An editorial in the Los Angeles Times says any legal challenge Beverly Hills or its school district mounts against the Westside Subway Extension would fail to stop the trains from tunneling under Beverly Hills High School.
The article, published Wednesday, calls the a "short-lived victory," since the Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved plans to tunnel under Beverly Hills High School to reach a station at . It also says the money necessary to sue Metro should be spent on Beverly Hills students.
The tunneling machines aren't expected to make it to Beverly Hills for about a decade, giving ample time to resolve lawsuits or federal challenges while working on earlier segments of the line. And even if the school board prevails in a lawsuit, it has little chance of forcing a change in the subway route; a more probable result would be to mandate more engineering studies. Meanwhile, the school board would waste money on litigation that would be far better spent on education.
The editorial also says putting a subway station on Santa Monica Boulevard is "geologically unfeasible." At its public hearing with Metro, under Santa Monica Boulevard. Beverly Hills also to Constellation Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars that do not involve tunneling under the high school.
To read the complete editorial, click here.
Do you agree with the editorial? Would you rather see Beverly Hills sue Metro or drop its case? Tell us in the comments below.
City officials presumably also have the power to prevent Metro from putting stations in Beverly Hills. However, exercising that power means shooting ourselves in the foot, as Metro has many possible alternatives in surrounding neighborhoods. Metro is the big dog in this fight. I'd much rather see the city use the threat of lawsuit to gain concessions from Metro (like help with the school's parking garage) than to sue and get nothing at all. All this said, I'm also not sure whether a compromise position is politically viable now. The Council has largely taken an all-or-nothing stance, perhaps goaded on by vocal community response. To adopt a new tack might look like capitulation to Metro. A new council, unencumbered by its past statements and positions, might be needed.
They run Op-Eds that reflect that fact. The L.A. Times ignores the facts and truths the same way Metro has. The Times also knows that most people are in favor of a tunnel under BHHS because most people do not live in Beverly Hills. The Times will often side with a majority because of sales. The City of Beverly Hills has a legitimate case and Metro knows it. That is why Metro's reports have very often been incomplete. That is why Metro has hired people who are not licensed to perform vital jobs that relate to this matter. Metro knew that If they hired the proper people, then they might be told that Beverly Hills is right and that is something Metro can't afford to let happen. It has been proven that putting a tunnel under Santa Monica Boulevard is safe and that there are no active faults there. Metro looks the other way. As a result, so does the Times. Metro is trying to bully its way through Beverly Hills because they can't do it the right and legal way. By ignoring the facts, the L.A. Times is doing the same thing.
The City does not have the power to prevent Metro from putting stations in BH, as I understand it. However, for the ridership required, I don't believe that Metro does have many viable alternatives in surrounding neighborhoods. As I understand it, the ridership is already marginal for federal transit funding, so any further reduction could endanger the entire project. Metro is the big dog, no question about it. That's exactly the problem. It's an über-bureaucracy without adequate checks and balances. Whatever happens as regards this specific issue, there should be a governance overhaul of the agency to ensure that local neighborhoods -- and not just politically juiced developers -- are actually listened to, be it BH or Leimert Park.
The taking Dr. Goldberg is referring to is the inability of the school district to develop their property in the future, unburdened by the restrictions a tunnel would create -- the same consideration, by the way, which Metro wants to grant Century City developers, as they have cited future development as a reason they are unwilling to look at alternative routes which would not go under BHHS. As I understand it, Metro would need to approve all new construction above the tunnels. Furthermore, any construction could cost millions more because of additional measures which would need to be taken to build around the tunnel -- that is, of course, if DSA approves any of it, no sure thing, by any means. Why should the BHUSD be on the hook to pay for this? If any and all future construction and build-out of the school is no problemo, why hasn't Metro offered the BHUSD a covenant to perpetually pay for any incremental construction costs associated with the subway for any and all future development at BHHS?
If you go back and check past posts on Patch, you will see that I and others had suggested to you that BHUSD should get Metro to pay for construction costs associated with subway tunnel mitigation. This was weeks ago while Beverly Hills still had a shred of sympathy from the average Angeleno. We had some leverage. Now that we've acted like little bitches, whining and threatening (and now filing) a lawsuit, we've totally lost our leverage. We warned you about this. Maybe with his PhD in Poli-Sci, Goldberg still has some tricks up his sleeve.
Rudy Cole briefly touched on the Southwest Homeowners Association and their role early on in this fight. Originally, they came out against the subway route because it went under their homes and there was a fear of loss of property value. The same motivation behind their assault on the Beverly Hilton and Robinson May reconstruction. And just like in that battle, they quickly shifted their public motivation to be about the schoolchildren. Remember? It became about the kids at El Rodeo breathing in dust from the construction. Once again, they've used schoolchildren to create a wedge issue in order to garner support for their position which is always about protecting their property value.
Read the story below http://www.geoprac.net/geonews-mainmenu-63/38-failures/456-subway-tunnel-collapse-in-cologne-germany
You can never guarantee 100% safety for anything. So that argument is ridiculous. I mean, can you guarantee100% that no children walking to school will be killed by a motorist? If not, then you should be fighting against walking to school and allowing cars to drive through our city in the morning and afternoon. That's just silly. Can you guarantee 100% that building a 6-story underground parking lot under the BHHS won't cause a methane explosion which could incinerate the school? No? Then you should come out against all underground construction at BHHS. And if you're so concerned about safety of subway tunnel construction, then why allow one to be built in our city at all? I mean, a collapse in the middle of Wilshire or Santa Monica during traffic would be just as tragic. I understand that you want to protect the schoolchildren. I trust that you don't have ulterior motives. But wake up, man. You have been manipulated by the Southwest Homeowners Association into protecting their property values and goaded on by the Beverly Hills Courier to help settle political scores for Clifton Smith. Don't let your legacy be the wasting of all of our Measure E funds on a losing lawsuit. You've already spent over a million bucks – it's gotten us nowhere. It would be more prudent to use that money to improve our education facilities... you know, the reason we approved the bond in the first place.
But if 100% safety can't be guaranteed, then shouldn't Metro have performed adequate risk analysis? This was one of the very points of Exponent's criticism of Metro's methods: that they simply failed to do the proper risk analysis. You're making statements such as "the science proves it's safe (to tunnel under the high school)." But in light of your statements here, that's not what you're really saying. You're saying: It probably is safe to tunnel under BHHS; it's possibly safe to tunnel under BHHS; it's likely safe to tunnel under BHHS; if everything is done correctly, without any human error like in Köln, then it will be safe. Ultimately, you're saying: It's safe if it turns out to be safe. JT's statement here about the Köln accident involving TBM's is the construction-based equivalent of "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Whether Dr. Goldberg wins or loses the suit, his legacy will be one of a dedicated public servant trying to do the right thing for his City and his City's schoolchildren.
I don't think that the BHUSD has any plans to sell the campus to a developer. First of all, they would need to find 45 acres or so in BH on which they'd need to relocate the campus. And second of all, if they sold the property, the City's underlying zoning would apply. And that means keeping the low-rise, garden-like nature of the City with a General Plan that limits buildings to 3 stories and 45 feet. If you're interested in historical preservation, please get involved. There are a lot of Community members who are thrilled that we -- better late than never -- finally recognized the irreplaceable value of our history and historical architecture and now have an ordinance which can serve as an example for other cities.