Cal State Open House-2, Video by Joe Cano

Published on Jan 27, 2013

Val Marques, El Sereno home owner making excellent points to the consternation of the guy making the presentation & project manager Michelle Smith & the PR people. Note their faces almost like they have disdain for anyone that questions their motives. They look worried as hell. I know they hate me more than anything because I came at them like a bulldozer & 'burst their pretty ballons & chased the moon away, the party's over.'  (Joe Cano)

Cal State Open House-1, Video by Joe Cano

Here is the first video in a series to expose Metro in the 710 tunnel boondoggle (Joe Cano).

 Published on Jan 27, 2013

All can see that Metro's paid PR poeple struggled to answer questions from our group. My associate, a fellow El Sereno Home owner & I coordinated the questioning in advance & set the troops in motion. Note the red faces & them breaking into a sweat under questioning that forced them off script. My next door neighbor was not happy these people could find our homes on their map for the tunnel project. The young lady insisted our homes were blocks away from our actual location. Under further question by my wife Therese, they found our homes & they were located right next to the project to their embarassment. Joanne & Tom did a great job grilling one head PR person about cost & boring machines. When it appeared one of their talking heads was floundering, Michele Smith & Katherine Padilla lurked nearby looking worried things were not going as planned & can be seen dodging the camera throughout.
 

Please note the sound issues are due to a borrowed camera with a faulty Mic set up. Video to be posted shortly were shot on my portable handheld HD & will more stable. The borrowed camera was as a smaller version of the one used by NBC, but big enough to be imposing to these folks. I will attempt to correct the sound issues the larger piece to come. This the quick & dirty for now.

Repost of the Channel 4 Video of Residents, Officials Clash on 710 Freeway Extension Plan

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/Residents--Officials-Clash-on-710-Freeway-Extension-Plan/188519601

 The url is being reposted as John Picone has pointed out on Facebook that one can comment on the video on their website.

  Comments posted (comments will be added here as they are posted):

 Mr. Chen - What you may be missing is that the current group of No 710 people is very large, very educated on what Metro proposes, very vocal and not going to go away. In addition, would that Altadena couple be in favor of the tunnel if they knew they had to pay a $15 toll? (By John Picone)

 I will no longer set foot in Altadena because of that city's support of the destruction of our communities. The couple that spoke from Altadena are typical of the elitist snobs that don't give a 'FUCK' about El Sereno. We are not a wealth community, we are working class that have helped build this nation with their hands. We don't need to be insulted by wealthy shitheads. (By Joe Cano)

 

Please be wary of Metro's proposals. The tunnel project is a huge expenditure, not to mention the pollution. Metro will tell you that they will "scrub" the air that spews from the huge ventilation complexes at each end. Scientists at CalTech know that some of it can be "scrubbed," however, they also know that the smallest and most dangerous particulates cannot be "scrubbed." As we well know, Altadena is north of Pasadena, nestled at the foot of the mountains. Any smog that is to the south and west of them gets pushed up against the mountains by the off-shore flow of air.

So, playing devil's advocate, what if they *can* scrub the air from the tunnel clean? What happens when all of those vehicles exit the tunnel? They *cannot* scrub the air outside the tunnel. (Alhambra and Monterey Park, this means you too.) It is documented that this type of pollution is responsible for our children's growing issues with asthma and other respiratory complications and multiple types of cancers in children and adults. Yes, Altadena, the tunnel *will* affect your community.

There will be about a $15.00 toll -- each way -- to travel this route. What will happen when folks don't want to pay the toll? The traffic will take an alternate route through adjacent cities between Alhambra/El Sereno and Pasadena (San Marino, this means you too).

There will be no exit routes except at each end. What happens if there is an accident, fire, or explosion in the tunnel? How does one get out? Which city's emergency personnel will respond?

The tunnel must be bored through several earthquake faults and two aquifers, therefore, even more expensive precautions must be taken in the construction of the tunnel or it will collapse under strain. Would you want to take a chance on traveling through the tunnel?

The information above regarding the tunnel is from deep within Metro's own site, scientists and engineers from CalTech, doctors from USC, and what Metro's own officials have said and then contradicted themselves when they felt it was in their favor to do so.

If the only reason one is pro-tunnel is that one is worried about their commute time, please look at the other issues that come with this project. I guarantee it will make you think a little harder. There are better ways to move people and cargo to and from their destinations that Metro is ignoring. The statement from the Altadena resident that we "want to be stuck in the old ways" is far off point. We want to progress beyond the 1950s ideas of freeways.

So you say, "Who cares? We'll all be long gone by the time the tunnel is ready to use." What about your children and grandchildren? Great grandchildren? What fate will they suffer due to the tunnel? Cancer? Respiratory problems? Burned in a fire they could not escape from? Take your pick.

There is so much more information, and I don't want to write a book here. Please, if you are at all concerned with any of the issues with this tunnel, go to no710.com. You will find a wealth of information there. You cannot rely on Metro to give you correct answers. You will find a document at the aforementioned site that shows many contradictions.

As Mr. Picone states, we are a large group of people, some in organized groups and some not, but we have all educated ourselves on the pros and cons of the project. The cons far outweigh the pros. We aren't going away and we will not throw our neighbors under the bus. Yes, it's our backyard, but others don't deserve it in their backyards either.

Again, go to no710.com for further information and feel free to contact them if you have any questions about where the information came from or if you have a question that is not answered there. You may also visit No 710 Freeway Extension and/or No 710 on Avenue 64 at Facebook. Experts speaking at the Pasadena forum on the 710 can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4-OeHwwjmI. (Vicki Kea)

Thank you Ted Chen for coming out to Cal State L.A. for this story. Please remember, Cal State is NOT in East L.A., it is located in El Sereno, a neighborhood within Los Angeles that needs to hear her name! (Therese U. Hernandez-Cano)

 

I have lived in El Sereno for over 35 years and in Alhambra before that. The completion of the Long Beach Freeway (710) has been stalled all those years. Reasons have varied over the years, but South Pasadena has been a leader against being cut in half by a heartless project. However, twice a day, five days a week Alhambra is a parking lot for all the people passing through on their way to and from work. The freeway should at least be finished to Huntington Dr., a much larger street than Valley Blvd. The state already owns the property for the route, and it does not cut El Sereno in half. People who live in this area have been aware of the potential for completion for decades. I asked Mr. Chen to comment on the project, but he would not talk to a pro completion El Sereno resident. And, there are a lot of us. (Delmer Sandburg, Jr.)

 

I'm curious, is the commute and traffic all that your group is concerned about? If a better, less expensive, safer way to relieve the traffic, speed the commute, and reduce pollution exists would that be a better option in your perspective as long as those goals are met? Has anyone presented your group with any of these options? (Vicki Kea)

California still hasn't bought land for bullet train route

Construction is supposed to start in July. High-speed rail officials say they can do it. But they face resistance from landowners, and if the schedule slips, costs could grow too high.

 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-land-20130127,0,6688039.story

By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times

January 27, 2013

 

 Engineering challenges await the bullet train on its proposed route through central California. 

 

 

Construction of California's high-speed rail network is supposed to start in just six months, but the state hasn't acquired a single acre along the route and faces what officials are calling a challenging schedule to assemble hundreds of parcels needed in the Central Valley.

The complexity of getting federal, state and local regulatory approvals for the massive $68-billion project has already pushed back the start of construction to July from late last year. Even with that additional time, however, the state is facing a risk of not having the property to start major construction work near Fresno as now planned.

It hopes to begin making purchase offers for land in the next several weeks. But that's only the first step in a convoluted legal process that will give farmers, businesses and homeowners leverage to delay the project by weeks, if not months, and drive up sales prices, legal experts say.

One major stumbling block could be valuing agricultural land in a region where prices have been soaring, raising property owners' expectations far above what the state expects to pay.

"The reality is that they are not going to start in July," said Anthony Leones, a Bay Area attorney who has represented government agencies as well as property owners in eminent domain cases.

State high-speed rail officials say it won't be easy, but they can acquire needed property and begin the project on time.

"It is a challenge," said Jeff Morales, the rail agency's chief executive. "It is not unlike virtually any project. The difference is the scale of it."

Quickly acquiring a new rail corridor is crucial to the project, which Gov. Jerry Brown touted last week as the latest symbol of California's tradition of dreaming big and making major investments in its future.

Delays in starting construction could set in motion a chain reaction of problems that would jeopardize the politically and financially sensitive timetable for building the $6-billion first leg of the system. Under its deal with the Obama administration, which is pushing the project as an integral part of its economic and transportation agenda, the state must complete the first 130 miles of rail in the Central Valley by 2018, an aggressive schedule that would require spending about $3.6 million every day.

California voters in 2008 approved plans for a 220-mph bullet train system that would initially link the Bay Area and Southern California at a cost of $32 billion, less than half the estimated cost of the project.

If the construction schedule slips, costs could grow and leave the state without enough money to complete the entire first segment. Rail agency documents acknowledge initial construction may not get as close to Bakersfield in the southern Central Valley as planned.

In addition to property, the rail authority still needs permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and approval by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, two more potential choke points that Morales says can be navigated.

The land purchases are waiting on the hiring of a team of specialized contractors, but they cannot start their work until the rail agency gets approval from another branch of the state bureaucracy. About 400 parcels are needed for the first construction segment, a 29-mile stretch from Madera to Fresno.

The formal offers will start an eminent domain action, the legal process for seizing land from private owners. The owners have 30 days to consider the offer, and then the state must go through a series of steps that can add 100 more days of appeals and hearings, assuming the state can get on the court calendar, according to Robert Wilkinson, an eminent domain litigator in Fresno. If the state fails to convince a judge that a quick takeover of property is justified, formal trials could stretch on for 18 months, he added.

"I would think a lot of these are going to end up in litigation," he said. "It is a tight schedule, no question about it."

Indeed, the rail authority's formal right-of-way plan indicates it does not expect to acquire the first properties until Sept. 15, despite other documents that indicate construction would start in July. Rail officials said they padded the schedule to avoid claims for additional payments by construction contractors should land not be available by July.

Last month, the federal Government Accountability Office reported that about 100 parcels were at risk of not being available in time for construction.

That assessment was based on information the office collected last August. Susan Fleming, a GAO investigator, testified at a House hearing last month: "Not having the needed right of way could cause delays as well as add to project costs."

Morales said in a recent interview that he would not argue with the warning in the GAO report but still sees nothing that would delay the start of construction. Technically, the rail authority could meet the July target date by beginning demolition or other construction on a single piece of property, he said.

Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, which is suing to halt the project under the California Environmental Quality Act, said the rail authority will face strong opposition to condemnation proceedings in the Central Valley. The bureau has hired a condemnation expert to help battle the land seizures.
"It is a harried mess," she said.


She noted that agricultural land prices rose rapidly last year across the nation. In the Central Valley, the average price of farmland is $28,000 per acre, while the rail authority's budget anticipates an average price of $8,000 per acre, she said.

Kole Upton, an almond farmer who leads the rail watchdog group Preserve Our Heritage, questioned the rail agency's expertise in conducting complex appraisals of agricultural land that has orchards, irrigation systems and processing facilities.

"I am not sure this thing has been well thought out by people who have a deep understanding of agriculture," Upton said. "I live on my farm, and my son lives on my farm. My dad started it after World War II. This is our heritage and our future."

Morales said he believes the agency's budget for property acquisitions is adequate and he did not want to negotiate prices publicly.

"We don't think we are wildly off," he said.

Uh oh: Metro now naming stations to honor people

 http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2013/01/uh_oh_metro_now_naming_st.php

By Kevin Roderick, January 24, 2013

 
Pity the poor tourists of the future. One of the most short-sighted and, frankly, minor-league things about Los Angeles is that today's politicians too easily give in to the urge to name things — buildings, freeway legs, intersections — for people. Alive or dead, famous or not. Now you can add to this bush-league trend the naming of transit stations. You might think that, like in London or Paris or New York or San Francisco, the names of stations would generally be reserved for labels that help riders figure things out geographically. Well, not so much in LA going forward.

 





Today the Metro board renamed the Civic Center station on the Red Line the Civic Center/Grand Park/Tom Bradley Station. OK, adding Grand Park makes sense. People are coming downtown looking for the new park, and the station is right there. But Tom Bradley? Nothing against the late mayor and his part in bringing the subway to Los Angeles. He's three mayors ago now, about to be four. The randomly affixed name will befuddle many riders today, commuters and tourists alike; imagine in 20 or 50 years when half the city's landmarks have some form of Villaraigosa in their name

With today's vote, the Purple Line station formerly known as Wilshire/Western will now be known as the Wilshire/Western/Alfred Hoyun Song Station. Song was the mayor of the city of Monterey Park and a state lawmaker in the 1960s and 70s. He also was a first Korean-American pol, so why not put his name on one of the stations in urban Koreatown?

Play this out to the logical end. There have been a lot of mayors and lawmakers — and police chiefs, councilmen, beloved authors and activists. With each new renaming, the political pressure builds to "honor" more — and less deserving — people. The bar, already low, gets lower. As it is, the common thread isn't historical achievement or admiration across the generations — though almost all of the names we see are of accomplished people. It's that they have a constituency of some kind today, so that someone will come to the press conference unveiling the sign. Usually — and this is key — this also means they lived and died during our lifetimes. So in a few years, the entire city will be clogged up with names of hundreds of elected officials and other quasi-notables not from the sweep of Los Angeles experience, but from a very narrow band of time in the personal memory of current politicians. And there are only so many stations and corners and naming opportunities to go around — it's not easy to take away a name once given.

We also have to assume that some of this is actually the small-scale and unofficial selling of naming rights, in exchange for political favors or contributions. So there's that.

OK, it's a small thing but it cheapens the cityscape. I've railed about this before. The 10 freeway coming out of Santa Monica bears a cacophony of names, each with its own giant highway sign. In the end, like with all the artificial "squares" the City Council has designated in recent years, they cancel each other out in the civic mind. The truly notable figures get diluted by the perfunctory. There's no quality bar. It's not a big deal, but it's why I seldom cover new names and sign unveilings. We know how little goes into them.

In an exercise of logical restraint, the Metro Board today also changed the name of the Red Line's Universal City stop to the Universal City/Studio City Station. I'm only half surprised they didn't include Henry's Tacos in there somewhere.

The Rainy Full Wolf Moon Sunday Weekly News

The Rainy Full Wolf Moon Sunday Weekly News

 http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/

January 27, 2013

An excerpt:  

 The Battle for CEQA (click here): California’s core environmental protection law, a 43-year-old statute frequently denounced by developers and business interests as a tangle of red tape, is on a Capitol hit list once again. But the political dynamic this year is unusual: Those pushing hard for change are Democrats, including Gov. Brown, the Senate and Assembly leaders and a farm-belt lawmaker.

At issue is the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, which requires builders and others to detail their projects’ potential impacts over time on the environment and offer ways to fix them – which helps local zoning commissions and city councils weigh the benefits and negatives of the proposals in their decision-making.

The Act, which Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1970, has long been cited as the underpinning of California’s aggressive environmental protections and a shield against well-heeled special interests.

It also is seen as a sort of grass-roots environmental protection law because it is driven by the locals through the courts, not by Sacramento-based regulators. The law has been used to protect everything from ocean waters to tribal burial grounds. It has been altered over the years – 334 times since 1990 alone, by one count -- but its over-arching goal largely remains in place.

“They haven’t fundamentally changed CEQA, ever,” said Ron Stork of the Friends of the River. “There have been court decisions from time to time. But to some degree, it’s a living process and now it’s been around for a long time.”

The law has protected Californians from “from many tons of toxic air pollution and related health effects, such as childhood asthma. CEQA played a principal role in the electrification of the Port of Los Angeles, making it the cleanest port in the country, improving the working conditions for truckers and health of nearby communities,” noted David Pettit of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But CEQA, long under fire from its traditional foes, is now taking hits from lawmakers, the Democratic allies of environmentalists and others who say – with some evidence – that the law can add years to the approvals needed for major projects to get under way. They argue that the law needs to be modernized.

(Mod: The one-party rulers of this state are obviously in the tank for developers, Realty lobbies, the BIA and whoever else from that disreputable world pumps money into their pockets. CEQA is the one recourse residents and small cities have to halt the depredations of large corporate development interests that want to build nasty things in places that those living there do not ever want to see. The days when we can call the Democrats friends of the environment are pretty much over. They have quite obviously sold us out.)