They’re Striking Back at Dodger Plan

T.J. Simers is asking why no one is blaming me [“No One Takes Giant Leap for Fan-Kind,” April 20]. Well, I am asking why no one is criticizing him for so blatantly advocating a new stadium in Chavez Ravine. After all, who is Simers to claim the chances of a team moving to the Coliseum are “none” and that Dodger Stadium is the “people’s choice”? Since when did he become the spokesman for the residents of the city?

Here you have a community in South-Central Los Angeles that clearly wants an NFL team at the Coliseum, and a community in Elysian Park that clearly does not want a new stadium. I question Simers’ motivation for neglecting the will of both communities and all but anointing the NFL as the all-powerful entity.

Peter O’Malley has said that he wants football back in the city. Isn’t South-Central part of this city? According to Simers, the NFL doesn’t like the neighborhood. Take a guess at what they meant by that. You see, our issues are more complex than simply allowing someone to develop his land in order to increase its value. We have to look at the impact developments have on other sectors of the city. That’s our responsibility.

We have said all along Los Angeles is a leader because we look at the whole picture. Our residents have ranked getting an NFL team in Los Angeles as the 13th-highest priority (L.A. Times, Feb. 22). The NFL thinks they sent Ken Behring and the Seattle Seahawks packing. Guess again.

We may be in the fifth inning right now and up against a machine that includes the Dodgers, the NFL, and now the L.A. Times, but I should remind people, there is still a lot of game left and we’ve seen the Dodgers blow bigger leads than this.

MIKE HERNANDEZ

L.A. City Council,

First District

*

We strongly disagree with two presumably critical elements in the analysis by Mr. Simers of the Coliseum and its role in the return of professional football to Los Angeles.

First, as to the cost, a totally new stadium within the wall of the Coliseum will be much less expensive than building a new facility elsewhere. Architects HOK (who were actually hired by the Coliseum Commission and not by the ad hoc committee as the article suggested) commented only on the likely range of hard construction costs of a state-of-the-art venue. We already possess and can immediately utilize the land, freeway access, parking, utilities and infrastructure; other potential developments would have to buy and build these. When the real negotiations commence, we are confident that economics will be the deciding factor.

And as for our neighborhood, those who actually live, work and/or visit here know that it is safe, user friendly, ideally located and eager for more football. No area is completely insulated from crime today, but the actual statistics show that Exposition Park compares very favorably both with other parts of Los Angeles and other NFL locations. Indeed, our neighbors, including USC, are one of our strengths. For USC football games we have little or no crime. If there is a problem, it is the perception others get from stories told by those who should know better.

PATRICK T. LYNCH

General Manager,

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

and Sports Arena

*

Simers ridicules a study commissioned by the mayor’s Ad Hoc Sports Franchise Committee, saying “surprise, surprise,” the architectural firm hired to do the study came up with the conclusion the committee wanted to hear--that the Coliseum is a viable venue for NFL football.

Why, then, is he so unquestioning about Catellus Development Corp.’s study for Dodger owner Peter O’Malley? O’Malley hired this downtown-connected, mega-development agency to tell him whether a new NFL stadium in Chavez Ravine is feasible. Guess who gets the contract to build it if the feasibility study says yes? Catellus. Conflict of interest? Simers doesn’t think it’s a question worth asking.

NAOMI GOFFMAN

Silver Lake

*

The position of the surrounding communities of Dodger Stadium is “No Second Stadium.”

It is insulting how invisible Mexican-American history becomes when it relates to Dodger Stadium, which was built on foundations of our homes. We lost three neighborhoods, not just Chavez Ravine. Are we really expected to bend over to pave the way for a second stadium? Over our dead bodies.

It is a matter of public record that the problems being discussed are a direct result of the O’Malleys’ neglect to address them for more than 35 years. There have been absolutely no discussions involving mitigation for a second stadium. Additionally, Peter O’Malley has met only twice with NODS (Neighbors of Dodger Stadium), a coalition of concerned citizens and representatives of several community groups opposing the construction of a second stadium.

You provided free advertising for O’Malley’s myopic view of what our city needs. His arrogance is a clear indication of how out of touch he is. Our children need leaders that have their future in mind, not people who are motivated by selfishness and greed.

Lastly, we want to rebuild the inner city so all will benefit. We will not achieve that goal by making developers and Peter O’Malley richer by pouring our tax dollars into their dubious projects.

VIRGINIA PINEDO-BYE

Los Angeles

*

Regarding the NFL’s tepid interest in locating a team in Los Angeles, I have only one response:

Goooooooooooooaaaalll!

RICHARD MURPHY

Whittier