Fred Rosen reflects on UCLA, Metro and Hypocrisy
In today's world, people seem to pay little attention to history. The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures opens with little to no reference of the founding pioneers of the movie industry— it is being corrected, but what were people thinking? Could a museum celebrating the history of flying leave out the initial flight of the Wright bothers or their contribution to flying? Has everyone forgotten that past is prologue?
Michael Beck, on behalf of UCLA, wrote a 9 page letter to Metro advocating for a tunnel solution under a residential community (Bel Air) for the Sepulveda Corridor Project. This project was initially meant to bring people from the Valley to the airport. It did not initially include a stop at UCLA—when clearly a spur to UCLA should have been included. If you read his letter carefully, it is attempting to basically make everyone in the valley stop at UCLA before getting to the airport—it’s about entitlement and privilege—with the institution being paramount. In his opinion, the cost and the time to build it is basically irrelevant—and that letter is an attempt to hijack the project. I always thought that the object of all public works is the greater good—with a time cost analysis playing a major factor in the decision. A tunnel is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem—it will take 20 to 25 years to complete (assuming litigation fails—and we don't know the answer to that question) and will cost 3 to 4 more times than any other alternative. Are we trying to solve the problem or prolong it?
In the article attached below, there are a few salient items to be aware of: While Mr. Beck was the City Manager of Pasadena, "the City's bond rating was downgraded after it racked up millions more in debt than anticipated for Rose Bowl renovations" and under his watch more than $6.4M in public funds was embezzled. So clearly this puts his judgment and fiscal expertise in question. Considering Metro's prior and current history, can anyone believe what a tunnel's actual cost will be and who will pay for it? It’s just not an intelligent or fiscally responsible solution—and please don't send me notes telling me I'm unfair to him in bringing this up—it's his history and it's true—he wrote the letter without engaging in any meaningful dialogue with our community— we are UCLA's neighbor and directly impacted by his solution—and he exhibited a cavalier disregard for our community—that's a fact. Prior to his letter there was not one meaningful meeting or discussion. We were shocked and appalled that he would write that letter without engaging with our representatives. Sins of omission have consequences—sometimes worse than sins of commission.
Last point—while he was City Manager of Pasadena, he worked to prevent SR-710 from building a tunnel project under South Pasadena—which was successfully prevented. In the PR release that was sent out in 2017 by UCLA's current adviser—let me quote, "Today's Metro Board decision is a vote for healthy communities, fiscal responsibility and a 21st century approach to transportation in Los Angeles County. The time has come to move from this outdated project" ie...tunnels. One person's distinction is another person's hypocrisy. Why are we even considering ass-backwards solutions—that some thought were outdated 5 years ago.
I just think that all of you should be made aware of these facts—and we should strive to have 21st century fiscally intelligent, innovative and responsible solutions for 21st century problems. Los Angeles must be a leader and a beacon for our State and for our Country.
Fred Rosen
Click here to read THE SUN “Pasadena’s City Manager Must Quit Or Be Fired: Editorial”
Pasadena’s city manager must quit or be fired: Editorial
The Sun January 14, 2015 at 7:23 p.m.
Pasadena City Manager Michael Beck discusses an alleged $6.4 million embezzlement during a special meeting held at Pasadena City Council Chambers on Jan. 5. (Photo by Walt Mancini/Pasadena Star-News)