MTA Stymied in Vote on New Headquarters

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board was unable to make its first major decision Wednesday when too few board members were eligible to vote on selecting a new headquarters.

Because of conflicts of interest, only eight of 13 members were eligible to vote on what has become a thorny controversy for the MTA: choosing the location and developer for its headquarters building.

It takes at least seven votes to pass a motion before the board, and a vote on whether to continue construction under way at Union Station was 5 to 3.

“We ought to get this decision behind us--it’s unfortunate that it’s dragged on and on and on,” said Supervisor Ed Edelman, vice chairman of the MTA. “It’s not the best way to start a new agency to have this kind of gridlock.”

Under MTA regulations, board members must abstain from voting if they have received more than a $250 campaign contribution from an individual or company competing for any transit contract during the last 12 months. The board includes county supervisors, members of city councils and Mayor Tom Bradley.

Before the county’s two transit agencies merged this spring, forming the MTA, each agency launched plans to build its own building, despite the fact that the organizations planned to combine.

The MTA has spent $12 million so far excavating a parking garage for a transit center at Union Station--a project embarked upon in October, 1991, by the former Southern California Rapid Transit District, which signed an agreement with Catellus Corp.

On Wednesday, MTA board members reached the stalemate when they tried to decide whether to go forward solely with the Union Station project, which would close the door to bids by other developers and real estate owners.

John Fasana, a Duarte city councilman, said he voted against the Union Station Gateway Project because he believes the agency might be able to find a better deal elsewhere in downtown Los Angeles, where office vacancies are soaring.

The MTA board also was unable to muster enough votes to pass a motion by Bradley to open the process to other site owners as well as those who already have competed for the project. Under Bradley’s plan, anyone interested would have two weeks to put together a proposal.

Only Bradley and Los Angeles City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas voted in favor of the mayor’s motion.

The board garnered enough votes to agree upon only one thing: meeting again next week.

But Franklin White, MTA chief executive officer, was optimistic.

“I believe this is nothing more than a one-week delay,” he said.