|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Aug 30, 2010 19:42:53 GMT -8
From USC's digital news: "L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas will ask his colleagues on the Expo Line Board of Directors to consider hiring a full-time inspector general and ethics officer for the light rail construction authority." www.neontommy.com/news/2010/08/ridley-thomas-calls-expo-line-inspector-generalWhat is going on? Does anyone think this is necessary or have they heard about anything not discussed here?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 30, 2010 20:36:32 GMT -8
It is possible that the Expo Authority has corruption going on, and Ridley-Thomas knows about it. But its more likely that Ridley-Thomas is going off the deep end, working hard to alienate as many fellow politicians as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 30, 2010 22:21:30 GMT -8
This is nothing but Fix Expo nonsense. For those who missed this previously, I'm repeating my post about the last (early August) board meeting: Summary of the Expo board meeting today: * Two more weeks of Phase 1 delays moved the Phase 1 completion date onto May 7, 2011 and opening date into August 2011. It looks like there are two weeks of new delays happening every passing month. * Ridley-Thomas made his usual political statement of him supporting the opposition to at-grade light-rail by abstaining from the vote on the Farmdale Station power-line relocation. * Track installation will be completed by the end of August. * Phase 2 construction has now officially started with the final design of the Venice LRT bridge commencing (at the cost of $1.8 million). * Draft Phase 2 preliminary engineering is due this month. * Final Phase 2 preliminary engineering is due November. * A desperate Fix Expo clearly showed that he has now completely run out of ammunition and he focused his vicious attacks on Bernard Parks. Here is the meeting audio of the public comments. Here is the meeting audio of the board members and staff speaking. Basically Fix Expo had asked for an "inspector" to be assigned to Expo to investigate Bernard Parks and R-T seems to have somehow given in to that. Listen to the audio for the full hysteria by Fix Expo about the inspector business. Could it be that Fix Expo and R-T are now allies?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 31, 2010 7:20:50 GMT -8
I think that R.T. wants his crown jewel, the Crenshaw line, built with 100% grade separation and will do everything possible to get what he wants. Since Expo I is over more or less, my guess is that he is moving on the Expo II as a way to leverage his goals (and perhaps using Fix Expo). It will be interesting to see what happens now.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 31, 2010 8:36:14 GMT -8
I think MRT sees Fix Expo as a huge political rallying base and will advance his agenda. If he helps Fix Expo....he may secure more votes for his other agendas (beyond the Crenshaw Line).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 31, 2010 10:58:05 GMT -8
Ridley-Thomas seems hell-bent on making lots of enemies. This strategy may help him consolidate his base, but I'm not sure how it helps him get the Crenshaw Line built the way he wants it. Given the Crenshaw Line's plummeting cost-effectiveness (due to all the gold-plating options being piled on), he should be looking for allies, not enemies. (Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Metro Board ultimately decides to kill that project at some point.)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 31, 2010 11:31:14 GMT -8
Ridley-Thomas seems hell-bent on making lots of enemies. This strategy may help him consolidate his base, but I'm not sure how it helps him get the Crenshaw Line built the way he wants it. Given the Crenshaw Line's plummeting cost-effectiveness (due to all the gold-plating options being piled on), he should be looking for allies, not enemies. (Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Metro Board ultimately decides to kill that project at some point.) Fix Expo and R-T basically share the same political base of "We won't accept anything but a Cadillac in South LA." Now it's interesting to see the two openly becoming allies. Once the Phase 2 contract is awarded and negotiated and the legal challenges are settled, which could happen as early as in January 2011, no one will care about R-T as far as Expo is concerned. His last battle now is to try to get Parks off the board so that he could manage to stop Phase 2 and have the environmental study redone. This is the same goal shared by Fix Expo and NFSR. Crenshaw LRT cannot be killed because it's a Measure R project. But if it becomes too expensive and funding is not available, it would have to redo its environmental process for more aerial and/or at-grade sections, instead of underground sections. But it will be delayed at the least no matter what happens now, either because of lack of funding or the necessity for a new environmental study, thanks to Fix Expo and R-T.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 31, 2010 12:16:42 GMT -8
Crenshaw LRT cannot be killed because it's a Measure R project. But if it becomes too expensive and funding is not available, it would have to redo its environmental process for more aerial and/or at-grade sections, instead of underground sections. But it will be delayed at the least no matter what happens now, either because of lack of funding or the necessity for a new environmental study, thanks to Fix Expo and R-T. You're right, I should clarify: I meant "killed" in its current form, due to lack of funds. It might be the FTA that kills it, if Metro is counting on federal funds to get it built.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 31, 2010 19:01:28 GMT -8
Fix Expo and R-T basically share the same political base of "We won't accept anything but a Cadillac in South LA." Now it's interesting to see the two openly becoming allies. But this alliance will backfire as one is openly pro increased density and development and the other is not. That will backfire again as MRT doesn't have the votes and if he screws with Expo Phase 2 it all but guarantee's Crenshaw Corridor losing the political alliances. One on the Westside and then from City of LA. There may be a slight delay all that will be required is an adjustment to the LPA (Locally Preferred Alternative) to be approved by the Metro Board. Because of the way they've meticulously laid out how pieces cost in the DEIR it will make it easier to make this change possible if costs are out of hand and or the projects funding source is smaller than anticipated thus saving more time having to do a brand new EIR or even a supplement to the EIR.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 1, 2010 15:01:30 GMT -8
Great. Now I have "I am the very model of an Expo Inspector General" stuck in my head.
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Sept 2, 2010 16:33:01 GMT -8
Great. Now I have "I am the very model of an Expo Inspector General" stuck in my head. I second this statement. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 2, 2010 17:46:23 GMT -8
As I've already posted under the Expo-developments thread, the now-revised motion was continued to the next meeting because two directors were absent. While Mark Ridley-Thomas is trying to sell it hard as a motion intended for accountability and responsibility regarding change orders, project-cost increases, and other issues, it's in reality about micromanaging and having a way of influencing the authority through special interests, and it will only slow down the progress and make the authority less efficient, and create all sorts of problems for Phase 2. I'm glad that all the directors seem to be against the Ridley-Thomas motion. The motion is aimed at micromanaging the authority and its staff, which would cause a lot of problems. I believe Expo's chain of command should be able to manage itself and Metro should be the entity overseeing Expo, not a new Inspector General entity to be surrounded with various interests. Director O'Connor (Santa Monica) asked the staff to look at the norms in the other similar agencies and cautioned about the costs of such a new position. Director Malsin (Culver City) asked whether Metro's Ethics Officer could be enhanced to oversee Expo. It looked like all the directors were against this motion by R-T. Here is the audio transcript of the board meeting: Expo board-meeting audio transcript -- 2010/09/02
|
|