Hd,Ballona Misspeak
One of L.A.’s longest-running soap operas otherwise known as the Playa Vista development appears back on track, thanks to new investors, a restructured financial arrangement and a string of mostly favorable court rulings.
That the project has been mired in the courts for so many months speaks volumes about the tenacity of a small group of so-called environmentalists who clearly aren’t interested in the area being developed and who are invoking the Ballona Wetlands in making their case.
It happens to be a bogus case loaded with half-truths and misrepresentations of an area that, in relative terms, is well suited for office, retail and residential development.
To be sure, Playa Vista’s development has been riddled with missteps. It starts with the city’s overly extravagant package of incentives to Dreamworks SKG as a lure to remain based in Los Angeles. In general, we believe that incentives are an important tool to keeping business in L.A., but the Dreamworks deal with its traffic and infrastructure relief might have given away too much too soon.
None of that, however, should reflect on the fundamental strength of the project itself. The Westside faces significant shortages of housing and office space, and while Playa Vista is not the ultimate answer, clearly it’s a step in the right direction.
Which is why the campaign of environmental misinformation is especially troubling.
The project’s opponents would have us believe that prior to the current development efforts, Playa Vista had been some idyllic glade free of urban congestion and decay. The truth is that the vast majority of land being developed doesn’t fit into the federal government’s definition of a “wetlands” environment.
There was a time, of course, when much more of the area was considered wetlands. But that was at the beginning of the century well before the Ballona Channel, well before Marina del Rey. In fact, the area being developed had not been the site of the Ballona Wetlands, but rather the site of the old Howard Hughes aircraft factory.
Thus, to argue against development on environmental grounds is a little like opposing a new skyscraper for Manhattan because the area was once farmland. When considering development, today’s realities must be considered, not yesterday’s.
Thankfully, the courts have not shown much willingness to bite on these tired arguments against Playa Vista development. There’s no evidence that any federal or state environmental law has been broken, and we suspect there won’t be. It’s time to put this debate to rest.
