Opinion: An unfulfilled promise of transparency by Mayor Garcetti helps to explain the appeal of Measure S

To the editor: The reporting on the slow-growth Los Angeles ballot initiative Measure S points to the city code’s most fundamental flaw: unhinged bureaucratic complexity. This is a nexus so dense and outdated as to render even the mayor’s legal team semi-paralytic in figuring out how to deliver on a simple promise of transparency. (“L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti has yet to ban private meetings with developers,” Feb. 28)

Whether the result of incapacity or unwillingness, this administrative stagnancy hurts the city, producing fertile ground for shady projects and complicating the progress of good projects.

Measure S is appealing if for no other reason than to force an expedient and creative reevaluation of the city code’s fundamental structure and purpose, a task that is difficult but not beyond the creative and technical capability of Los Angeles.

L.A. needs to lead the nation on land use as a fundamental expression of participatory democracy.

Heidi Alexander, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Measure S is like Donald Trump’s presidential campaign: You don’t like it, it is extreme, but in the end it was successful because there was a gross failure to recognize the populist rejection of the way things were being done in government and people demanded a voice, any voice.

Yes, Measure S may go too far in the short term, but going too far might be what’s needed to send a message to the political establishment of Los Angeles. Pay attention to us.

Mike Post, Winnetka

..

To the editor: If Measure S fails, it would result in more traffic in Los Angeles. Is there any way big developers could be required to spend some of their profits on mitigating traffic in L.A.?

If not, I will vote for Measure S, flaws and all.

Peter Marquard, Northridge

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook