Heir Transparent:  Activists say clarity needed on how Holden’s replacement would be chosen
  http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/heir_transparent/11607/
 (Pasadena Weekly, 11/1/12)
By André Coleman 11/01/2012

Concerned that an unelected appointee could be casting votes on some of the biggest issues facing Pasadena, some local activists are demanding community members be given a say in replacing Councilman Chris Holden should he be successful Tuesday in his bid for a seat in the state Assembly.

 

By most accounts, Holden — a Democrat whose Council District 3 includes portions of Northwest Pasadena and mid-city, north of Colorado Boulevard — is expected to beat Republican Donna Lowe in the race for the Assembly seat in the 41st District. A Holden win would trigger a City Charter provision calling for the City Council to appoint a replacement within 75 days of Holden’s resignation from the council. If elected Tuesday, Holden would be sworn into the Assembly in late December. California is among nine states in which legislators assume office in December following a general election.

 

Although Holden’s District 3 council seat is up for election in March, his replacement would remain on the council until May 7, when local elected officials are sworn into office.

 

The person selected to replace Holden in the wake of a win would not be able to run for the position in the March 5 municipal elections but would have a say, and possibly a vote, on such weighty issues as the Rose Bowl renovation project, currently millions of dollars over budget, general plan updates and the Heritage Square housing development project in District 3.

 

That person could also be involved in discussions on controversial plans to connect the 710 and 210 freeways, deliberations with the NFL to allow a team to play in the Rose Bowl and the possible resolution of lawsuits filed in relation to the officer-involved shooting death of 19-year-old Kendrec McDade last March.

 

“We need to clarify the [replacement] procedure immediately,” said community activist Martin Gordon. “When I first considered it, I said, ‘Who cares?’ But considering what could be coming up, I want someone politically savvy and competent seated. We really need to get together as a community and start talking about bringing someone forward, but we can’t so that until the process is clarified.”  

 

The City Charter does not specify a specific selection process for the seat. According to the charter, “If a vacancy occurs among any other members of the City Council, the remaining members shall within 75 days after such occurrence appoint a qualified resident voter of the unrepresented district who shall hold office until the office is filled at the next general municipal election.

 

“If the City Council cannot agree on one person to fill the vacancy,” the document continues, “the replacement shall be chosen by lot.”

 

In essence, the council could vote for a replacement, appoint a committee to make the selection or hold a secret ballot among themselves. The last option was exercised in 1986, when then-Mayor Bill Bogaard resigned from what was called the Board of City Directors. Replacement candidates William Cathey and former Mayor Katie Nack each received three council votes, forcing a second vote that led to Cathey’s winning the seat. Cathey later ran for the seat when that term ended, but lost to Nack, despite what some considered an unfair advantage gained through his short experience on the council. 

 

Bogaard said Friday that not only would the community be informed of the process in the case of Holden’s departure, but that the council would most likely not make the appointment until after the nomination period for the March 5 election ended on Dec. 7. That way, the mayor explained, no candidates could gain an unfair advantage by being appointed to the seat and running as a faux-incumbent after serving less than six months on the council.

 

 “There are important issues coming up, and there are important issues that can arise unexpectedly,” Bogaard said. “We want someone with some knowledge of the city and some record of good judgment  I have talked to (City Clerk) Mark Jomsky about making a public announcement at the appropriate time for interested parties to come forward who live in that district.”  

 

One of the candidates rumored to be running said he would implore the city to conduct an open process with some type of community input.

 

“I am favorable to the city’s process as long as they have a transparent process,” businessman Ishmael Trone told the Weekly. “They need to have criteria out there on how they select the person. Maybe that person should go before a committee and state why they should be appointed, and maybe there should be an opportunity for the community to put names in there, so no one can point fingers at the council and say ‘Look what they did.’”

 

District 3 resident John J. Kennedy, onetime president of the NAACP Pasadena Branch, told the Weekly that not only should the process be transparent, but the city should consider putting off voting on some issues if at all possible until after the next full-time councilman is elected. 

 

“If they go to a selection, it should be extremely transparent to the residents of Pasadena,” said Kennedy. “From a public policy standpoint, people want to know their government is open and includes the community process, and the way you guarantee that is through an open and public dialogue. We enjoy robust debate in Pasadena, and I think the community wants to ensure that debate continues. If there is the possibility of a negative financial impact and the city is falling apart, you have to move forward with these issues. If not, there is no reason not to wait for the elected officials to be seated before voting on these issues.” 

 

Holden, the son of former Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden, has represented the district since 1989. During that time, he helped establish the city’s water and power utility advisory commission and pushed for more resources in Northwest Pasadena neighborhoods. Holden voted to bring the NFL to the Rose Bowl in 2002 and then launched a successful ballot initiative calling for placing the NFL issue on a special ballot, saying the city had to do something to bring the aging stadium back into the financial black. Voters did not agree, but now it appears Holden was right, as the stadium continues to lose money and is costing the city millions of dollars in repair costs.

 

Last June, Holden led a field of five challengers for the 41st Assembly District seat, which stretches eastward from Pasadena to Upland and includes communities along the Foothill (210) Freeway, with 34 percent of the vote, according to Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office. Lowe finished second in the primary with 20 percent of the votes cast.

 

Assembly member Anthony Portantino Facebook post from 11/1/12
  submitted by:Jan SooHoo"

At today's A(lameda) C(orridor) E(ast) grade separation ground breaking in San Gabriel a Commissioner for the California Transportation Commission stated that recent work of the C(alifornia) T(ransportation) C(ommission) shows that California is $300 Billion short of what it needs for transportation over the next decade. My thought went immediately to how the heck can the state ever finance a $15 billion dollar 710 tunnel and why is MTA continuing to pursue this project that doesn't solve a problem when there are so many other needs?"

No on Measure J

Posted by Sunyoung Yang on No On Measure J Facebook page

We've been hearing from some of our movement allies in New York-- "The bus services started rolling since yesterday - but the buses are packed and you have to wait for 4-6 buses before you can get on. The bus moves 2.5 million a day and we've been pushing Bus Rapid Transit and accelerating the number of lines. This is a cheaper, more fair/equitable way of getting public transit for more people over subway expansion. Access to public transit is free, but will start charging at some point. We're in the midst of fare hike campaign. Yesterday, a couple of other orgs have been talking about how we keep message for proper financing for public transit, more affordable mass transit, and recognizing fairly big cost for clean up and pumping out. One of subway stations has water literally past platform area." Climate and other diisaster preparedness and flexibility of bus transit is a big plus.

The 'J' in LA County's Measure J Stands for 'Joke' -- And It's on Us 

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mirisch/the-j-in-la-countys-measu_b_2051487.html

John Mirisch Vice Mayor, City of Beverly Hills, Oct. 31, 2012

Oscar Wilde once described a cynic as somebody who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So what do you call someone who knows the purported "value" of something without discussing the price?

How about "an L.A.-area politician"? The L.A.-area politicians and political hacks who are shilling for Measure J are engaging in a cynical and deceptive campaign to sell the "benefits" of the measure to an unsuspecting public without giving a true picture of the price. Surprised?

Measure J, a 30-year tax extension is currently being touted as a job-creating bonanza. Forget the fact that it is an extension of Measure R, which less than four years ago was sold as the solution to years of inactivity in developing infrastructure for the county's public transportation system. Nope, if you believe the ads, Measure J is now all about jobs.

Essentially we'd be borrowing against future tax revenues; it seems that the Insiders' Club of L.A. Politics in their infinite wisdom have "discovered" that the 30 years of increased taxes wasn't going to be enough to meet their enormous appetite, so they now come to us -- the voters -- for more.

Here's how it would work: We'd be spending the money now, putting future generations in debt. It's a little bit like the Seinfeldian shtick about going to a restaurant and ordering various dishes off the menu like there's no tomorrow. You clap your hands and someone brings you more food. Ah, another dish to try out. Waiter, please, let's have more of that! And then the bill comes... And there you are, stuffed, sleepy and stuck with a massive bill.

Measure J is kind of like that, but the "good" news for us is: we won't be stuck with the bill. That'll be our kids and their kids and their kids' kids. Call it the "Great Grandchildren Tax" or the "Multi-Generational Tax," if you will. For our Jewish friends we can call this the "L'dor v'dor (from Generation to Generation) Tax."

There are those who would argue that our kids will supposedly benefit from the infrastructure upgrades which Measure J is meant to accelerate. But what if they didn't want the lobster roll, after all? What if the dumpling we leave them with turns out to be rancid? What if the system planned by the wags of today doesn't meet the needs of the generations of tomorrow?

Another "argument" we hear in favor of Measure J is that construction costs and interest rates are at historical lows. Let's leave out the wisdom of the "Buy it -- it's cheap" mentality for a moment. Aren't lower interest rates more than counterbalanced by the extra length of time we'll need to pay off the mega-loans? Won't the total amount of interest we end up paying be much greater than if we had lived within our means and not borrowed as much up front?

We hear constantly from Metro, the would-be steward of the billions which Measure J would borrow on behalf of future generations, that technology is constantly evolving, improving. Subway construction today, for example, is both cheaper and safer because of revolutionary advances in TBM (tunnel-boring-machine) technology, which only a few years ago were unthinkable. By Metro's own reasoning, we can't be certain -- far from it -- that spending money like drunken sailors on "job creation" or transportation will give us the best value for money or the best technology. In fact, we can say with near certainty that the system will be outdated or obsolete by the time the loans are finally paid off, the better part of a century from now. I'm just talking about the technology, not even about the efficacy of the system, as the centers of population or transportation corridors could shift in the course of decades. Buses can change routes; subways can't. Once we build a subway, we're stuck.

Folks, I'm not going to mince words: If Measure J seems like a scam, well, that's because it essentially is a scam. It's -- yet again -- short-sighted thinking with long-term negative consequences from those who should be protecting us. Yet again. Measure J is really an attempt to create a monument to the monumental egos of some of our regional politicians who want to cement their "legacy," such as it were, by building a network of choo-choo trains. That's some heavy hardware, innit? And they don't care if it's going to take a blank check to get it done, especially since they are writing out the blank check in our name. No way will they let fiscal prudence, social justice, civil rights, common sense or the welfare of future generations get in their way.

Don't get me wrong: public transportation is extremely important. And, of course, that means that it's extremely important to make sure that we get the biggest bang for each of our scarce tax bucks. But it needs to be done in a way which makes sense for all of us, not the least for those of us who are most dependent on a working, convenient public transportation system. But while Metro fiddles with building their choo-choos, the public transportation system will burn with the continued reduction of bus service. The fact is as follows: in the wake of Measure R and the spending frenzy on heavy rail, Metro has eliminated a million hours of bus service. This massive reduction of bus service hits those who need public transportation the most -- not that the L.A. political grandees from both sides of the political spectrum care about that at all.

Nor do they evidently care about the message that feeding the beast that is Metro sends. Metro is notorious for being the governmental agency version of the Wall Street banks which were "too big to fail." Metro is notorious for not listening to the constituencies it is supposed to serve from BH, Boyle Heights, to BH, Beverly Hills. Metro is notorious for its dubious safety record, its numerous civil rights violations and its poor fiscal management, not to mention all the costs associated with its bloated bureaucracy, such as the governmental salaries, pensions and benefits. Giving these guys more dough is not the solution. It's the problem.

And the Metro Zombies who support Measure J have the chutzpah to suggest that "Measure J doesn't raise taxes." It may not raise current sales tax rates, but it sure as hell does raise taxes by extending them for another 30 years. To suggest anything else is both disingenuous and insults the intelligence of the voters of L.A. County. Unfortunately, it is both with increasing frequency and impunity that the politicians try to get away with insulting our intelligence by getting us to act like sheep. And they succeed. Shame on us.

If the LA county politicians really felt it was so important to blow all that dough now, why did they feel they had to burden future generations? Why didn't they simply make the argument that we are in desperate need of these infrastructure upgrades and frontload the tax burden? In other words, why didn't they ask us to pay for our own meal, rather than passing on the bill to our grandchildren? Have the courage of your convictions, ye self-styled "Transit Advocates": raise taxes now rather than saddle future generations with unwanted debt. Guess that "solution" didn't poll so well and guess they think we're as short-sighted as they are. Unfortunately, as the current polling suggests, they may be right. Shame on us.

Don't think that Measure J will be the end of it: the L.A.-area politicos will keep coming back for more, continuing to pluck us like a Christmas or Chanukah goose. Villaraigosa's financial pooh-bah Miguel Santana has already advised he'd like to place some more new taxes on next March's ballot. L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson has already said he wants to raise the sales tax in Los Angeles above the levels piled on by Measures R and J. As Johnny Carson might have said, there is still "more to come." Much more. And it's scary stuff.

Is it any surprise that the millions of dollars in pro-Measure J propaganda have been "donated" by some of the L.A. area's most influential benefactors including Eli Broad (who has gotten preferential treatment by L.A. in building his museum), the Westfield Corporation (which is getting preferential treatment by L.A. in expanding its Century City mall) and AEG (which got preferential treatment by L.A. in its downtown stadium plans). Is anybody really surprised that the "Yes on J" campaign is being run by Matt Szabo, Villaraigosa's former chief-of-staff and a candidate for an open L.A City Council seat? The Insiders' Club carnival and carousel continues to spin and the good times continue to roll for L.A.'s political elite while the Little Guy -- and our kids, grandkids and great-grandkids -- like good ole Charlie Brown, get the proverbial rock in our trick-or-treat bags or a few scraps from the table, if we're lucky.

In this "it's all about me" society, by swallowing the sugar-coated nonsense we're being fed by L.A.'s political elite and by not roundly rejecting Measure J, we're enabling the System to continue treating us like sheep. We're proving Lincoln was right about one thing: you can fool all (or most) of the people some of the time. Too much of the time. We're proving that crony capitalism is alive and well and firmly ensconced in L.A. politics. Shame on us.

"J" stands for "jobs" in the facile propaganda which is being funded by millions of dollars of special interest money, but which for the rest of us should stand for the "Joke" of crony capitalism and the "Junk" that the Insiders' Club is trying to sell us. We seem trapped in a system where the influence of money and special interests can create an almost trance-like mass psychosis. Is it any surprise that in L.A.'s "pay-to-play" political scene, wealthy and politically connected corporations are allowed to draft city ordinances which affect the way they themselves would be regulated? Do we really want the inmates to run the asylum or should we not try to shake ourselves and wake ourselves from our slumber and get our government to work for us rather against us?

We can start by rejecting the new and extended taxes which the political elite are trying to sell us by hook and by crook, by promising, by coaxing and by threatening. Let them first prove that they are able stewards with our taxpayer dollars. Let them first show us that they can give us the best value for our taxpayer dollars.

We can start by demanding common sense and accountability in all levels of government, but especially in our local government. We can start by demanding that governmental agencies actually do their jobs and actually listen to the People. How often do institutions such as Metro forget that they exist to serve the people, not the other way around?

While it might be our natural inclination to enjoy the sunshine, shrug our shoulders and simply say, "Forget it, Jake: it's Chinatown," we can start by sending a message, thinking for ourselves and saying "No" to Measure J next week.

With apologies to Oscar Wilde, even those of us who truly know the value of sensible mass transit have ample reason to be wildly cynical when it comes to Measure J. And in this case, as Lillian Hellman so pointedly wrote, "Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth."

Yes on Measure J– To advance Los Angeles County’s traffic relief by accelerating light rail/subway construction within five years

 http://egpnews.com/2012/11/ballot-recommendations-%E2%80%93-tuesday-nov-6-election-3/

  Measure seeks to extend the one half sales tax approved by voters under Measure R for another 30 years, with independent audits. Approving this measure now will save county taxpayers money in the long run, since interest rates on the money are likely to be substantially lower than they will be in future years. By borrowing now, the County can accelerate the transportation projects already identified and in some cases underway. It should be noted, however, that we are seriously concerned about opponents claims that Metro officials have refused to meet with those opposed to some of the projects proposed, or their efforts to seek assurances that accelerating projects will not lead to impacted communities having no say in how those projects impacts are mitigated in their neighborhoods. Giving permission to buy bonds using taxpayers dollars is not as one opponent said “a blank check” to allow Metro authorities to do whatever they want, and we urge Metro and the elected officials who make up the Metro Board, to be responsive, open and engaged with the communities they represent, even when their views differ. That being said, we believe that rail projects are part of the traffic solution for the region, and should become part of a transportation plan that includes bus service and gets riders where they need to go in the fastest, least expensive way possible. Today, that’s not always the case, and that needs to be fixed. There is no denying that if Metro fails to sell bonds for transportation enhancements at today’s affordable interest rates, someday we will have to finish the job at a greater cost.  Vote Yes on Measure J.

Measure J: Why you should vote ‘no’

 http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/measure_j_why_you_should_vote_no

by Lisa Korbatov

Opinion  November 1, 2012

 

This piece was written in response to 'Measure J: Moving today for tomorrow'

Clearly Measure J is, in reality, a magician’s slight of hand trick.   If I remember correctly Measure R, the predessor to Measure J, was a detailed proposition consisting of 34 pages describing the implementation, oversight and accountability procedures of the bill and what it was for?   However, Measure J is a one paragraph, non descriptive, non definative request for $90 billion from the taxpayers.  I have trouble understanding how it took 34 pages to definatively describe the request for $40 billion.  In Measure J the request consists of one paragraph that has no definative procedures for accountability, oversight or implementation.  Simply put it is one paragraph asking for a $90 billion slush fund to cover the hidden costs of Antonio Villaraigosa’s “Subway to the Sea” and in the process disrupt cities and communities with impunity and disregard.

This article does not state how much Measure J, $90 billion, is for or Measure R, $40 billion?  Together they total $130 billion.  When the interest is added Measure R and J will total at least $300 billion.  Only two budgets in America are significantly larger:  the total education budgets for all states combined and the Federal Department of Defense Budget.

This is a tax increase as it is the “Permatax” until 2069.  Being a tax measure this requires a 2/3 majority for passage.  Currently this measures support is under 60% and is being promoted as a vision for the future.   This measure is actually a wellfare program for the current devolupers, real estate moguls and all of the current wealth holders and big money interests that traditionally have raped communities by putting rail lines in that did not provide needed access to address community needs.  The access that it does provide is to new projects that they control so that service services them and not the people.  Understanding that this bill is faltering in support,  Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is now attempting to court black leaders to support Measure J by telling them that they will be allotted $300 million for the Liemert Park station in return for their support on Measure J.  This black leader is not going for the hokey doke.  This mayor wants to bribe us with $300 million out of $90 billion?  I guess we come real cheap.

Does anyone know what the real transportation needs will be until 2069?  This money will be spent and when most of us are long gone you can bet your bottom dollar MTA will be back for more money.  And if you think I am wrong just look at the history that started with Proposition A in 1980 and followed up with more in 1990 and then came in with Measure R and now for Measure J.  Remember it has always been the same mantra.  This is the same message and request for more money.  They are insatiable.  And then to cap everything off they consistently reduce access to all parts of the community and then of course they raise rates.  Less service with more cost and that is efficiency?  Let’s assume that some miracle takes place and they finish these lines, do you notice something is missing here and it is glaring.  That is that there is no money set aside for operation or maintainence of these new lines.

A perfect example of this is what is in the “Subway to the Sea” EIR where they do not include in the budget figures what they will have to do which increases the cost by $10 billion or double the stated amount.  Is should be very clear to all of us now why we are looking at a one paragraph request for $90 billion dollars without accountability, oversight or implementation parameters.

It should be noted that organizations and government entities are coming together in strong opposition to Measure J.   The diversity of the opposition to Measure J is like a true Rainbow Coalition that extends across the breadth of L.A. County.   Recently the chairman of the MTA, Supervisor Michael Antonovich along with his collegues Don Knabe and Mark Ridley-Thomas, all members of the MTA Board, have expressed strong opposition to Measure J.  Assemblyman Mike Davis, Chairman of the Select Committee on Transportation, has reassessed and is now in opposition to Measure J.   The City of Beverly Hills has passed a resolution to not support Measure J.  The Beverly Hills School Board is in strong opposition to the tunneling underneath their school campus as a result of Measure J.  Organizations from South L.A., East L.A., San Gabriel Valley, the San Fernando Valley, Beach Cities, as well as the Bus Riders Union and the Congress of Racial Equality of California (CORE-CA) have joined together with a collective voice “VOTE NO ON MEASURE J.”

Why A Broad Coalition of Grassroots Groups Oppose Measure J

 http://uprisingradio.org/home/2012/10/30/why-a-broad-coalition-of-grassroots-groups-oppose-measure-j/

 

 

 

A transportation measure in LA County this November that brings attention to public transit and civil rights concerns is Measure J.

J, an extension to Measure R which was approved in 2008, will extend a half-cent tax for an additional 30 years to fund the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). The sales tax is not new, but if J passes, it will be extended to the year 2069.

Proponents of Measure J say it will speed up the completion of several projects that were introduced after Measure R was passed by starting construction in five years rather than twenty. Projects include extending the Green Line to LAX and a Westside Subway Extension. However, many of the projects will also rely on outside funding in order to see completion.

Measure J’s supporters and funders include the L.A. Dodgers, AEG, LACMA and Mayor Villaraigosa, who together have raised $2.2 million dollars in campaign contributions. According to them, Measure J will bring 400,000 new local jobs, decrease traffic and will make popular areas more accessible by train.

Opponents of Measure J, which include the Bus Riders Union and City Supervisors Michael Antonovich and Don Knabe, say the measure is discriminatory and promotes gentrification in low income communities of color.

While most of the revenues from the Measure J sales tax will be spent on the rail system, in the last five years alone bus service has been cut by almost one million hours, making it difficult for low wage employees to travel to and from work. Metro Officials have publicly said they prefer focusing on rail projects.

But in 2011, a federal civil rights review showed that the MTA had violated civil rights regulations knowingly – their cuts to bus services were known by MTA to be racially discriminatory. The MTA’s rail expansion make them property owners throughout Los Angeles, and as such, it has encouraged developers to construct high-end shopping centers, homes and businesses along their rail routes.

GUEST: Sunyoung Yang, Lead organizer with Bus Riders Union

Visit www.noonmeasurej.net for more information.
   

 

(Pasadena) City Council Decision on Measure A/F-7 Tunnel Issue -- Video Now Online
 
Submitted by Weston DeWalt



At last night's (Oct. 29) City Council meeting Mayor Bogaard announced that the Council would finally be addressing the issue of Measure A's relevance to the Council's ability to consider opposition to METRO's proposed F-7 tunnel on December 10 - three days prior to METRO's December 13 Board meeting. The timing does not seem at all coincidental.Yet to be answered is the question of why it took the Council so long to decide to deal with this issue, especially since the City Manager was telling Pasadena residents that every effort was being made to deal with this issue prior to next week's Election Day. 

and

29 October (Pasadena) City Council Video Now Online
Mayor Bogaard's Announcement Regarding Measure A/F-7 Tunnel Issue: 2:39 to 6:42

My Public Comments on 710 Related Matters: 7:23 to 10:54

Council deliberations on whether to have Planning Commission Review Final NFL/Rose Bowl EIR: Starts @ 1:52

See: http://tinyurl.com/aoadfod

Ignoring Port, Councilmember Johnson to Hold Own Hearing Regarding SCIG Railyard

Ignoring Port, Councilmember Johnson to Hold Own Hearing Regarding SCIG Railyard

by Brian Addison

  http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/10/30/ignoring-port-councilmember-johnson-to-hold-own-hearing-regarding-scig-railyard/

 

 

 The proposed SCIG via LA 15th

 Following the public hearing organized by the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) nearly two weeks ago regarding the proposed Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) railyard by BNSF, Long Beach Councilmember James Johnson has decided to take matters into his own hands–literally.

The SCIG Railyard is a proposed 12-track rail yard intended to expand the Port’s capacity for goods movement. The 153 acres are already mostly owned by the Port in unincorporated East Wilmington. Residents of West Long Beach fear the impact such a yard would have on local air quality and road conditions as trucks and trains access, idle and leave the port area. The project would cost $500 million dollars.

After a rare show of vitriol towards the POLA after the port refused to hold a public hearing in West Long Beach Johnson has decided to host his own public hearing . While  POLA opted for Wilmington for its hearing, Johnson will host his in West Long Beach, the region he represents and the one POLA’s documents show will be most impacted by the rail yard. By holding a hearing Johnson is not just giving residents a chance to speak up, but also gets their opinions on record. The move, at least within the eyes of detractors of the project as it stands, was a bold move to be both applauded and respected.

“A core part of the democratic process is the right of residents to be heard on projects that may affect them,” said Johnson, who also said that the recorded responses will be transcribed and sent to POLA as a formal response to the matter.

The project, particularly following the analysis of its RDEIR, has gained more media attention within the past two weeks than it has over the past five years, including a rather ironic piece from the Press-Telegram covering the initial public hearing after endorsing the project just weeks beforehand. The surge in coverage is most likely due to BNSF’s rather faulty response that residents within the proposed construction area will suffer more if the project does not go ahead as planned.

Johnson’s own hearing will be held next Tuesday, November 7, at Silverado Park at 6 pm. Silverado Park is located at 32nd Street and Santa Fe Avenue.