Consultants and City Spending

When Martha Willman of The Times reports on the city’s activities I always believe what she reports because of her outstanding reporting abilities.

When Martha reported in her May 13 article (“L.A. Firm Will Plan ‘Old Town’ ”) that the city is actually going to spend more taxpayer money to hire another consultant to advise it on how to waste taxpayer money on Exchange II, I had to believe it.

What makes the city think it can make a success of Exchange II when Exchange I is such a financial disaster? And why should we spend one dime of taxpayer money to prove that it can’t be done?

The city is even talking about extending the hand-laid brick sidewalks and street! Let me tell you a story about that waste of taxpayer money. . . .

The story is that my good friend, the late John Moulder, did the construction on Maryland as well as widening and renovating Central Avenue, from Lexington to the freeway. He always enjoyed telling his friends that the silly city paid as much for the Maryland job as they did for the Central Avenue job! He also pointed out that the Maryland job created a bottleneck for traffic, whereas the Central Avenue job improved traffic flow. Also, maintenance of Maryland will be considerably higher than for Central.

Personally, when I make a financial blunder I try not to repeat it and I certainly do not hire a consultant to advise me how to repeat my mistake.

Here is an idea free of consultant fees. I realize that the large property on Wilson between Brand and Orange is owned by a developer. Why not lease it back from him and develop it as a miniature park with picnic tables and a miniature golf course? Anything wrong with that? If so, what?

AL HOFFMAN

Glendale