|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 19, 2010 7:09:09 GMT -8
I was listeneing to oldies radio (1260am) yesterday morning and was pleasantly surprised to hear the morning DJ mention how the 405 widening project got him thinking about why politicians won't do something that would give commuters a real choice - like build a rail line over the Sepulveda pass!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 19, 2010 21:20:16 GMT -8
The gathering will happen this Sunday. Poor elderly people will be sucked into the meeting, asked to put their wallets on the table. Some leaders of NFSR don't care how they look in public eye opposing this highly supported project through scare tactics. Those of you who attend the meeting, please pass your reports here.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 20, 2010 8:23:29 GMT -8
From my read, Ken's main point is that since Expo is now happening, the best thing for everybody to do (not just supporters and NIMBYs, but all stakeholders including nearby residents) is to now focus on making Expo as successful as possible for everybody. This means finding the right balance between sometimes conflicting goals:
* Minimizing impacts on neighbors. * Maximizing benefits for neighbors. * Maximizing speed and comfort for riders. * Providing smooth connections to other transportation modes. * Creating a safe and secure ROW. * Minimizing any traffic congestion that the line might cause.
To do this, all parties must at some point first accept that the line is a "fait accompli", done deal that will be built. On the other hand, the longer the NIMBYs keep fighting the very existence of the line, the less they will be participating in the final design phase of this project.
And, as Ken states, the City has a huge role to play as well. It looks like legislators and planning staff from L.A. have not yet gotten very involved in the planning process. It's time for them to do their jobs, to ensure that Expo gets integrated well into the Westside.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 20, 2010 12:24:20 GMT -8
I couldn't have said it any better myself, metrocenter! Anyone who thinks that Expo just won't happen almost ensures they won't have a role at the table when mitigations and planning must inevitably occur.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 21, 2010 23:08:47 GMT -8
Well, I couldn't beat my curiosity and went to the NFSR meeting. Light-Rail for Cheviot Chair Karen and I went together but Karen was already discouraged by the hostile behavior of the receptionist and decided she couldn't bear the environment and requested me to stay and take notes. While I was about to enter, a guy at the door told me that I was with Karen so he couldn't let me in. I asked him if he were serious and he said, yes, you are not accepted here. At that moment Terri Tippit, Neighbors for Smart Rail Chair showed up and she invited me in a nice and friendly manner, saying that it would be only presentations today. I was pleased and encouraged and went in but it turned out to be an unpleasant mistake.
The meeting had already started about ten or fifteen minutes ago and they were talking, as usual, about how the neighborhood would be catastrophically destroyed. They were saying at-grade rail doesn't fit heavily residential neighborhoods. In fact throughout the meeting their presentations contained ironies and conflicts. In the past they had argued the neighborhood wasn't dense enough for rail and now they are arguing it's too dense for at-grade rail. Vandalism was among their fears the trains would bring.
They were arguing that the subway on Wilshire should be built instead. They were saying there were times when neighborhoods were protected and Zev wouldn't let rail through the neighborhood. Now, they were asking when Zev's term would end.
They kept asking for underground. In a 180-degree turn of their position, they claimed that they don't mind construction impacts -- spend seven years constructing a deep trench, which will be the right way of doing it, and we could live with the construction impacts. Irony, again, as in the past they were using construction impacts for why should the Expo Line not be built. They are also saying that there won't be much construction impacts of building a deep trench because it's in a private right-of-way. Again, irony -- there won't be construction impacts because it's in a private right-of-way but there will be severe impacts during operation if the line is built at-grade.
They mentioned the Eastside Gold Line tunnels, but they didn't mention that there is no right-of-way there. They mentioned Ridley-Thomas's opposition to what they call the "fraudulent Metro light-rail grade-crossing policy document."
They also claimed that CEQA didn't allow adding extra lanes on Overland, Westwood, and Sepulveda when the Expo did their study.
Damien's argument of environmental justice is not killing a white kid for every black or brown kid killed was mentioned.
They ridiculed the special engineering required for a deep trench saying that they were drilling through tar pits and dinosaur bones for the subway extension.
When they started their presentation on their road map, I wanted to capture it as a video clip on my iPhone. As usual, I like recording things on camera. That was a mistake and that's when things got unpleasant. In five minutes to the presentation, I saw a very angry Terri walking fast toward me and telling me that I'm not allowed to do that and she would have me thrown out. I stopped the camera and deleted the clip. If she had asked it kindly, I would have done the same thing. Even after I stopped, she kept going at me. As if that wasn't enough, a minute later I saw a very angry Colleen walking fast toward me. She asked me, "Would you like me to confiscate your phone like a little boy?" I told her I wasn't shooting a clip anymore and tried to calm her down. I wonder what is so secret about their presentation? If they so strongly believed in their cause, why wouldn't they let me record their presentation?
Also, we would never be so rude to anyone who quietly attended a Friends 4 Expo or Light-Rail for Cheviot meeting. So, this is a sharp contrast among their group and our groups.
Anyway, back to their road-map presentation.
Why we are here they said is about legal options. They said there are 30 days to file a lawsuit after the certification of the project according to CEQA and this put the deadline for filing a lawsuit to March 4, 2010. If no lawsuit was filed by then, all their rights would be forfeited and they would no longer be able to contest the project.
The lawsuit goes to a judge and there is no jury. There are four judges specialized in CEQA in LA County Superior Court; so, it will be one of them. It takes four to nine months for the lawsuit to reach a decision. If they lose it, they can go to the appeal court.
Their goal is to win the lawsuit and take the project back to the DEIR (draft environmental-impact report) phase -- that is two to three years back. Then they would try to get more alternatives, changes, and options. They claimed that they felt strongly that they would win the lawsuit, they had numerous strong arguments, and the deficiencies in the EIR were significant.
Without funding, their odds are zero they said. At that point Mike Eveloff showed two checks written to NFSR, one $18,750 and the other $25,000. People cheered.
Mike Eveloff claimed that EIR was flawed and they didn't study intersections east of Overland, people cutting through Cheviot Hills, north of Pico, and Olympic Blvd. He said EIR was fatally flawed. He then said they would win and how did he know? He didn't, he said then, creating some laughter. He also mentioned how they won against the Pico and Olympic proposal. But he didn't mention that almost everyone was opposed to that project.
Mike also criticized removal of parking at the Westwood Station, saying that even 170 spaces proposed wouldn't be enough and with the removal of parking he said it would create a traffic nightmare in the neighborhood, with people trying to find parking.
He also argued that Overland School kids safety wasn't studied. He then said the fire stations in the area didn't have paramedics and they didn't study how the paramedics would cross the rail tracks to get to the area. They didn't study grade separation, he said. (This is not true either, as grade separation was studied in the FEIR.) Mass traffic is useless he said if it makes the traffic worse.
Then Colleen talked about the bike path. She said the Northvale residents were very concerned about the bike path. She said the bike path was put under categorical exemption (from EIR). She mentioned that the only part which wasn't studied was the part between Motor and Overland and $5.5 million was allocated to that segment. She said something told her it (this segment) was really important for them. She also said the Northvale community was hanging tough about the bike path that was proposed to go by their backyards. She also criticized Expo for not including the traffic impacts created by the bike path by not studying the bike path in the EIR.
She asked people to e-mail and thank Koretz about his great speech at the Expo board meeting and to ask him for grade separation.
Then criticisms toward me rained from Colleen and Terri. Again, we (Friends 4 Expo and Light-Rail for Cheviot) would never be so impolite to anyone who attended one of our own meetings.
Terri said that they trusted Zev too much. She said there will be no station parking between Culver City and Sepulveda, which will create a traffic nightmare in the area. She claimed people would take Motor (where Expo has a bridge) to avoid crossing tracks at Overland, which would create a traffic nightmare on Motor.
This will impact everyone, she said, so you should oppose it even if you live as far as Santa Monica Boulevard.
She claimed traffic would be so bad that people would no longer come to the area and the business would suffer. (Irony again, no one comes to the area because of traffic but there is still traffic.)
She also claimed that the crossing gates malfunction and stay down for extended periods of time when it happens.
Again, it was my curiosity that drew me to this meeting. At the end it probably wasn't worth the hostility I encountered. I don't expect to go to their meetings again in the near future.
Our analysis is that these people have unreasonable fears of the new and unknown. While everyone is so comfortable with the sea of automobiles, somehow the train creates a grave fear. They somehow think that the neighborhood is about to be catastrophically destroyed. We strongly disagree and think the opposite. The neighborhood will greatly benefit from light-rail. We thank those leaders of NFSR who have chose not to fight this project and hope that their other leaders will also realize that this project is to improve their neighborhood, not make it suffer. After all, if they choose to fight, it will be like losing huge sums of money on lottery tickets, only to find out in four to nine months. On top of that, they induce stress on themselves and not look so good in the public eye.
With regards to all believers of a better Los Angeles and to our friends in Neighbors for Smart Rail.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 22, 2010 10:24:45 GMT -8
Excellent report, Gokhan. Into the lions den, eh? Frankly I'm surprised they let you stay, since it was essentially a private meeting. (However, it's illegal for them to take your cell phone, so they came very close to crossing a critical line with their threats.) A few things stand out: - These people are envisioning the absolute worst-case scenario. Traffic, crime, noise, danger. The mob mentality has a tendency to reinforce extreme statements, like the ones being listed by NFSR.
- These people see themselves as victims - victims of a big, bad government juggernaut. They are so distrustful and disconnected from reality that they see a conspiracy under every rock. Everything is us vs. them - us vs. Metro, and Zev, and, and, and the Boogie-Man! Poor us!
- They are planning to take some legal action, probably in the form of seeking a writ of mandate, to force Metro/Expo to start the EIR over "in the public interest". The only reason they would not is lack of money.
The neighborhood will greatly benefit from light-rail. I'm not one to think that Expo will improve Cheviot Hills. Frankly, I don't think it will have much affect on CH at all. These people are not going to use Expo - it misses their neighborhood altogether! But whether or not the rail specifically benefits the local neighborhood is irrelevant, in my mind. Expo is a service and a project for the region, not for Cheviot Hills. If a rail project benefits a neighborhood, fine. But that's not why it's being built. The fact is, things change. No neighborhood exists safely tucked away in a time capsule. Expecially neighborhoods in the middle of a big city, as Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park are. This is the Westside of Los Angeles. As always, we have to balance the local good with the greater good. I think Metro/Expo has done that with this FEIR. Now it will be up to a judge to confirm that. One last thing. The ROW west of Overland to Sepulveda right now is no great place. Frankly, it's a mess. I mean, it is tranquil and natural, but it also has trash, lots of weeds and untended bushes, and random people wandering through it. Do these people really prefer an abandoned right-of-way in poor condition, instead of a well-managed right-of-way, that provides a great service to tens of thousands per day?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Feb 22, 2010 19:04:59 GMT -8
Neighbors for Smart Rail sounds more like a cult than an advocacy group.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 23, 2010 13:04:29 GMT -8
Latest from Neighbors for Smart Rail. Terri Tippit is the president of Neighbors for Smart Rail as well as the West of Westwood Homeowners' Association:
Great Meeting
I want to thank the over 250 people who attended the NFSR meeting yesterday.
It was nice to see new faces but it was concerning to see how many people STILL did not know that if we do nothing the train would be coming through at grade (street level) in 5 years. Many thought it was going below grade or around us.
Soon we will be putting up lawns signs soon to let not only the residents but also the business community know that the train is coming at grade.
We encourage you to invite your neighbors and friends to a coffee. At this informal setting they will learn what the impact of a train running through here at grade every 2 1/2 minutes will have on them. Please let us know when you will have a coffee and we will have a representative there to help you. (Please see attached flyer)
We also need people to go door to door talking one on one with their neighbors. We will be having a meeting for anyone (included those who already signed up) interested in doing this. You will receive a packet with instructions and talking points.
We will also visual demonstrate the impact on traffic on the train at grade will have on our already congested streets and how it will increasing cut-through traffic. I have been contacted by both print and TV press to ask when we will be holding our demonstration.
We will be filing our lawsuit soon. Please remember we cannot do this alone we need your support.
EVERYONE MUST HELP
We know times are challenging right now. Attached is a Donation Pledge form that will allow you to make monthly payments. You can write a check or go to smartrail.org and click donate. We are trying to make it as easy as possible for you to donate.
Because we are tax deductable we are keeping a list of who contributes what.
What is the cost of NOT increasing cut-through traffic in our community What is the cost of having emergency vehicles able to reach you without an added delay of waiting for a train to pass What is the cost to be able to get on to Overland, Westwood, Military and Sepulveda from our homes What is the cost of a good night's sleep not hearing bells and whistles What is the cost of our children's safety
PRICELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Make a donation NOW or be ready for the impact of Expo at grade in our community.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 23, 2010 14:11:06 GMT -8
Does "over 250 people" match your perception of how many attended?
It's not pleasant to enter the lions den. When I spoke to a Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association a few years ago I had people coming up to me thanking me for being there, but who were too intimidated to speak up themselves.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 23, 2010 14:13:52 GMT -8
On visible phase 2 progress, yesterday I saw the Sears Auto Center building surrounded with construction fencing. Owned by the city, I wonder if its demolition is coming soon.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 23, 2010 16:43:12 GMT -8
Does "over 250 people" match your perception of how many attended? I tried to make a rough count and estimated 200 or more. So, 250 is right within the ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 25, 2010 13:23:47 GMT -8
I heard that, in the past, now the president of NFSR was then quoted in the paper saying that the people riding the train would steal their TV.
All wars are caused by fear. Let them launch their little war based on their irrational fear and throw away their money. Everyone else is on Expo's side.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Feb 26, 2010 20:06:56 GMT -8
Ï see your true colors shinning through!
But really does it not show their real colors? racists! The brown brotherhood will step off the train and put one foot on Manning Ave. and POP! a crack house appears, and then a little grandmother from the Crenshaw district take a step off the train and makes her way to Motor Ave. and Pop! there is instant graffatti on every building from National Blvd. all the way to Pico Blvd.! And now the brown people will steal our T.V.'s Yes! I'm convinced the reallity is that they the NFSR don't want blacks walking around their neighborhood! NFSR i hope your reading this!
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Feb 26, 2010 20:48:24 GMT -8
The funny thing is that they already get brown brotherhood by their neighborhood, east of Robertson Blvd, and Hamilton High School.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 3, 2010 17:24:58 GMT -8
In the movie Gone with the Wind, people of the Old South go to war with joy and cheers, and they don't listen to wise people telling them they will lose. As a result they are humiliated and lose their civilization, and they regret it at the end. Now, this is exactly like the NFSR people wanting to go to war with Expo with cheers and joy. What they don't realize is how much they will lose and how their neighborhood will suffer at the end because of their stupid war/lawsuit. Defeated NFSR NIMBYs lying on the Expo Line tracks (courtesy of the movie Gone with the Wind)So, time changes but people's stupidity doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Mar 7, 2010 11:46:39 GMT -8
So the March 6th deadline has passed, and no lawsuit has been filed. Does this mean we have crossed the speed bump that is NFSR?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Mar 7, 2010 17:30:30 GMT -8
Yep! I'm wondering about this too! But the last Expo Authority meeting Rick Thorpe said the NFSR informed him about a law suit, does that mean it is going to be done? Darrell, Gohkan, or Bart, What do you know about this. Sincerely the Road trainer
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 7, 2010 20:42:14 GMT -8
Warren & Roadtrainer, Gokhan wrote on the 4th, "At the end of the board items, Expo CEO Rick Thorpe made his additional comments, saying that a notice of intent to file a lawsuit was received from Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) and they expect to have a lawsuit filed. The deadline to have the lawsuit filed was said to be March 10."
I infer from this that an extension must be in place to the 10th.
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Mar 8, 2010 19:31:54 GMT -8
One of the things that mystifies me about the NFSR opposition to the Expo Line is how some people can't look far enough ahead to envision what their lives will be like living in Los Angeles when they're too old to drive. I'm only 53 and I'm already worried about it, and it's one of the reasons I was so excited when I first heard about the Expo Line. I moved out here in the late 70's to go to USC (when rail lines still ran down the middle of Exposition Boulevard between campus and Exposition Park), and my first two-and-a-half years here I didn't have a car. Using the LA bus system and relying on my friends for rides was a major drag, and I would hate to be put in that situation again in my sunset years (hopefully I'll live that long). An efficient rail system is essential in enabling the elderly in Los Angeles to remain active and engaged in their communities, and not trapped in their houses and immediate neighborhoods, most of which are not diverse enough to provide access to essential services, not to mention restaurants, entertainment, cultural attractions, and so on.
I'm reading a book now called "Carjacked," about the high cost to our society of our over-reliance on the automobile as the main mode of transportation, and one of the many good points it makes is the inequities borne by those afflicted by "carlessness," including those no longer able to drive. We're all headed there someday, hopefully later rather than sooner, and even if some people don't realize it it's in their own best interest to support alternatives to having to drive every time you want to go somewhere in Los Angeles and get there in less than three hours.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 9, 2010 0:20:51 GMT -8
My grandfather walked blocks when he was 94 as well as two flights of stairs to reach his second floor flat in my aunt's house. In most cases there's no reason we have to be dependent on specialzed transportation if we're lucky enough to retain good health in old age. I agree, it's hard to imagine some could, in their heads, somehow diminish the value of the utility the train represents for so many, right now, and later, for us, if we're lucky enough to live within walking distance.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 9, 2010 7:12:34 GMT -8
I think it's a mistake to suggest that NFSR is a group of monomorphic people and thinking who oppose the Expo Line. I think that some definitely do, others are at different points of the learning curve and with different ideas of what light rail can and should be for their area (remember, there's been no rail there for a half-century, and they're merely asking the same questions we've been doing for years while they're just now confronting the line).
So while some NFSR truly fit the "NIMBY" moniker, others are merely trying to wrap their brains around the idea of a future Expo Line (and perhaps are being given biased information to make their concerns even worse).
...and, of course, there's the question of mitigations for a region where L.A. City Planning has done NOTHING to give the Authority and the residents guidance as to how cut-through traffic, zoning, land use ideas for the ROW, parking and security measures should proceed.
Ultimately, it's been the City of L.A. not taking an iron stand and having a freakin' PLAN, like Santa Monica and Culver City have, that's to blame. Decisions have to be made, discussions have to be enjoined, but we're virtually years behind in the process in a manner that neither the Authority nor NFSR should be blamed for.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 10, 2010 13:58:44 GMT -8
Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority; Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority Board; Peter M. Rogoff; Federal Transit Administration; real parties in interest: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board 3/5/2010 BS125233
Petition for writ of mandamus challenging approval of an extension of the Metro Line.
Robert Silverstein
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 10, 2010 15:47:37 GMT -8
Oh memories of the attempt to stop the Orange line and the Gold line through South Pasadena...
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Mar 10, 2010 16:21:03 GMT -8
History repeats itself. The first time thru it is a tragedy. Subsequent times it is a farce.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 10, 2010 17:58:25 GMT -8
It's disappointing that progress that's essential requires such adversity.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 10, 2010 18:00:13 GMT -8
Well, I guess this is their little lawsuit. There was never a lawsuit against the Pasadena Gold Line but there was one against the Orange Line, which was quickly dismissed by the judge. I expect the same to happen in this case, with the lawsuit being dismissed in a few months.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 10, 2010 19:03:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 10, 2010 19:10:16 GMT -8
I was just reading Jason Saunders' message filed under "Metro Grade Separation Policy." In it he quotes Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas from an op-ed piece in the LA Business Journal, labusinessjournal.com/article.asp....8732.717&page=1: "The intersections of Olympic Boulevard at Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard fell short of the standard for an elevated or underground rail crossing. But there’s plenty of car traffic from the nearby Westside Pavilion and an elementary school near the tracks.
"That has well-connected homeowners in the area furious they did not get the above-street crossing designation granted to other Westside intersections such as two other crossings along Olympic– one at Bundy Drive and another at Cloverfield Boulevard." His op-ed foreshadowed the NFSR suit and lays out the justification: "furiousness" of well-connected folks who failed to get what they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 10, 2010 20:46:32 GMT -8
Summary of the NFSR lawsuit
LOL! I've read the NFSR lawsuit. It's really, really weak. It's aimed at killing or substantially delaying Phase 2, by asking for EIR's cancellation and taking the project back to Step 0 -- alternatives analysis.
The case is mostly nonspecific, alleging that Expo didn't study the standard, required environmental areas, which is, of course, false.
They mostly concentrate on the fact that Phase 2 was first CEQA & NEPA (California & Federal environmental studies) and then became CEQA (California environmental study) only. They allege that this was illegal. Again, this is false, because the project is not federally funded and FTA withdrew early on.
Other specific allegation is the project was illegally separated into Phase 1 & Phase 2. This is false again, as most large transit projects are separated into separate phases.
Remaining specific allegations are such that grade separation wasn't studied (false, aerial and underground options were studied and accurately priced), lane widening violates CEQA (false, it's a specific mitigation that allows at-grade operation), Metro grade-crossing policy is faulty (irreleveant, as it's not a CEQA guideline but a local guideline to standardize grade-crossing determinations), and Phase 1 LRVs purchased with federal money will be used for Phase 2, necessitating NEPA (false, in large metropolitan areas rail networks interconnect and they are divided into segments during planning and not all segments necessarily apply for or receive federal funding).
They are not only suing the Expo Authority but they are suing the FTA as well. In fact they are not only suing these organizations but their board members and/or staff members, too. In other words they are suing the "world." LOL!
This rather weak lawsuit is apparent to ordinary people as a case by a group of angry homeowners' associations. It will indeed be dismissed rather quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Mar 10, 2010 22:39:39 GMT -8
Summary of the NFSR lawsuitLOL! I've read the NFSR lawsuit. It's really, really weak. It's aimed at killing or substantially delaying Phase 2, by asking for EIR's cancellation and taking the project back to Step 0 -- alternatives analysis. The case is mostly nonspecific, alleging that Expo didn't study the standard, required environmental areas, which is, of course, false. They mostly concentrate on the fact that Phase 2 was first CEQA & NEPA (California & Federal environmental studies) and then became CEQA (California environmental study) only. They allege that this was illegal. Again, this is false, because the project is not federally funded and FTA withdrew early on. Other specific allegation is the project was illegally separated into Phase 1 & Phase 2. This is false again, as most large transit projects are separated into separate phases. Remaining specific allegations are such that grade separation wasn't studied (false, aerial and underground options were studied and accurately priced), lane widening violates CEQA (false, it's a specific mitigation that allows at-grade operation), Metro grade-crossing policy is faulty (irreleveant, as it's not a CEQA guideline but a local guideline to standardize grade-crossing determinations), and Phase 1 LRVs purchased with federal money will be used for Phase 2, necessitating NEPA (false, in large metropolitan areas rail networks interconnect and they are divided into segments during planning and not all segments necessarily apply for or receive federal funding). They are not only suing the Expo Authority but they are suing the FTA as well. In fact they are not only suing these organizations but their board members and/or staff members, too. In other words they are suing the "world." LOL! This rather weak lawsuit is apparent to ordinary people as a case by a group of angry homeowners' associations. It will indeed be dismissed rather quickly. A well known colleague of mine, who knows first hand from other similar types of lawsuits they have been involved with, gives the TT crew a .008 percent chance of success. Here is the comment: Interesting. This was assigned to Department 86, which is Judge David Yaffe. A CEQA challenge, which is a request for a writ of mandamus – which means, in this context, “MTA, you can’t do that” – in a large jurisdiction, goes before what is know as a “motions judge.” These judges virtually never deal with juries; what goes before them are matters of law, which are decided by a judge, rather than to a jury, as trier of fact (“did he kill him or not?”) They tend to have a lot of short hearings, often several in a day. These can deal with a large amount of paper, however. CEQA challenges are trials on the “record,” which is the EIR, all the supporting documents, and the comments and responses. If you didn’t put it in the comments, it doesn’t exist. If it isn’t in the record, it doesn’t exist. There are no expert report, no experts, no testimony – it is a matter of, what is the law and what is in the record? Judge Yaffe was presiding over the Orange Line EIR challenge. He ruled for MTA, but the plaintiffs won on appeal, and then it was remanded back to him – where he was pretty good to MTA. In particular, after the final clearance of the appeal negated MTA’s original EIR, the plaintiffs wanted all work on the Orange Line to stop – which some might think was pretty much a dead lock certainty, as the law is pretty clear, no EIR, you can’t do that. He didn’t see it that way, saying that the Appellate Court had not ordered the work to stop – but some things are pretty much understood. Going through this, there are some points that do know something about, and they don’t look to me like they are going very far. For example, trying to say because Federal money was used for the rail vehicles, that triggers a need for an EIS, which seems to me quite a stretch – if you are using Fed funds for vehicles alone, you NEVER need an EIS – and, in any case, there was an EIS for Expo Phase I. This looks a whole lot like what is commonly referred to as the “throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks” school of litigation. Now, the good news is, they only need to have one work; but, the bad news is, you do too much of this, you tend to: (1) use up space you are likely to need for your best arguments on weak ones, and (2) tick off the judge. Basically, they are going to go over the CEQA “checklist” – they are supposed to do A, did they do A? Right or wrong doesn’t matter much, going through the steps is what matters. In CEQA challenges, judges give agencies like MTA the benefit of the doubt and do NOT second-guess judgments made by the governing board. They don’t give a damn about right and wrong, or good and bad, it is, did they consider everything that should and did they document what the did and publicize everything? It gets this bad: if some agency puts out an EIR that contains a statement, “if this project is completed, the result will be the end of life on Earth as we know it,” and then the governing board has made a finding that they need to go ahead anyway, you really can’t challenge it, they’ve disclosed everything, and the judgment that it will end life on Earth being less important than the benefits of doing the project is not a matter for the court to review. This will come down to, did MTA screw something up? If they didn’t SCREW UP SOMETHING IMPORTANT (because if it isn’t major, it is unlikely that it will be enough to cause the project to be shut down), then this action will go nowhere. The best that the plaintiff’s can do is get the judge to say, “MTA – you didn’t do this the way you should have” – and that means that MTA needs to take the time to go back and fix that problem, or at least to pretend to, and then they can go ahead unless the plaintiffs want to go around again. I could be wrong, I haven’t gotten into all the details (and don’t intend to), but I really don’t see this having much impact except on MTA’s legal expenses. End of comment. Does the community know what type of money that they are wasting with TT in the lead? Amateur legal work and much of this money is coming from folks that may need it for survival in the future. Pretty sad.
|
|