Political gridlock is killing us, from our nation’s capital to Sacramento to LA to Brentwood. Let’s review some decisions surrounding this whole “Carmageddon†thing. The political gridlock is worse than the car traffic, it seems.
Some citizens of Brentwood took it upon themselves to influence outcomes in a way that I believe a majority would not support. This seems contrary to the idea of majority rule.
Some background: Metro and CalTrans had a plan to knock down the Mulholland Bridge, one side at a time. Some who live in the immediate area questioned this, and suggested that a second, new bridge, be built side-by-side next to the old. Once the new bridge was built, the old one could be knocked down.
This citizen-developed plan was quickly embraced by Metro and CalTrans: 1) It would be less expensive to build the new bridge than to fix the old ($3 million to $10 million could be saved, depending on different estimates); 2) a new bridge would be quicker to build than the “one half now, one half later†old bridge plan; 3) the old bridge could remain completely open (4 lanes instead of 2) while the new bridge was being built, thereby reducing local inconvenience; and, 4) last but not least, the “new bridge†plan would require that the 405 be shut down just one weekend instead of two.
Some local activists, including Brentwood’s Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman, opposed this plan on the following grounds: 1) No environmental impact report had been conducted on the “new bridge†idea, as required by law; 2) the new bridge would impact traffic patterns slightly in the immediate area, as there would be more of a “T†intersection on the east side of the 405, instead of the more gradual integration with Mulholland Drive and Skirball Center Drive on the east side of the 405; 3) wild animals that cross the bridge might be confused as they adjust to a new bridge; and 4) significant landscaping issues would result from the grading and retaining walls that would be required alongside the hills adjacent to the 405.
Wendy-Sue and Tom were not alone in their opposition; Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations joined in. One individual in Bel-Air suggested that a new bridge spanning Mulholland should be designed by a world-class architect so as to make a nice impression upon approaching motorists.
MTA and CalTrans basically backed down when faced with an increasing list of desired conditions — and a threatened lawsuit. Indeed, Tom’s February 15, 2011 letter to the LA City Planning Department reads like a legal brief worthy of submission to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The powers that be decided it simply wasn’t worth the time or money to fight. They had a freeway to widen.
Let’s assume Wendy-Sue and Tom are technically 100% correct – that a new, separate EIR should have been done and that the new bridge might have changed traffic patterns, animal pathways and local aesthetics a bit.
Even so, are these considerations truly worth adding millions of taxpayer dollars at a time of economic woe? Do Tom and Wendy-Sue really think their concerns justify adding another year of construction turmoil and a second closing of the 405?
It’s difficult to imagine that building a new bridge 200 feet south of the original bridge could be THAT much more impactful on the environment. And maybe it would be less so than fixing the old bridge.
Wendy-Sue and Tom and their followers are entitled to their opinions, but in the opinions of many, their actions have cost the taxpayers millions. The money saved by sticking with the “new bridge†plan could have been used to fill a lot of potholes, buy schoolbooks or help balance the budget. Plus we now face additional (and avoidable) construction grief.
Many questions arise: Do Wendy and Tom represent the majority of Brentwoodians on this issue? What about the rights and opinions of our fellow citizens all across the Southland who don’t live in the immediate area? Is threatening to sue really the best way to set public policy?
And shouldn’t it really be the Brentwood Community Council, Brentwood’s representative body, speaking for Brentwood? Shouldn’t everyone in a position of authority have found a way around all this?
I invited Wendy-Sue Rosen to submit a guest editorial explaining what she and her followers have done here, but as we approached deadline, she said she was too busy attending meetings to write something. I sincerely hope next month she and Tom will weigh in and I will remain open to being enlightened here.
In the meantime, I’ll also be reaching out to public officials and fellow Brentwoodians to see what they think. Let me get the conversation started: If nobody in our society is willing to compromise anymore, laws should be passed giving the mayor, governor and president emergency powers to break crazy deadlocks like these. Our future is truly at stake; it’s time to wake up before it’s too late. It’s time for common sense to prevail.
What do you think? Send an email to jeffhall@brentwoodnewsonline.com.
