The Medical Marijuana issue was to be heard today and is being put over another week to examine the terms of the proposed ordinance.
Ed Reyes wants to get into details. Item 11 asks for another EIR on the route for the High Speed Rail project other than Union Station. (Ed wants the HS Rail to move the route elsewhere but takes forever to get to his real point.)
The Agenda Item 22 also involves placement of the station.
CM Rosendahl in his own unique style says that this was waived out of his Transportation committee as a "no brainer" (an oh-so-appropriate phrase for lots of city council activities) and paraphrasing, "We all agree that we all want High Speed Rail." I disagree.
The California High Speed Rail is supposed to get you to where? The closest destination in the earliest time will be Lancaster. Is there a big demand now for that?
The whole idea to me seems simply and plainly a great sounding idea that really is too costly and not useful when you consider the benefits and burdens (especially the tremendous financial one.).
Frankly, I am surprised in one respect, at CM Reyes' resistance to moving this along. He usually can't push things like this fast enough when you say the magic words, "it will bring jobs to L.A."
The real reason is that the main proposal puts the route too close to the L.A. River and his pet project at making the area useable.
I don't know how many of his concerns have merit, but he wants the alternatives to be chosen. Reyes says there's to be 4 trains in and 4 trains out that will make noise and the rest of the things that go with transit, all presented to support his position, but perfection is rarely achievable. It sounds to me like something to add to slow down this project for a complete re-routing, making an enormously expensive project even more a hideous expenditure of public money. I think the better view would be to decide if the range of changes is financially feasible, and not conisdering only the preference that it keep a distance with its noise and hazards.
I think that this High Speed Rail is another political animal that wastes lots of money that is even more shameful in times of our poor economy. But that's not ever an essential element of any public office holder to consider, other than as a false front to disguise their own agenda.
LaBonge is backing the concern of Reyes also, citing past choices and outcomes like the Green Line rail never reaching the Airport- blaming an earlier roster of Council persons. That result was due to the city planning with special interests - I believe that case involved the taxi companies- to keep the end AWAY from the airport and not go TO it as other cities provide. It is not a mistake, it was done on purpose and a political result. What isn't a result of politics nowadays.
Again, there is a thing called a plane to get you to San Francisco for a cost that the high speed rail planned will likely only reach when it is subsidized. The route that the project takes through California is the real reason to make this boondoogle get off the ground.
The ballot measure probably sounded good when voters read it- "Yeah, a high speed train? Great. I vote 'Yes' on this." The bond and tax increase probably did not dominate their thoughts at that moment. We don't need this and the idea that people will get out of their cars to take this train instead of driving is false because, (a.) it will not go where they need it to go to any regular frequency, (b.) what transportation needs will be met at the destination is not clearly shown, and (c.) people will only get out of their cars when they NEED to, as in traveling by plane, and leaving behind cars for public transportation is more opposed relative to how nice a car they have.
Comparing California to Europe is an unfair one. European countries are small and distances are not the same for one thing. One more thing, the governments tax their people to heavily subsidize their rail projects. And don't forget that driving in Europe is not universally a part of life. They don't all have cars AND the gas is and has always been even MORE expensive than it has ever been in L.A.
What arguments they use in City Hall are really a lot of inaccuracies and half-truths to prop up their own positions that don't have too much relevance in connection with what is best for the city. In other words, they still do what they want and make it look like its something else, masking a lot of the true picture so the projects slide by the public to get to the desired conclusion. They hook up their arguments to other considerations that sometimes are inconsistent with their positions the same people originally taken but don't mention they were on the other side of the fence, so to speak, earlier. "Whatever works" to convince you to agree is the rule here.
If you happen to oppose anything in these situations then you most often are villified and considered an obstructionist or some other label with negative connotations.
==========================================================
text of the 12-02-09 WED- agenda selections:
"ITEM NO. (11)
09-0252
AD HOC RIVER COMMITTEE REPORT relative to California High Speed Rail alignment and station options for the City of Los Angeles.
Recommendations for Council action:
1. DIRECT the Department of City Planning (Planning), and other City departments as appropriate, to continue working with the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) as a participating agency.
2. DIRECT Planning to continue working with City departments to explore the possibility of a Union Station East/Vignes Station.
3. DIRECT Planning to continue working with other City departments to provide a formal comment letter to the CHSRA on the recently released Draft Alternatives Analysis reports.
4. DIRECT Planning to work with the Department of Transportation to explore hiring a consultant to assist with the preparation of comments on project alternatives and the development of feasible mitigation options.
5. DIRECT Planning to provide a list of communities impacted by this project.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by Planning. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
(Transportation Committee waived consideration of the above matter)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED together with Item 11]
ITEM 22
ITEM NO. (22) - Motion Required
09-0002-S179
COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE and RESOLUTION relative to requesting the California High Speed Rail Authority to consider multiple sites for a downtown Los Angeles high speed rail station.
Recommendation for Council action, pursuant to Resolution (Reyes - Perry - Huizar), SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:
ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION to REQUEST the California High Speed Rail Authority to include in its study on possible locations for a downtown Los Angeles rail station more than one potential site and include an examination of potential sites that are in the proximity of Vignes Street and East Patsaouras Plaza, between Union Station and the former westbank option.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the Chief Legislative Analyst. The City Administrative Officer has not completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Both item passed unanimously with a "friendly amendment"
Posts
