Slanted Playa Vista Coverage
As a long-time subscriber and admirer of the journalistic integrity of the Los Angeles Business Journal, I was disappointed in the article on Playa Vista (“DreamWorks Nightmare”) that appeared in your July 13 issue.
I am particularly troubled because while your reporter virtually ignored much of the information I provided over the course of more than half a dozen conversations, she swallowed the arguments of a private investigator turned self-styled environmentalist hook, line and sinker.
Those voicing their opinions over Playa Vista’s restoration of the Ballona Wetlands can be basically divided into two camps. On one side are true environmentalists such as Ruth Lansford, president of the Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay, and Melanie Ingalls of the Audubon Society. These folks have fought for wetlands preservation for decades. We have worked with these environmentalists and their organizations to meet their concerns and reach an agreement that will produce real gains in habitat.
Unfortunately, your reporter did not contact any of these long-time, independent and respected environmentalists. Instead, she chose to base her entire story on the incredible accusations of one individual, Bruce Robertson, who is representative of the “other camp,” a small but apparently determined band of individuals who oppose the project. These individuals, who were AWOL during the negotiations that produced the historic Ballona Wetlands restoration agreement between Playa Vista and the Friends of the Ballona Wetlands, have popped up at the eleventh hour and thrown up every legal roadblock they can in a quixotic attempt to stop the agreement’s implementation.
Robertson, who is one of their main spokesmen, has no environmental credentials to speak of. In a legal deposition earlier this year, Robertson admitted that he did not know what constituted a wetland except that he considered anything with plants growing in it a wetland. How an effort which to date has done little more than clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits can rate such favorable coverage when the opposing views of respected environmentalists are not even consulted is difficult to understand.
I must also take exception to the statement in the story that environmental concerns were “taken lightly” by the city government or that Playa Vista’s approvals are the result of a “sweetheart deal.” These suggestions are so far-fetched as to be ludicrous. Anyone who has followed the Playa Vista project knows that the first application was put to the City Council more than 15 years ago. Other easily found facts include that the project has obtained permits and approvals from numerous city, county, state, and federal agencies, and that it filed a 20,000-page Environmental Impact Report (more than six feet tall when stacked) which has been validated in two separate Superior Court proceedings. It’s hard to imagine how this magnitude of process is taking something “lightly.”
A little research would have revealed that back in the early 1980s, the original developer’s proposal was rejected by the community and ultimately withdrawn in the late 1980s (a chief opponent of the first plan was none other than then-City Council candidate Ruth Galanter). The next developer undertook an extensive series of community meetings to gather input from all of the surrounding communities and produced a new plan that, after more negotiations and concessions by the developer, earned the endorsement of the Los Angeles City Council.
We are only interested in getting out the facts about Playa Vista, a project that enjoys broad support. I look forward to more balanced reporting in the future.
DAVID A. HERBST
Vice President of Corporate Affairs
Playa Vista LLC
