who say building homes on Cahuenga Peak would mar hillside vistas and scar a pristine hilltop.
"That mountain should not be cluttered," said L.A. Councilman Tom LaBonge. "It's good for the psyche of Los Angeles."
The 138-acre property is zoned for five luxury homes, according to investment group partner Keith Dickson. "It could be used for one large home or a family compound," he said.
Fox River Financial Resources acquired the mountaintop in 2002 from the estate of Howard Hughes for $1.675 million.
The eccentric tycoon had bought it in 1940 with plans to build a love nest for actress Ginger Rogers.
But she balked at that idea, fearing that the reclusive Hughes would "lock me up in a hilltop house and never let me see anyone," as Rogers later put it.
For the last several years city leaders have scrambled to raise money to buy the ridge property from Fox River and turn it into an extension of Griffith Park. So far, they've accumulated about $5 million.
The city had intended to ask the nonprofit Trust for Public Land to negotiate a selling price with the Chicago owners. Two months ago, a city-commissioned appraisal calculated that the mountaintop was worth about $6 million.
LaBonge was stunned Tuesday by Cahuenga Peak's asking price. "If they come to City Hall and do the right thing, they can still make a nice profit," he said of its current owners.
"The city should acquire this land," he said. "Everyone was shocked to find out it was privately owned. Everybody thought the city already owned it."
Dickson said city leaders may have dragged their feet because they thought the acreage was landlocked -- inaccessible and thus undevelopable.
But the developers insist the land is accessible, thanks to Hughes' actions in the 1940s.
