To Prevent More Crises Like Garden Grove, California Needs to Stop Gutting Environmental Laws

Posted on by
Marathon Oil Refinery in Wilmington where a fire broke out in 2020. While no one was injured, it took over a day to put out the fire.

Over the past decade, it’s become popular to bash the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). First it was claimed that CEQA was a major reason for the lack of affordable housing in California, but a study by the Rose Foundation found that only 2% of approved projects faced CEQA lawsuits. Then lawmakers in Sacramento began claiming that CEQA was holding back all kinds of projects, not just housing. The result was State Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 131, which made a vaguely defined category of “advanced manufacturing projects” exempt from environmental review. As I wrote earlier, this category could include a number of projects that produce toxic waste, including the production of organic fertilizer, semiconductors and lithium ion batteries. There was heavy opposition to this bill from environmental groups, but Gov. Gavin Newsom strongarmed the legislature into approving it.

Now the California Chamber of Commerce has proposed a ballot measure that would substantially rewrite CEQA, making major changes to accelerate the approval of “essential” projects. The measure is called the Building an Affordable California Act (BACA), and they’ve already gathered enough signatures to put it on the November 2026 ballot. As you may have guessed by the title, the Chamber is arguing that CEQA makes the approval of projects too time-consuming and costly, and that Californians are paying more for housing, water and electricity as a result. While the Chamber’s web site features commentary by CEO Jennifer Barrera citing six projects that have been delayed by CEQA, I couldn’t find any actual research or data on their site to support their assertion that CEQA has played a significant role in raising the cost of living for Californians. The Chamber makes a point of saying that BACA would still leave Federal environmental laws in place, but they don’t mention that the Trump administration has been aggressively pushing to roll back enforcement of those laws and to rewrite environmental regulations. And while the Chamber makes unsubstantiated claims about higher costs for housing and utilities, they don’t talk about the huge cost of cleaning up toxic sites. Some readers may remember the Stringfellow Acid Pits, a toxic waste dump that leaked contaminants into the surrounding communities. Tens of millions of your tax dollars have already gone into cleaning up this site, and the job isn’t over.

An analysis on Legal Planet says that BACA would create a new CEQA process for “essential” projects, laying out shorter timeframes for environmental review. It could also limit the kind of environmental impacts that the project applicant would be required to analyze. Legal Planet’s post gives a list of projects that would likely qualify for streamlined review under BACA, including freeways, dams, and possibly data centers. And since the Chamber talks about speeding up energy projects, my guess is that nuclear reactors would also probably qualify for the shorter review process.

But all these people who keep telling us how bad CEQA is don’t often talk about the good things CEQA does. A community in Fontana filed a CEQA lawsuit over the approval of a logistics center that would have brought a huge increase in diesel truck traffic and made the area’s poor air quality even worse. They achieved a settlement requiring the project proponent to take concrete steps to reduce air pollution. In 2018 the City of Arvin approved a permit allowing an oil company to drill four wells in a residential community. Residents filed a CEQA lawsuit and stopped the drilling. Think for a moment about how you’d react if a company wanted to build a large logistics center or start drilling oil wells in your neighborhood. Would you consider filing a lawsuit to protect the environment you live in?

Residents have been fighting to stop a proposed 56,000 sq. ft. distribution center which would sit within 300 feet of Hillside Elementary in Lincoln Heights.

Now the crisis at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove has brought new attention to how environmental hazards can impact nearby communities. When the temperature of a chemical storage tank began to rise unexpectedly, fears that the tank might explode led to the evacuation of an estimated 50,000 people in the area. While a catastrophe was averted, it was a stark reminder of the dangers that can arise from planning decisions that put residential buildings near industrial uses. In a story related to the GKN Aerospace situation, the Daily News reported that nearly two million Californians live within a three-mile radius of a facility that uses the same chemical that caused the crisis in Garden Grove. The LA Times also followed up with a story examining the risks involved in rolling back environmental regulations. In that story, the authors reminded readers of other recent events: the damage done to surrounding communities by lead contaminants from the Exide battery plant in Vernon; the risks to students at Jordan High School due to toxic waste from S&W Atlas Iron & Metal in Watts; the rupture of an oil line in East LA that sent over 2,000 gallons of crude into the LA River; the recent fire at tire recycling center in South Gate. The Times story also points out that the push to build more housing quickly has led to the approval of projects in areas at high risk of fire.

The point here is that while Gavin Newsom and Scott Wiener and the folks at the California Chamber go around bashing CEQA, they don’t talk about the risks we face when we cut corners on environmental review. And, as the situation in Garden Grove showed, there are very real risks to public health and safety when we don’t properly examine a project’s impacts on communities. Aside from a frightening crisis like a chemical tank overheating to the point where it could explode, there are less dramatic but still very real threats to the air we breathe and the water we drink. If we don’t examine potential problems when we build chemical plants, or data centers, or logistics hubs, we will end up creating more risks to our health and safety.

Fortunately, people are pushing back against the California Chamber’s efforts to undermine CEQA. Led by the Planning & Conservation League, scores of public health and environmental groups have come together to fight BACA. They’ve created a web site where you can learn about their efforts and find out how to join if you want to get involved.

Bottom line, CEQA is about giving people a voice about what gets built in their community. It gives you a chance to inform yourself about a project’s impacts, and to speak about your concerns. Elected officials like Scott Wiener and Gavin Newsom have been working hard to take power away from communities and to give it to corporations. The California Chamber’s measure is another aggressive attempt to silence Californians who care about their communities.

We can’t let them get away with it.

Los Angeles River at the Willow Street Estuary.

Olympics Ad Hoc Committee Meeting: Tension Grows between City Council and LA28

Posted on by
Ad Hoc Olympics Committee Meeting at LA City Hall on April 14, 2026.

There’s been a growing sense of frustration at LA City Hall over the lack of concrete information the City Council is getting from the Olympic Organizing Committee, LA28. At the last meeting of the City’s Ad Hoc Olympics Committee in January, Councilmember Monica Rodriguez made it clear that she was not happy about LA28’s refusal to turn over detailed information about financial issues. At today’s meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, almost every one of the members present aired their complaints about the way things were unfolding. I wouldn’t say the anger was boiling over, but it seemed to be seething beneath the surface.

Stephanie Richard of Loyola Law School at the microphone, and LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover in background.

And it wasn’t just the councilmembers who were frustrated. A group from the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School showed up to speak about their frustration with LA28’s Human Rights Strategy for the Games. They had been asking for months to see the document, and now that it’s finally been made available they shared a number of criticisms. Human trafficking is closely associated with major sporting events, with construction and hospitality being the two sectors where it’s most common. Businesses often hire undocumented workers to cut costs, and in many cases the workers are subjected to awful conditions, which they’re not likely to complain about because they’re undocumented. The group from Loyola had submitted their own report last year, but apparently LA28 ignored many of their recommendations. Speakers cited the fact that LA28’s plan included no funding for non-profits that address human trafficking, and complained that the plan emphasized law enforcement rather than assistance for victims. Another concern is that the Federal government will be in charge of security for the event. Since the Olympics will undoubtedly bring a surge of undocumented workers, there are fears that ICE will play a large role. It would be very convenient for businesses that hire undocumented workers to have their employees whisked off to detention centers when the Games are over. No need to cut a final paycheck for those folks.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez talks about her frustration with LA28’s procurement plan.

But the Council’s focus today was the lack of detail in LA28’s procurement plan. Obviously, one of the benefits of hosting the Olympics is that local businesses will get contracts tied to the Games. But what qualifies as “local” was a point of contention. The members of the Council had counted on businesses located in the City of LA to be the primary beneficiaries, but LA28’s procurement plan allows almost any business in Southern California to get a contract. This was not acceptable to the Council, since revenue for businesses also translates into tax dollars which the City badly needs. LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover told the committee that, all things being equal, LA28 would favor businesses in the City of LA. But as Councilmember Hugo Soto Martinez pointed out, there are naturally going to be huge differences in bids from businesses located in the City of LA as opposed to businesses located in more remote areas. Salaries, rent and taxes are all going to be higher in the City of LA than in cities on the periphery of the county. Businesses in the City of LA will naturally charge more than businesses in outlying areas. If they have to compete with businesses all over Southern California, they’ll likely lose out on the basis of cost. The members of the Council tried to get LA28 to narrow the focus for the procurement plan. Hoover did not say no, but he wouldn’t say yes.

Hoover is a retired Lieutenant General who’s also served in civilian roles at FEMA and the CIA. He started his remarks today by reading a lengthy opening statement where he talked about how great the Olympics were going to be. It was all worthless marketing-speak. My guess is that he knew the committee members were angry and he was trying to set a positive tone. It didn’t work. The frustration of the committee members was palpable. They’re not buying it.

Looks like it’s going to be a rocky road to 2028.

“No Kings” Protests across LA Area

Posted on by
Protesters at Hollywood and Vermont on Saturday.

I heard that thousands of people showed up for the “No Kings” protest in Downtown LA yesterday, but since I’ve been to a number of the gatherings at LA City Hall, I decided to check out some of the smaller local events. The No Kings organizers reported record turnout across the nation, and while you always have to be skeptical about the numbers given by organizers, it does seem like an increasing number of people are angry and frustrated about the direction the country is going in. The war in Iran, ongoing ICE raids and rising prices seem to be at the top of the list of grievances.

I first went to the protest at Hollywood and Vermont, where it looked like several hundred people showed up. Signs urged passing drivers to honk in support, and lots of drivers responded. I saw one older woman sitting with her hands over her ears. It was pretty loud.

The signs at the Hollywood protest covered a lot of issues.
Protesters marched back and forth across the intersection.
One woman sat with her hands over her ears. It was pretty loud.

Then I went to small rally held in Unidad Park on Beverly in Filipinotown. I’d say between 50 and 100 people showed up to listen to speeches and music. A number of groups had tables set up where volunteers were engaging attendees on various issues. And some kids were having a great time on the swings.

Attendees gathering in front of the stage at Unidad Park in Historic Filipinotown.

Canopies were set up to shield attendees from the sun.
A couple of kids were having a great time on the swings.

While I didn’t go to the main event at LA City Hall, I did pass through Downtown as I got off the bus to get on the train, and I ran into this group of teachers marching up Grand Avenue. They are not happy about what the current administration is doing to education. I assume they were heading to City Hall to join the crowd at Grand Park.

Teachers marching up Grand Ave. in Downtown LA.
The march was well organized and the teachers shouted out slogans as they headed north on Grand.

Then I headed down to Hawthorne, where a small but spirited group of protesters gathered at Hawthorne Blvd. And 120th. Attendees stood with signs and flags, marching back and forth across the intersection. They also got some appreciative honks from passing drivers.

Protesters gathered at Hawthorne Blvd. and 120th.

The crowd urged passing drivers to honk in support.

As the lights changed, protesters walked back and forth across the intersection.

I don’t see these protests going away. It seems like there’s growing frustration with the way things are in the US right now. It will be interesting to see what happens in the mid-term elections.

If You Think Gov. Newsom Cares about California’s Environment, Think Again

Posted on by
RIP CEQA

Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom strongarmed the State legislature into gutting the California Environmental Quality Act. Newsom told the legislature that he wouldn’t sign off on the State’s $321 billion spending plan unless they approved his “reforms”.

Many legislators were worried that the bill Newsom was pushing for, SB 131, would create a slew of exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While exemptions had already been created for housing and transit projects, SB 131 would allow exemptions for “advanced manufacturing” projects. These legislators were concerned because approval of the bill involved removing language from the State’s Public Resources Code that defined what could be considered an “advanced manufacturing” project. People in leadership said, don’t worry, we’ll fix this before the end of the session.

But of course, nothing got fixed. The definitions weren’t clarified. While there’s a push now in the legislature to clarify the definitions, it will be an uphill battle because well-financed business interests prefer the lack of clarity.

What kinds of “advanced manufacturing” projects might now be exempt from environmental review now that SB 131 has passed? Here’s a partial list from the web site Legal Planet.

aerospace manufacturing
animal feed and organic fertilizer
plastic bottle manufacturing
semiconductor fabrication
lithium ion batteries
lithium recovery and processing
rare earth materials production

Among the most concerning would be last four on the list. Making semiconductors involves the use of toxic materials such as arsenic and antimony, as well as toxic chemicals like sulfuric acid and hydrofluoric acid. Lithium processing involves the production of significant toxic waste, and many rare earth minerals are themselves toxic.

Would you be okay with one of these “advanced manufacturing” projects being approved in your neighborhood? If not, you might want to to contact your representatives in the State Assembly and the State Senate.

Find Your Representative

Here’s an article from CalMatters that gives an overview of the whole disturbing mess.

California Blew a Hole in Environmental Planning Law. Now, Lawmakers Are Trying to Fix It

America Is at War. Again.

Posted on by
Protest at LA City Hall on Saturday, March 7.


We’re at war again. This time in Iran. For the past week the US and Israel have unleashed punishing aerial attacks, but it’s hard to say why we’re at war or how it’s expected to end. In justifying the air strikes, Trump has offered a few different reasons. He’s said the goal is to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, even though he said it had been obliterated last year. He’s said the US is trying to foment regime change, even though there doesn’t appear to be any Iranian opposition group prepared to step into that role. US officials have also claimed that there was an imminent threat of an attack by Iran on the US, but they haven’t shown any evidence to back up that claim.

Protesters asked why the US is spending money on fighting foreign wars instead of helping Americans at home.

A small group of protesters gathered at LA City Hall on Saturday afternoon to speak out against the war. I’d say there were about 150 people there. It may have grown larger, but I had to leave around two thirty. The protest seemed to have been organized by a few different groups.

The chants were familiar from past anti-war protests, but the questions they asked were still relevant. Analysts have estimated that the first week of the war has cost the US almost $900 million a day. The protesters were asking why we aren’t spending that money on things that would make a real difference in the lives of American citizens, like education or healthcare or housing.

Signs demanded an end to the assualt on Iran.

The US spent between 10 and 15 years fighting in Vietnam, depending on where you draw the line. The war in Iraq officially lasted from 2003 through 2011, though American troops were still active in the region after that date. The war in Afghanistan ran from 2001 through 2021. Many American soldiers died in each of these conflicts, and many more foreign civilians lost their lives. These wars turned farmlands to wastelands, homes to rubble, and left behind toxic chemicals and unexploded ordnance which are still taking lives today. And what did Americans gain from these wars?

The gathering on Saturday was small, but if the conflict continues, I think it’s pretty certain we’ll see the protests growing steadily larger. Americans are tired of war. It’s time to put a stop to it.

Are You Okay with the US Government Conducting Mass Surveillance of Its Citizens?

Posted on by
Screenshot of statement issued earlier this week by AI company Anthropic.

I don’t often get into national issues in this blog, but this is something that impacts all Americans, including those of us who live in Los Angeles. Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has come under pressure by the US government to allow the use of its technology for mass domestic surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons. While both are a concern, in this post I’m going to focus on the surveillance issue.

Anthropic seems to have been the first AI company cleared by the US government for use in handling classified information. This came about through its partnership with Palantir, a defense contractor which works with the Pentagon. When this partnership began, Anthropic stressed that its large language model Claude should not be used for surveillance of US citizens or to enable lethal autonomous weapons systems. In January of this year, Anthropic became concerned that the Department of Defense had ignored both of these restrictions. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei sent a letter outlining his concerns. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded by saying that, unless Anthropic withdrew its objections to the use of Claude for domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons, the DOD would stop using it and bar Anthropic from receiving further contracts with the Department of Defense. On Thursday, Anthropic issued a statement saying it would reject these demands. Today President Trump ordered all federal agencies to stop using all artificial intelligence technology made by Anthropic.

Now, the first question I’m asking is, Why does the Department of Defense need to do mass surveillance of US citizens? If there’s reason to suspect that a US citizen might be a threat, the government already has the power to conduct surveillance, but only after it has presented evidence of the threat and received a warrant. Concerns about mass surveillance of US citizens aren’t new. Over the past 20+ years the US government has tried (often successfully) to increase its ability to spy on citizens. There has also been pushback (sometimes successful) from privacy groups, and there are court decisions that have kept checks on the government’s ability to gather information on Americans.

But this is crossing a new line. In this case it appears that the US government is asserting that it has a right to conduct mass surveillance of citizens, and that it will only work with AI companies that are comfortable with that kind of surveillance.

This comes at a time when corporations are gathering more of our data than ever. You’ve probably heard that Ring cameras are being enabled to collect biometric information that would allow identification of people who visit your home. You probably haven’t heard that the City of LA may be issuing a request for proposals for digital kiosks to be placed on city streets, and that at least one of the companies interested in getting the contract allows its kiosks to collect personal information, including your IP address, phone number, geolocation data and biometric information.

In the past, the US government has moved slowly and quietly when expanding its surveillance powers. But now, the US government is stating openly that it wants to use AI to conduct mass surveillance of US citizens.

Years ago, the Chinese government implemented a massive surveillance network. It explicitly told Chinese citizens that they were being watched, and that it could grant or limit opportunities for jobs, education and travel based on the data it collected. At the time, I told myself that the US government would never take such a drastic step. I guess I was wrong.

If you’re concerned about our government using AI to keep us under surveillance, you could always write to the White House to let them know you’re worried.

White House Contact Form

ICE Out LA

Posted on by
Protesters gather on the steps of LA City Hall


Once again, protesters are turning out across the nation to protest the Trump administration’s violent immigration raids. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti have thrown more fuel on the fire, putting national attention on the ICE surge in Minneapolis. There were several LA area events on Friday in cities including Culver City, El Monte, Monrovia, Pasadena and Torrance. Thousands of protesters gathered near LA City Hall to give voice to their anger.

Protesters gathered in Grand Park in front of LA City Hall
You could feel the outrage in the air
The crowd was thick in front of LA City Hall


I showed up at City Hall around one o’ clock. It was an unusually warm January day. Signs calling out the deaths of Good and Pretti were plentiful, but protesters also called attention to those who have lost their lives in detention facilities. As outrage over the immigration crackdown has spiralled, it seems the Trump administration is trying to rethink its approach, but will the changes amount to anything more than a public relations move? Hard to believe Trump will back down.

Signs asked for justice for Alex Pretti…
…and for Renee Good…
…and for those who have died in detention facilities.
Speakers railed against the violence of the ICE crackdown.
As usual, plenty of folks showed up with cameras to document the event.
Still more cameras.


The protests aren’t going away. And the pressure has become so great that even some of the Republicans in Congress are speaking up. No doubt some are worried about how this will impact the mid-term elections. But we need to see meaningful investigations, not just for Good and Pretti, but also for the immigrants who have died in detention facilities. And we need to see ICE get out of Minneapolis. Listening to politicians posturing is a waste of time. We need real change

Vigil in Altadena One Year after the Fires

Posted on by
People gather at Fair Oaks Burger in Altadena one year after the fires.

It’s been a year since the fires. As bad as that catastrophe was, with blazes erupting in locations all over the LA area, and the two most devastating conflagrations in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the year since then has been an ordeal for the thousands of survivors who are trying to rebuild their lives. Some have left LA. Some are working through the arduous process of constructing new homes. Many are still trying to figure out how to move on.

Tonight several hundred people gathered at Fair Oaks Burger in Altadena for a vigil, both to remember those who were lost and to celebrate the community’s resilience as it works to rebuild. Located in the middle of the neighborhoods that were ravaged by the Eaton Fire, Fair Oaks Burger miraculously survived unscathed. As the community struggled to recover, the restaurant partnered with a non-profit to provide free meals to those who needed them.

Before the vigil began, the crowd gathered in the parking lot.
A memorial was created to remember those who perished in the fire.
Hundreds gathered around the stage as musicians played.
Speakers talked about the losses the community had suffered, but also about its tremendous strength.


The mood was both somber and celebratory. Many of those attending lost their homes in the fire. Speakers talked about the losses they had suffered. But they also spoke of the joy they felt as the community came together to support them. It was a cold night, but the vibe was very warm. You could feel the love.

A Digital Billboard for the Glendale Masonic Temple?

Posted on by
Glendale Masonic Temple at 234 S. Brand Blvd.

There’s a notice posted on the Glendale Masonic Temple at 234 S. Brand Boulevard. The text says that the City of Glendale is considering an amendment to its Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) which would expand the zone’s boundaries. It gives no further details about the scope of the expansion, or what kind of outdoor advertising is being contemplated.

But I’d be willing to bet that the City of Glendale wants to let advertisers install digital billboards, possibly on the side of the Masonic Temple. You can already find digital signage at the Americana mall on the south side of Brand. Outdoor ad companies are lobbying cities all over the US to open up to bigger and more invasive digital signage. It’s a hugely profitable business that’s growing rapidly.

Personally, I’m against outdoor digital advertising for a few reasons. One reason is that I see it as urban blight. But more importantly, I’m concerned about the way digital advertisers are collecting and sharing cell phone data. There are huge privacy risks here, and most city officials are completely oblivious.

A public hearing is scheduled later this month. If you’re interested in attending, here’s the info….

DATE: Wednesday, November 19, 2025

TIME: 5:00 PM

LOCATION: 633 E. Broadway (MSB), #105, Glendale, 91206

You can also contact Roger Kiesel, of the Glendale Community Development Department, at 818 937-8152.

The Glendale Masonic Temple was dedicated in 1929 and served as a meeting place for different Masonic Lodges into the 50s. It was designed by Arthur Lindley, who also designed the nearby Alex Theatre. Rick Caruso’s company bought the building about a decade ago and refurbished it, making some changes to the design. The building is a Glendale Historical Landmark and also on the National Register of Historic Places.

City Council Votes to Bury LA in Debt for Decades

Posted on by
Rendering of Convention Center expansion project recently approved by LA City Council.

I’ve been critical of the LA City Council for years, so I don’t expect a lot from them. But even I was stunned by their vote to approve the LA Convention Center expansion in September. The Council is not known for fiscal responsibility. You may recall that they’ve been struggling to deal with a $1 billion deficit during the current fiscal year. So you’d think the councilmembers would be a little hesitant to plunge the city even further into debt. But on September 19, the LA City Council approved the expansion in an 11 to 2 vote, with two absent. Mayor Bass signed off on it a few days later.

Supporters of the Convention Center expansion promoted it as a great idea, and a crucial step in attracting events to Downtown LA. No one disputes that the Convention Center needed repairs and upgrades, and the expansion could provide benefits. But the cost of the project will bury the City of LA in debt for decades. Don’t take my word for it. Read what LA City Controller Kenneth Mejia had to say about the impacts it will have on the city’s budget….

The City of Los Angeles is currently contemplating a $2.7 billion expansion and modernization of the Convention Center, which will end up costing taxpayers $5.9 billion with borrowing and other costs included, of which $5.45 billion will be paid for by the General Fund. If this plan goes through, the City is projected to need an additional average of $116 million from the General Fund each year for the next 28 years starting in FY2029. $116 million is the equivalent of nearly 1,000 City jobs.

The City isn’t expected to see a related net positive General Fund impact for 30 years (in FY2057 once the debt service payments end). However, at that time, the City will still be down $3.2 billion from the General Fund and will take an additional 25 years or so to truly break even.

Mejia goes on to point out that if the city can’t bring in the revenue necessary to cover the cost of the expansion, it would likely have to make further cuts to funding for city departments, which are already understaffed. The quality of services could decline even further. Beyond that, rating agencies have put the City’s credit rating on negative watch status, which means we could be heading to a rating downgrade. That would make it more expensive to borrow money, raising the deficit even further.

So why did the Council okay this project? Let’s start with a little background. The City has been talking about expanding and modernizing the Convention Center for years, and again, there are certainly good arguments for making that happen. But it was clear that the expansion would be extremely costly, and there were budget conscious folks at City Hall who argued that the City couldn’t afford it. It’s important to remember here that the City of LA has a history of staggering from one budget crisis to the next. Because there’s no meaningful long-term fiscal planning, the City’s budget process invariably involves a lot of wishful thinking and a fair amount of financial sleight of hand.

You would think the fact that the 2025-2026 Budget resulted in a $1 billion shortfall would serve as a clear warning to elected officials that the City was in serious trouble. There were folks at City Hall who saw the flashing red lights and tried to move things in a different direction. On September 16, the Budget & Finance Committee voted to approve a scaled down version of the project, involving repairs and upgrades to the Convention Center now, and deferring the expansion until after the 2028 Olympics. This would have been a much more realistic, much more manageable option. The vote was 3 to 2, with Councilmembers Yaroslavsky, Blumenfield and Hernandez supporting the reduced project. Observers who had been alarmed by the cost of the expansion breathed a sigh of relief. If the City Council accepted the Committee’s recommendations, disaster could be averted.

But on September 19, just three days later, the Convention Center showed up on the Council’s agenda, along with a motion presented by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson that ignored the Committee’s action and asked for approval of the expansion. The Council voted 11 to 2 in favor. Councilmembers Blumenfield and Rodriguez were absent. The two no votes were from Nithya Raman and Katy Yaroslavsky. At the meeting, Raman rightly pointed out that the City of LA had just declared a fiscal emergency in June, and spoke about the devastating impacts the project would likely have on funding for public services and homeless programs. Yaroslavsky gave a detailed breakdown of her reasons for opposing, including the likelihood of cost overruns and the unrealistic timetable for completion. Alissa Walker published Yaroslavky’s comments on Torched, and it’s worth taking the time to read them.

The City of LA is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. We have a huge homeless population, and in spite of repeated promises from City Hall, progress has been minimal at best. Transit ridership has been declining since 2014, and still hasn’t even recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Our sidewalks are a mess, and it can take years for repairs to happen. We have a growing solid waste crisis that few people are even talking about, even though illegal dumping has become a chronic problem. And the Palisades fire made it clear that there are serious questions about the City of LA’s ability to deal with disasters.

We could be doing a whole lot better if our elected officials made a serious attempt at planning for the future. Instead, the majority seem determined to ignore reality and pretend that were doing just fine. They give us a lot of talk about their vision for the future, but if you look at the facts, they seem to be flying blind.