Los Angeles has been trying to do something with the Los Angeles River forever. But it's hard, partly because renovation is expensive and partly because it seems like every single human being in the city has a different idea about what should be done.
For example, the LA Times reports today about one teensy-tiny part of the project: a three-mile bike path along the river that connects two other stretches of bike path. It's gone through city council review with no objection. A 630-page environmental impact report was finished two years ago. $58 million has been allocated. But now there's a new hiccup: the bike path will lop off a strip of land in a nearby dog park and its users are up in arms. Here's what the bike path will do:
Yep, it will cut off a strip of land so small no one would even notice it if they weren't told ahead of time. But 2,000 people are now using this as an excuse to oppose the bike path.
That's democracy for you, I suppose. But you'd really think people would have better things to do.
Once upon a time, there was no such thing as dog parks, and while laws on the books meant dogs had to be kept on leash at parks, for the most part, it was live and let live.
Then, the population density increased and, with few open spaces, parks became crowded and sharing became difficult. People who didn't like dogs were upset and demanded that police and parks officers enforce leash laws.
Dog owners demanded that in return, cities should have off-leash parks dedicated to their furry canine companions in cities. In the densest of existing cities, these areas were relegated to tiny sections at the far end of parks.
But then the bicycle folks came forth and demanded their own space and access to everything, taking a little bit of already tiny dog parks away from canines. That made dog owners mad.
"What are you complaining about," mocked the Cat People, "it's only a tiny bit of space!" Never the mind that they regularly loosed their kitties onto the unsuspecting public at night to freely roam the city and torment the dogs on leash.
And that is why we can't all get along together -- a short history of the last 30 years of dogs, parks, and urbanism.
Think of all the new sleeping spots they created for the homeless
"... $58 million has been allocated. ..."
Why does it cost $58 million to construct 3 miles of bike path?
Lawyer fees
1) dspcole is correct about lawyer fees. There are also various other admin costs in dealing with the various committees and bureaus to get the needed zoning changes and approvals.
2) Environmental studies and approvals.
3) Probably some of the land needs to be purchased.
4) Finally, the very smallest cost is the actual design and construction of the path.
I recently helped my inlaws sell their house in LA. The house was old and run-down and probably wouldn't pass inspection, but the lot was large and quite valuable. They were assuming that the place would be likely be bought by a developer who would just tear the place down and build something new. But two different realtors told us that the buyers would most likely preserve at least one wall of the house and build new around it, because it is relatively easy to get city approval for a remodel, but really hard to get approval for new construction.
The bike path is new construction.
"Environmental studies and approvals."
According to the post the environmental impact report was finished and presumably paid for 2 years ago.
People take their dogs to the beach (Los Angeles) where they are not allowed, and worse, take them off-leash, which is not allowed virtually anywhere. The dogs chase after shorebirds and disturb (for instance) a snowy plover refuge. They can be aggressive around children and every lifeguard I talk to is fed up with the selfish owners. I am too.
They also shit in the sand.
Parks here used to be minefields of dog crap. they aren't any more.
Even more amazing, dog shit started turning up in an alley that I walk through regularly. I taped up a couple of handwritten signs asking the owner to start picking up, and damned if it didn't work.
This has nothing to do with the topic, but I found it amazing.
I guess I would feel differently if it was cat park
You think this is about a tiny strip of land? I'd guess the fear is the cyclists will fill up the parking lot.
"...you'd really think people would have better things to do."
Why would you think that? I don't think that. Nothing in history would lead anyone to think that.
+1
Personally I would lop off the whole dog park and build a playground or a parking lot to replace the barking lot.
You would rather have a parking lot than green space for animals?
Guess it was childhood trauma as I had very bad allergies as a kid and almost died as a result. Spent several days in intensive care. Then a few years later a German Shepard bit me. So yes, I despise dog parks and unleashed dogs and their careless owners. Of course not all dogs and owners are bad.
it’s not democracy tho. democracy is, we vote (directly or for reps), and then whatever we voted for happens, for better or for worse, and then a few years later you get to vote again. what we have (especially in CA) is government by lawsuit, where everyone gets infinite opportunities to veto stuff but there’s no one who can affirmatively say “this is what we’re doing.”
One of the hidden effects of the internet is the impact of free information dissemination on public choice questions. What used to sail through smoky back rooms now gets announces in Xitter and hordes of possibly confused angry shouters can magically appear.
This means less grift and payola. This also means bike paths don't get built and lots of money gets spent not building them.
...The Aristocrats!
As I type this comment, there are 12 responses already in place. IMO, this is the best thread I can remember on Kevin's blog. Every single one of those 12 responses is some combination of accurate, meaningful, incisive, and/or FUNNY. This is 10,000 percent better than another hopeless issue where SCOTUS and/or The House of Representatives has everything FUBAR.
Looks to be a strip about the width of a parking space. Out of a figure ~23 parking spaces deep at the one end and perhaps 30 deep at the other. So just shy of 4%. That seems noticeable. Opposition is still silly though.
Looking at that screenshot it sure seems like somebody isn't thinking very creatively. Looks like the car entrance to the dog park could be moved to the west side of the dog park from the east side, and the space previously used by the driveway could become more dog park.
In other words, it seems pretty simple in this case to have more dog park AND a bike path. I wonder if the petitioners have noticed that.
Disclaimer: I've never been to this park, nor this bike path, so I have no idea if the idea I'm tossing out here will actually work. Nor do I have a dog.
Or to the other side, but yes.
Dogs chase bicycles. Kind of like how it is probably a bad idea to put a dog park next to a post office parking lot.
I thought LA already did something about the river -- they turned it into a concrete ditch.