Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim
Agreed with LASF
Pesto, maybe it was a typo, but I think you mean Century City station and not BHHS station.
Beverly Hills is in FULL support of both the Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo stations to be placed in their city. They even had a resolution to officially support these stations after some crazy Rodeo merchants were pulling the "NIMBY" card. So those stations are a moot point as Los Angeles and Beverly Hills is fully supporting those stations. It's the direction of the subway that has Beverly Hills on the offensive. Everybody is agreeing to a Century City station (even BH acknowledges that Century City needs a station), its just the placement of the station.
And, Metro has to listen to people outside of just Beverly Hills to support the project. All of Los Angeles is asking for Constellation versus Beverly Hills wanting SM boulevard. But Beverly Hills is using the pity arguement and saying "those big bad developers are pushing Constellation on the little people", which is an absolute false rheoteric they are using to give BHHS sympathy. That's what is riling the rest of us to pile bad language on BHHS. It's the false emotions that upset us. So far, the LA Weekly has bought their arguement, but luckily, nobody else.
|
As far as I can tell no one is pushing hard for one stop or the other in CC other than MTA and BH. The estimates just weren't all that different from each other. If I'm negotiating this deal for a private company I have given BH what they want long ago, have popped the champagne, and am setting up the game-plan for impressing the hell out of the BH people so that SM and WLA will be begging for me to build them a subway.
Instead, we're worrying about whether the Expo II's opponents have new grounds for a safety lawsuit; whether there can EVER be a subway along SM Blvd.; and whether new high-rises in CC, BH or Westwood are now doomed.