I note that in discussing this issue with people, a primary theme of those who support continuing the race on Belle Isle is, like B-RAD221’s comment above, praise of the financial investments by the Penske Grand Prix group which have assisted in making the fountain operational and in construction of additional sidewalks, concrete paddock and parking lots. I also understand that the Penske group has helped pay for other repair work on the island (although there is ambiguity about the actual amounts), as well as financially contributed to the Belle Isle Conservancy through a pre-race fundraising gala. That these financial contributions have occurred is part of my earlier point: beginning under the Kilpatrick administration and gaining traction over time, the City (and now the State) has taken a "pay as you go" approach to private interests in allowing them to take control of a once-beautiful section of our principal City park in return for an annual lease payment and making these financial contributions. While certain of the contributions are welcome (i.e., the fountain), others are purely self-serving and have lead to destruction of park land (i.e. 10 acre + concrete paddock) and use restriction of the park by the public. I do not believe it is proper to forfeit part of our public park to private entities in return for financial investment, especially when much of that investment does not enhance its public purpose. Public parks should be publicly financed, and while true donations are always welcome and helpful, private funding in return for private use is improper and inherently leads to a conflict with the public interest. Indeed, I believe it is a violation of the public trust for our political leaders to have allowed and to continue to allow such a pay as you go approach. I note that this has also occurred in other areas of city public space including periodic fenced-in events along the Riverfront, and at Hart Plaza, which is now often leased to private entrepreneurs on weekends.
It is a shame on the City Council that it approved the race, and then the laying of over ten acres of concrete, widening of roads, and destruction of our City park land around Scott Memorial Fountain. I understand this was done during the Kilpatrick – "pay as you go", administration – and I believe that the Penske team played this game full-hilt. But it is time to stop this and the State and City Council, has the power to do so by refusing to renew the Penske lease which expires at the end of this year. The race needs to be removed from Belle Isle. City Airport or a number of alternatives exist (as outlined in the above comments). But our principal City Park is not the place for this. The overwhelming majority of residents of the City have made their voices heard in a number of forums, and want this race and its 10 acres plus of concrete off the island. For those unaware of what has occurred, please visit Our park jewel, make your way to Scott Memorial Fountain, stand next to the statue of Mr. Scott, and view the over 10 acre concrete paddock and other surface lots that were created by the Penske team on the north-western portion of the island around the fountain. This is pure, unusable blight that destroyed green trees and grass.
Why do city leaders want to keep LA’s streets dangerous?
If the headline is referring to our city councilmembers as our city leaders that is a mistake.
Our council is very much behind the majority of citizens on a plethora of issues and are following from the rear. The people want safer streets, better public transportation, solutions for bringing about more affordable housing through such tools as backyard accessory dwelling units, etc. yet again and again our city council puts up roadblocks to new solutions.
Unfortunately the councilmembers from the wealthiest neighborhoods (Paul Koretz and his lackey David Ryu) seem to set the agenda for the whole city and the rest of the council just does their bidding even though many issues such as housing and public transportation don’t really have anything to do with the lives of the wealthy but do have a lot to do with the lives of the regular and lower income majority.
USC wants to sell the Coliseum’s naming rights to United Airlines
Thanks, I thought I was making stuff up. Glad to know I wasn’t incorrect about any of that. I won’t try to absolve anyone of anything, whether it be "corporate peddling" or smarminess in an internet comment… especially since internet smarminess seems fun. Let’s give it a shot and see if I can live up to my role model in Brentwood:
1) More "we can get money from a for-profit corporation that doesn’t have to come from our alumni or by passing costs on to fans? Let’s do it!" Remember, USC is non-profit. They like money as much as the next non-profit does, but they got this lease by taking on hundreds of millions of dollars of obligations. Of course they wanted to use every possible revenue stream beyond squeezing their alums and fans (which the have to do, and are doing, anyways). Again, they weren’t USC’s naming rights to sell until your (and my) representatives gave them away. I might really want to sell naming rights to Echo Park (brought to you by AIG!) if it meant an extra $20 in my pocket. It’s not my willingness to sell the naming rights of a historic neighborhood park that is bad, it’s the public custodian’s willingness to give them up that’s the problem.
2) You’d be surprised. Look at the past 12 months (during which USC has had full control of the coliseum) and check the venue’s schedule. There’s 8 football games for USC. There are 10 for the Rams – 9 this coming season. There are a couple of (often free) community events. There are a couple of concerts. Maybe a couple of soccer games. All those combined and there are maybe 2-3 sellouts – all Rams games. When Coldplay, Adele, Billy Joel, U2, Paul McCartney, or anyone else who can sell out stadiums these days comes through LA, do they play the Coliseum or do they head to the Rose Bowl or Dodger Stadium (or maybe a mini-residency at STAPLES)? The hope is that this pays for itself by opening up the stadium to events that it, obviously, can’t pull in its current state – and with it’s current capacity. It’s also more complicated than "UAL pushing it into the black" Outside of 7-8 USC games that will take place at the Coliseum for – presumably – the next 97 years of the lease, what’s guaranteed in terms of income for USC here? The Rams are gone after 2019 (they just extended another year). Concerts and other one-off or touring events are difficult to predict and the Coliseum currently snags way fewer of them than its competitor venues in LA. There are 82 home Dodger games a year. Think about what USC would have to pull off to get even 40 days of guaranteed events in the stadium, especially after the Rams leave with their 10 annual games. But naming rights are revenue no matter what, recognized over the life of the contract.
3) I think USC would love to hear how its name has been sullied by all this gauche promotion. Last I checked, they just admitted yet another class of incoming students with the best academic credentials in the 137-year history of the school in the most selective process they’ve ever had. They’ve completed an $6 billion academic fundraising campaign, the largest in higher education’s history, 18 months ahead of schedule back in February. They’re opening a ridiculous new student housing, academic, and cultural area in a previously underdeveloped block north of their campus. What’s sullied? Where are the alums tearing up their diplomas in disgust? How are they still one of the top 25 universities in the country, with a name associated with – gasp – GoDaddy?
4) Yeah, you do a $270 million renovation, prices are going up. No one is happy about that, including an athletic department who, despite the (terrible) messaging from Swann, is very anxious about shifting around a huge part of the school’s donor base for games that are, for many of them, the connection to USC that they enjoy the most. Mandatory donations are at least a little less sinister than their NFL counterpart – the Personal Seat License… at least they’re tax deductible. Because that’s all they are, and not too different from the current system. To buy season tickets at USC’s (and just about every major college program’s) football games, you just need to buy the tickets. But if you want to sit anywhere good, like between the 10’s, you need to donate to the athletic department. You simply cannot get a decent season ticket for USC football, and haven’t been for decades, without at least a 4-figure donation every year. Period. So yeah, that’s going up, but only for people who are already donating to USC, with the understanding that their donation will allow them the opportunity to purchase the "good seats."
Keep rolling the eyes. It’s probably a good look for you, especially if done with confidence. But once you get those pupils pointed back towards earth, you can point out where this horrible "corporate" peddling is sending all this ill-gotten cash. Sure the administrators (and football coaches who help bring in all this cash, welcome to America) get paid what the (absurd) market will bear. But USC is the largest private employer in LA county, they maintain dozens of free and public educational programs, including their own high school. They operate County-USC Hospital and do critical research with Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
USC wants to sell the Coliseum’s naming rights to United Airlines
Thanks, I thought I was making stuff up. Glad to know I wasn’t incorrect about any of that. I won’t try to absolve anyone of anything, whether it be "corporate peddling" or smarminess in an internet comment… especially since internet smarminess seems fun. Let’s give it a shot and see if I can live up to my role model in Brentwood:
1) More "we can get money from a for-profit corporation that doesn’t have to come from our alumni or by passing costs on to fans? Let’s do it!" Remember, USC is non-profit. They like money as much as the next non-profit does, but they got this lease by taking on hundreds of millions of dollars of obligations. Of course they wanted to use every possible revenue stream beyond squeezing their alums and fans (which the have to do, and are doing, anyways). Again, they weren’t USC’s naming rights to sell until your (and my) representatives gave them away. I might really want to sell naming rights to Echo Park (brought to you by AIG!) if it meant an extra $20 in my pocket. It’s not my willingness to sell the naming rights of a historic neighborhood park that is bad, it’s the public custodian’s willingness to give them up that’s the problem.
2) You’d be surprised. Look at the past 12 months (during which USC has had full control of the coliseum) and check the venue’s schedule. There’s 8 football games for USC. There are 10 for the Rams – 9 this coming season. There are a couple of (often free) community events. There are a couple of concerts. Maybe a couple of soccer games. All those combined and there are maybe 2-3 sellouts – all Rams games. When Coldplay, Adele, Billy Joel, U2, Paul McCartney, or anyone else who can sell out stadiums these days comes through LA, do they play the Coliseum or do they head to the Rose Bowl or Dodger Stadium (or maybe a mini-residency at STAPLES)? The hope is that this pays for itself by opening up the stadium to events that it, obviously, can’t pull in its current state – and with it’s current capacity. It’s also more complicated than "UAL pushing it into the black" Outside of 7-8 USC games that will take place at the Coliseum for – presumably – the next 97 years of the lease, what’s guaranteed in terms of income for USC here? The Rams are gone after 2019 (they just extended another year). Concerts and other one-off or touring events are difficult to predict and the Coliseum currently snags way fewer of them than its competitor venues in LA. There are 82 home Dodger games a year. Think about what USC would have to pull off to get even 40 days of guaranteed events in the stadium, especially after the Rams leave with their 10 annual games. But naming rights are revenue no matter what, recognized over the life of the contract.
3) I think USC would love to hear how its name has been sullied by all this gauche promotion. Last I checked, they just admitted yet another class of incoming students with the best academic credentials in the 137-year history of the school in the most selective process they’ve ever had. They’ve completed an $6 billion academic fundraising campaign, the largest in higher education’s history, 18 months ahead of schedule back in February. They’re opening a ridiculous new student housing, academic, and cultural area in a previously underdeveloped block north of their campus. What’s sullied? Where are the alums tearing up their diplomas in disgust? How are they still one of the top 25 universities in the country, with a name associated with – gasp – GoDaddy?
4) Yeah, you do a $270 million renovation, prices are going up. No one is happy about that, including an athletic department who, despite the (terrible) messaging from Swann, is very anxious about shifting around a huge part of the school’s donor base for games that are, for many of them, the connection to USC that they enjoy the most. Mandatory donations are at least a little less sinister than their NFL counterpart – the Personal Seat License… at least they’re tax deductible. Because that’s all they are, and not too different from the current system. To buy season tickets at USC’s (and just about every major college program’s) football games, you just need to buy the tickets. But if you want to sit anywhere good, like between the 10’s, you need to donate to the athletic department. You simply cannot get a decent season ticket for USC football, and haven’t been for decades, without at least a 4-figure donation every year. Period. So yeah, that’s going up, but only for people who are already donating to USC, with the understanding that their donation will allow them the opportunity to purchase the "good seats."
Keep rolling the eyes. It’s probably a good look for you, especially if done with confidence. But once you get those pupils pointed back towards earth, you can point out where this horrible "corporate" peddling is sending all this ill-gotten cash. Sure the administrators (and football coaches who help bring in all this cash, welcome to America) get paid what the (absurd) market will bear. But USC is the largest private employer in LA county, they maintain dozens of free and public educational programs, including their own high school. They operate County-USC Hospital and do critical research with Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
East LA tenants will march for rent control protections Thursday
Finally some agreement here at Curbed LA. I am sure the site’s moderators, who are always threatening to suspend my account, are happy to see it. To keep the spirit of goodwill going here is an oldie but goodie on the subject at hand from my liberal friends’ favorite economist, Paul Krugman.
Elon Musk's tunnel plan is surprisingly outdated—and bad
well, the thing is is that Musk has a habit of using his imaginary "innoventions" to stump against things that actually reduce emissions and just sell more of his cars: he used the imaginary Hyperloop to attack real HSR technology, while still having the mantle of "the only man really taking global warming seriously" while attacking the actual alternatives in order to further delay them
every time someone suggests what works—steel on steel—out come a host of these "visionary" alt-transport modes; the experts say they’re all nonsense on stilts: Minneapolis was plagued with PRT advocates (who’d get unpleasantly militant); monorails! gondolas! Skybus! nuclear cars! and then after all the townhalls they build … conventional rail, and it’s so successful it’s quickly expanded and everyone demands to know why they didn’t have LRT/subways sooner; meanwhile the gadgetbahns are left to rust
and every time the experts turned out to have been right: that Chinese straddling bus? fundraiser scam; SkyCar? even the FAA warns investors against Paul Moller; the Orange Line will have to be tracked at a higher price than if they’d gone with rail in the first place; some are just cranks, like the vactrain-flogging LaRouchites (remember them?); and every time we were told to set aside our higher brain functions and just look at the pretty CGI
Musk hasn’t put a penny of his own money into the HypeLoop, and his 2013 promises that it’d be 10% the cost of HSR and workable were knowingly false; he hasn’t invented a whole new rocket, he hasn’t invented cars or batteries—he’s ; what he does do is pose himself as a lone creator and get Wired readers all tingly by waving CGI stuff at him and rake in a lot of sweet Federal cash—which isn’t a sin, but he’s no different from Peter Thiel (or sometimes Elizabeth Holmes—or Liz Carmichael)
people were putting up internet posts that we don’t need to build obsolete rail because we’d have self-driving cars within the decade: this was in 2000
It’s such a fascinating story, and the ruins are strange and beautiful. Esotouric is actually visiting the site on one of our special 10th Anniversary bus tours this June 17, an all-day Antelope Valley excursion celebrating Desert Visionaries. On the tour, Bread and Hyacinths co-author Paul Greenstein will discuss Llano’s history, and artist-archivist Karyl Newman will share new research on Alice Constance Austin, a feminist city planner engaged by Harriman to implement her post-housework ideas at Llano.
City committee says no to landmarking threatened Bel Air home designed by Wallace Neff
You comment seems a bit parochial. Would it have been better if the new owners currently lived in the Valley? The property owners want a new house on their land (meaning more jobs and $ for the local economy) and the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission, who I assume know a bit more about architectural history than Paul Koretz, have determined that this home is not worthy of being landmarked. What exactly is the problem here? Individual property rights trump the opinions of the peanut gallery in my book.