|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 22, 2011 8:41:49 GMT -8
Now Goodmon has posted an editorial which blatantly exposes his group's racist agenda: they are interested in "protecting" a community from the dangers of light rail merely because it is black. How dare they claim an area of the city for a specific race. Only a certain race can own businesses within a certain community? Hello, 1955? It's insane and the machinations which enforce such a disgusting concept should be quickly dismantled. If it's light rail, bring it on. citywatchla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4822 |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 22, 2011 11:31:29 GMT -8
Now Goodmon has posted an editorial which blatantly exposes his group's racist agenda: they are interested in "protecting" a community from the dangers of light rail merely because it is black. How dare they claim an area of the city for a specific race. Only a certain race can own businesses within a certain community? Hello, 1955? It's insane and the machinations which enforce such a disgusting concept should be quickly dismantled. If it's light rail, bring it on. citywatchla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4822 The truth is Damien loves to play the race and victim card. He claims to be a representative of the South LA minority community, but in reality he really only plays to his immediate neighborhood and ignores the rest of South LA. Case in point, ask him why he doesn't support a subway in a much more transit dependent area like Vermont and Western over Crenshaw and he becomes enraged with that famous temper of his spiraling out of control. When his community is portrayed as getting a rail line over a needier and more heavily traveled corridor that just doesn't set well with him. He needs to be the victim and the one accusing others of racism. Not the other way around. He also portrayed himself as a proponent of grade separated rail across LA. However, he then started showing up at Purple Line extension meetings blasting that project presumably just so he could get attention for himself and his neighborhood. He is a smart guy, but really out for attention and not very principled. With that said, I can't believe Antonovich voted for the Crenshaw subway. Maybe he will volunteer the extra money to come from projects from his district now. His vote seems purely political as a favor to MRT. I mean the guy has railed against subways for 20+ years and now votes for one, where it is totally unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 22, 2011 17:13:38 GMT -8
With that said, I can't believe Antonovich voted for the Crenshaw subway. Maybe he will volunteer the extra money to come from projects from his district now. His vote seems purely political as a favor to MRT. I mean the guy has railed against subways for 20+ years and now votes for one, where it is totally unnecessary. Who says politics ever had to make any sense? LOL ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2011 17:34:38 GMT -8
Now Goodmon has posted an editorial which blatantly exposes his group's racist agenda: they are interested in "protecting" a community from the dangers of light rail merely because it is black. How dare they claim an area of the city for a specific race. Only a certain race can own businesses within a certain community? Hello, 1955? It's insane and the machinations which enforce such a disgusting concept should be quickly dismantled. If it's light rail, bring it on. citywatchla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4822 That's not what he says in the article. He says that it is one of the last black business communities and it is. It's no different than when similar statements are made about Little Tokyo or Thai Town. Why don't you stop race baiting? Just because it's a racial issue to Damien doesn't mean that you have to make it one on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 22, 2011 17:42:09 GMT -8
I'm going to agree with bluelineshawn. I know what you are getting at Alex...but the article isn't written that poorly. Damien is a smart guy. Yes, I do get upset when he uses the "environmental racism" crap...but he didn't say racism in the article.
Plus, having a station at Leimart Park makes too much sense. I whole heartedly support this station. Let's get rid of the Slauson station to save some costs. Let's put stations where there are destinations, not street intersections.
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 22, 2011 20:05:55 GMT -8
He says that it is one of the last black business communities and it is. What happened to the other ones? I'm sure this would be equally offensive to him. It's one thing to have a business district with businesses owned primarily by one ethnicity. It's entirely another to advocate that it stay that way. If I wanted to move my business into Little Tokyo, I wouldn't think it was fair to block me because I am not Japanese. Black business owners and Asian business owners should be able to take their businesses anywhere as well. It's only common sense. What is being advocated by some non-white activists, however, is segregation of a different kind. If people choose to segregate themselves by race, then fine. Live life the way you want to. But when people advocate that this is the way it should be, I get angry. Race is always an issue when it comes to transit. That you are uncomfortable talking about it doesn't make it go away. Tomorrow is actually a day of action for black people where blacks are urged to boycott non-black businesses. The movement is laced with elements of racism, isolationism and homophobia as well. I personally don't care what black leaders are telling black people to do. But black communities would do well to embrace outsiders and make them feel welcome. There's a reason people have a night out in Pasadena and not Compton. I've been to Compton and Watts to visit and to eat, but there aren't too many people like me who are bringing their money into those neighborhoods. They just don't feel welcome and this scorn for outsiders is keeping them away. Put that light rail in the street. Clean up the street. Spruce up the businesses, speak out against those who cause trouble and invite everybody to spend their damn money there. |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 22, 2011 20:08:20 GMT -8
Let's put stations where there are destinations, not street intersections. Do you think everybody transfers at hubs? Major intersections are major transfer points. How are riders on Slauson going to get to Leimart Park if they can't transfer? |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 22, 2011 22:29:43 GMT -8
Do you think everybody transfers at hubs? Major intersections are major transfer points. How are riders on Slauson going to get to Leimart Park if they can't transfer? Leimart Park deserves a station, just like Little Tokyo, Chinatown, South Pasadena, etc... Slauson is just a cross street. Eliminate that and use that cash for a meaningful station. Riders on the Slauson bus will tranfer to the 210 or Rapid 710 to get to Leimart Park, as they do today. It's not like either bus will be eliminated...definitely not the 210. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 23, 2011 5:19:52 GMT -8
Spokker...you said everything I was thinking and more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 23, 2011 6:37:42 GMT -8
Dear BlueLineShawn - Truly, what raises my ire is the notion of a racial community. I get just as annoyed when I hear Japanese cry foul over the Koreans "taking over" little Tokyo or Lithuanians complaining that too many Mexicans attend "their" Catholic service. The thinking is so easy to follow: us and them. But it's wrong and history has proven again and again and again that it does not work. It leads to isolationism, cronyism and an eventual, very nasty implosion of anything that was good about it. This is all a calculated move to become "notable" and get elected by what he perceives to be a majority - which he also wants to maintain. That's it. I don't believe Damien buys what he is writing - it's too filled with tired cliché and old arguments. It's not from his heart. What gets me particularly angry about Damien is that he is truly a smart guy. I have met him and spoken with him and he is really brilliant - and a great speaker. That he is using his considerable talent to stir this shit up - all in an attempt to raise his social stature so he can get elected - is so vile to me. It disgusts me on every level. I literally feel sick when I think about it. He could pursue his agenda in so many other ways, and yet he chooses to use the most base, crass method. It make me ill because he is now starting to drink his own Kool-aid and believe it. It alienates others and will doom him to a life of spinning in his own box. I wish he would wake up and extend a hand, rather than vainly attempting to raise an army against a non-enemy. As for letting him alone in "his" community. No. This is our city. We all live here. I love the people in it and I love the city. I will do whatever I can to stop petty arguments from blossoming into the crap we had in in the '80s and '90s. I won't stand for it and will call it out when I see it. Call me old-fashioned!  |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 23, 2011 11:18:09 GMT -8
For reasons that I don't understand, this type of thread has an audience on this board as long as the race being discussed is black. And it's not just Damien as it has come up before. OTOH you can go back and read through the downtown connector thread and find numerous posts by James where the importance of maintaining the Japanese identity of Little Tokyo was discussed even to the point of intervention by the government so that a project like Mangrove (or Nissei or whatever it ended up being called before failing) was awarded based at least in part on a commitment from the developer to attract Japanese business. And no one here said a thing. Until when I did finally say something I was lectured on the importance of maintaining culturally significant areas for minority groups that suffered from discrimination.
My position was and still is that if such neighborhoods happen naturally or even unnaturally due to previous discrimination, so be it, but neither the city nor metro should be concerned with maintaining that identity in modern times. That is true for Crenshaw, Little Tokyo, Koreatown, Cheviot Hills and anywhere else with such concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 23, 2011 13:51:26 GMT -8
I came in a little late to this discussion, but let me add my $.02.
Let me start by saying that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve a community, whether that community is based on ethnicity or whatever else: for example, let's say you have a neighborhood which is made up predominately of Victorian homes. Or Arts and Crafts homes. Or California bungalows.
Somebody wants to come in and tear down one of those homes and put up something entirely out of character for that neighborhood.
Such that sort of change be allowed? I would say, NO. There is such a thing as historic preservation, and maintaining a neighborhood's historic character is important.
What then, about communities based on specific cultural or ethnic backgrounds? In a case like that, you are treading on thin ground because we all want to avoid being racist or discriminatory.
Somebody wants to come in and start an Italian restaurant in Little Tokyo? There's nothing I can do about it. I would question WHY somebody would want to do such a thing, when there are neighborhoods in Los Angeles devoted to just about every ethnicity possible, and the identity of Little Tokyo is still extremely strongly associated with Japanese Americans.
But I can't really stop such a thing. I can't stop Koreans from "taking over" Little Tokyo, either. It would be pointless and wrong to attempt to stop people from moving in.
That said, I do think that there are legitimate ways to try to preserve a neighborhood's cultural identity. Not all methods are equal. For example:
1) Huge chunks of Little Tokyo were destroyed in the 1950s and 1960s when city government expanded. More recently, Los Angeles attempted to put a jail in Little Tokyo.
This was widely seen as another grab of Little Tokyo land, there was an outcry, people protested, and the jail was stopped. (I believe another location was found for the jail....)
Was this NIMBY? No, because the jail was not a neutral development. It truly would have had a negative effect on the community. Other options were available.
Note that this was not specifically a racial issue: there are certain necessary evils that no community wants to have, yours or mine alike. I've seen where our jails and landfills have ended up, and they (the new ones especially) are as far away from communities as possible.
The next two are more specifically aimed at preserving the identity of the community:
2) Japanese American cultural institutions and organizations have been built in the Little Tokyo area, ensuring that Little Tokyo at the very least will always have JANM, JACCC, the Rafu Shimpo and various other Nikkei and Nisei groups.
3) events are held throughout the year, celebrating the Japanese American identity, and encouraging the Japanese American diaspora to come to Little Tokyo. These events are not easy to put together and require a great deal of effort by the local community, or they would fail.
Note that these events are not aimed at putting down any other community, nor are they presented with any triumphantalism or nationalist intentions. Anybody is welcome to participate.
(San Pedro, where I went to high school, developed culturally as an Italian/ Croatian/ Greek/ Mediterranean immigrant fishing town. Despite the mega-industrial corporate harbor being there, it still preserves its cultural traditions.
I am not Mediterranean by any stretch of the imagination, but I have never felt unwelcome in San Pedro. I would not want San Pedro's unique identity to drastically change, any more than I would want my own personal identity to change.)
( Why preserve a community? Because we are not all alike. Because we, as individuals, can not abandon our identities, nor should we. Because these unique communities help us identify who we are, help us establish ourselves and understand our history.
There are times when I will eat taco-flavored sushi, and there are times when I want my sushi to taste Japanese, thank you very much. )
If Damien Goodmon wants to preserve the African American identity of his community, there are plenty of ways for him to do so.
I don't know too much about Lemiert Park, but it seems to me that they can celebrate Black Heritage Month, support African-American owned businesses, hold parades, encourage African American museums, organizations and institutions to the area if they haven't already. These things can be done without "keeping people out" or legislating the area as a "blacks only" neighborhood, just as Little Tokyo has preserved its identity.
A light rail line is not a jail. It is not a negative development, although some may consider it so. Either way, it is certainly not a racial issue. I want to see Los Angeles' light rail and subway system link together all of the unique neighborhoods that have developed.
[ EDIT: I seem to have added $2 instead of $.02. Sorry about that. ^_^;; ]
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 23, 2011 14:37:36 GMT -8
I notice that Mr. Goodman refers to it as the "Fix Expo/Crenshaw Subway Coalition" now, not just "Fix Expo".
So would the goal of Fix Crenshaw be to stop the lines construction, or to siphon money from Los Angeles Counties other projects for it's own use?
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 23, 2011 15:06:13 GMT -8
OTOH you can go back and read through the downtown connector thread and find numerous posts by James where the importance of maintaining the Japanese identity of Little Tokyo was discussed even to the point of intervention by the government so that a project like Mangrove (or Nissei or whatever it ended up being called before failing) was awarded based at least in part on a commitment from the developer to attract Japanese business. And no one here said a thing. Until when I did finally say something I was lectured on the importance of maintaining culturally significant areas for minority groups that suffered from discrimination. I supported the at-grade option for Little Tokyo, but the underground option is a bit easier to swallow there because it's actually in downtown, so it can be justified. Don't assume that those arguing with you about Leimert Park here feel differently about Little Tokyo or Chinatown or anywhere else. Fujita's opinions are his own just as my opinions are my own. When you have an area like Little Tokyo or Chinatown or whatever, it can't stay that way because we passed rules or regulations saying that only Japanese people can own businesses there and only Japanese people can make decisions there. If those rules and regulations exist, they need to be repealed. It would be hypocritical to talk about equality and all that other crap and then legally bar outsiders from setting up shop. Having said that, those places remain predominantly black or predominantly Japanese or predominantly Chinese through social pressure. Even though they may have started as a result of racist attitudes, they remain that way because, at the end of the day, many people still want to stick to their own kind even when they are free or able to do otherwise. Even in the suburbs, where more upwardly mobile people have tended to relocate over the years, we see pockets of blacks in Palmdale and Lancaster, Asian and Hispanic neighborhoods in the San Gabriel Valley, and white neighborhoods, uhm, everywhere else. There are also many diverse suburbs like where I live, but the demand for voluntary segregation clearly exists. I think this tends to be more true for people who are 100% black or white or Asian. I'm mixed-raced (half Hispanic half white basically) but I don't feel more comfortable living around Hispanics or whites. Some Hispanics would reject me because I don't know Spanish. That's just been a fact of life. But I live around Asians and Arabs and Indians and the comfort level is the same. So that's my life story. But all this talk about preservation is silly anyway because there is no indication that building at-grade light rail on Crenshaw will destroy anything in Leimert Park. It will only make the area more accessible and attractive. I've been to the area several times for work and a jazz festival. It would have been a lot easier to get there with the Crenshaw Line (I was near Crenshaw and MLK). They aren't building a freeway through there, they are building a train line that is miniscule in comparison. Construction will be difficult just as it was in the Eastside, and just as in the Eastside, once that line opens, Metro will start handing out fliers about all of the cultural landmarks and restaurants and all that stuff and then it's up to the community to do the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 23, 2011 15:35:37 GMT -8
A lesson from the Gold Line Eastside Extension. egpnews.com/?p=13651Eastside businesses were falling over themselves to get a stop and they knew the risks of construction. The worst is over and while they complained during construction (business owners complain about everything anyway), I would be surprised if they are complaining now. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 23, 2011 16:36:18 GMT -8
Once upon a time, there were laws which kept certain people out of certain areas, so it would not be entirely inaccurate to say that these ethnic enclaves were created by law.
Even after they knocked down the segregation laws, there were still private homeowner association by-laws and covenants which also kept certain people out. And of course golf courses and the sort took forever to integrate.
That said, I would not favor legal segregation, even to protect certain neighborhoods from gentrification.
*** Note that this is different from Los Angeles putting up a "Little Ethiopia" sign on a street corner, or political figures riding classic cars in the Nisei Week Parade, or even providing funds to help start an ethnic museum. The city, county and state should celebrate its multicultural diversity.
I myself am half-white, half-Japanese, and the Japanese half is even "post war Japanese," so when I speak of protecting Little Tokyo, I am ironically speaking of people who don't necessarily even share the same experiences as I do.
I've heard it said that America is not a "melting pot," we are a salad. Tossed together to be certain, but a tomato can not become lettuce or a crouton. (I haven't eaten dinner yet ;D )
This is not a bad thing. I identify very strongly with the Japanese side of my heritage, from the food I eat to the movies I watch. It has become part of who I am.
These neighborhoods provide something intangible. They provide grocery stores and restaurants of course, but they also provide a sense of community. The community happens to be racial/ ethnicity-based, but it is community.
To celebrate one's own community is NOT the same thing as putting down others.
If Damien Goodmon were the organizer of the Leimert Park MLK Day Parade, nobody on this message board would oppose him. I hope.
It is the fact that he is using race in relation to rail transit that is the only issue that should be of concern to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 27, 2011 10:07:08 GMT -8
Here is the headline from FixExpo's front page: Crenshaw’s Fate is in MTA’s Hands
The vote on Mark Ridley-Thomas’ motion at the 4/28 MTA Board meeting will determine whether So. California’s last remaining African-American business community prospers or dies. If this isn't racially inflammatory, I don't know what is. BTW, this is almost exactly the same rhetoric as the NFSR folks (our neighborhood will be destroyed!!!). Except FixExpo claims that this case is especially bad because the businesses are African-American. My responses: - At-grade rail is not going to destroy the business district or make the neighborhood unlivable. If anything, it represents a huge opportunity to bring new customers to the business district from throughout the region.
- African-American men and women own businesses throughout the city, state and country: enforced segregation and covenants are gone, thank goodness.
- Subways belong in dense neighborhoods, to take advantage of the potential ridership. So Metro should only build a subway through Park Mesa Heights if the city acts to upzone the corridor for high-density development.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 27, 2011 12:49:01 GMT -8
Their legitimate concern is the omission of the Leimert Park (Vernon) Station with the currently proposed at-grade option. As I showed in the Crenshaw FEIR thread, a Leimert Park Station is easily possible with the at-grade option, without fully undergrounding the line.  |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 27, 2011 13:36:52 GMT -8
According to Google maps, the block marked as "partial acquisition to add lanes taken by station access" includes the Tavis Smiley Foundation. I don't know what the foundation does, but it's probably not a smart move to eminent domain Tavis Smiley  |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 27, 2011 13:44:00 GMT -8
Gokhan,
Why a 4-car platform? Are they actually planning on building the Crenshaw Line with that size platforms? Maybe I need to read up more on that forum.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 27, 2011 13:48:07 GMT -8
According to Google maps, the block marked as "partial acquisition to add lanes taken by station access" includes the Tavis Smiley Foundation. I don't know what the foundation does, but it's probably not a smart move to eminent domain Tavis Smiley It's a small youth-education place that could easily be relocated, temporarily or permanently. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 27, 2011 13:50:04 GMT -8
Gokhan, Why a 4-car platform? Are they actually planning on building the Crenshaw Line with that size platforms? Maybe I need to read up more on that forum. RT I don't think they are planning four cars but I put a four-car platform in the conceptual drawing to show that it would fit. A three-car platform would be just like the four-car platform, except 90 ft truncated from the south end. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 27, 2011 14:24:07 GMT -8
I hadn't noticed this before, but the Fix Expo Web site does say that the Tavis Smiley building could be moved to the Leimert Park Village mixed-used development.
(from the article: "....especially if the station box is located at the Vernon triangle, which would require the acquisition of their building.")
I don't agree with D.G's abrasive style or his ideology, but I have to admit that this mixed-use development does seem interesting. Added retail, a TV/ radio studio, the "Schomberg West," which sounds like the Crenshaw equivalent to JANM.
Do all that, and it seems to me, D.G.'s concerns about saving Leimert Park would be nullified.
[ EDIT: I was looking at the plans, and trying to figure out if an at-grade station could be built directly in front of the mixed-use development, saying as I'm always in favor of getting stations, like horseshoes, as close to the stake as possible. If not, I'd say go with Gokhan's idea. ]
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 27, 2011 14:34:29 GMT -8
I have no problem with the Vernon/Leimert Park station, and hope it will be included in the final plans. My problem with the Ridley-Thomas motion (agenda item 16) is that it requires Metro not just to build that station, but also the Park Mesa Heights tunnel. It ties the two issues together, and requires Metro to find the money to pay for them. Metro staff's analysis of the grade separation will also be received by the board and filed at tomorrow's meeting (agenda item 15). The report concludes: These findings do not change the LPA recommendation and the LRT alignment should be at-grade to conform to Board adopted policies and the environmental analysis completed for this segment. My letters to the Boardmembers urged them to reject MRT's motion, but to include the Vernon/Leimert Park station in the final selected alternative. A lot will depend on what happens with Mayor Villaraigosa and his appointees. They skipped the committee meeting earlier in the week, so it's not clear at this point which way they will vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 27, 2011 17:28:17 GMT -8
I hadn't noticed this before, but the Fix Expo Web site does say that the Tavis Smiley building could be moved to the Leimert Park Village mixed-used development. It's also implied that they aren't happy about their current location and would like to be relocated. Therefore, they would be happy about the acquisition of their property. The complete sentence reads: "Potential tenants include the Tavis Smiley Group, which previously expressed strong interest in moving into a Leimert Park Village mixed-use property, and should be accommodated especially if the station box is located at the Vernon triangle, which would require the acquisition of their building."The shallow-trench station accessed from the southern crosswalk would work very well, with the one or two lanes taken by the barrier-separated station access shifted to the east by the partial acquisition in the Vernon triangle. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 27, 2011 18:08:30 GMT -8
Sounds like a good plan. Of course, it all hinges on the new mixed-use being built, so Tavis Smiley will have some place to go. I still wonder about putting the station between the northbound and southbound lanes of the street. *thinking out loud* They could take the whole triangle and put the station there, to the east of Crenshaw. Seems like it would be beneficial to drivers and Metro riders alike. The tracks north of Vernon could be underground through to the underground MLK station. It would be underneath Leimert Park and under as much of the block north of Leimert Park as needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 27, 2011 20:17:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 27, 2011 20:35:30 GMT -8
*thinking out loud* They could take the whole triangle and put the station there, to the east of Crenshaw. That would be ideal, of course, but the geometry is difficult. The tracks would have a sharp curve toward the triangle and then another sharp curve toward Crenshaw. Also remember that this is cut-and-cover and you can't really tunnel under the park (without destroying it). But it might be possible if you reduce the length of the U section (by increasing the slope of the ramp) so that you don't have to curve too sharp toward the triangle. |
|
