Odd Idea, Bad Timing on L.A. River Scheme : An ambitious development plan needs a reality check

Like a view from the water’s edge, legislation to enhance the L.A. River appears inviting. A measure awaiting Gov. Pete Wilson’s signature would create a regional planning agency whose purpose would be to study and then implement a plan to transform this bleak 50-mile concrete flood-control channel into a vibrant river corridor dotted with businesses, homes and parks. But the Los Angeles River Conservancy Act, like the well-intentioned efforts before it, lacks fundamental components--money and cooperation from others--required to launch and sustain such an effort.

Most disturbing, the legislation has as its centerpiece the construction of a 35-mile futuristic railway that experts say is all but unworkable.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers paved over the riverbed in the 1930s to protect against floods like those that ravaged low-lying areas of Los Angeles years earlier. Over time, as more graffiti has covered its concrete banks, the usually dry river has become an eyesore.

A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) and awaiting the signature of Gov. Pete Wilson would create a 300-mph hour elevated train running from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach Harbor. Eventually, proponents of the plan envision major retail shopping centers adjacent to the rail line. But the railway, reports Times Staff Writer Richard Lee Colvin, has been soundly rejected by three agencies--two local and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In this age of budget austerity, when state and local governments are slashing funds for education, health care, infrastructure and vital services, this proposal does not make sense. And the L.A. River proposal makes even less sense as California reels from the most severe economic downturn since the Depression--particularly when the legislation provides the conservancy with neither budget nor taxing authority.

Downstream cities, such as Downey and Long Beach, are opposing the bill, worried that the conservancy could take away local planning authority and jeopardize existing and future flood-control projects. Unless these localities can be assured this is not a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul strategy, turf battles would quickly undermine the entire effort.

The measure’s mixed-use development plan calls for businesses, residences and parks along the river corridor. Proponents want to completely transform the Los Angeles River corridor, particularly with the high-tech elevated train. The measure includes other such ambitious projects, but again, in a time of fiscal austerity, where’s the reality check?

The long-running, so far unsuccessful effort to develop the Los Angeles River underscores the problems inherent with coordination among several different local agencies that often have competing interests. And the elevated rail line, as one planning official aptly suggested, is ludicrous. As is, the current L.A. River measure is not developed fully enough to merit the governor’s signature.