The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan: An Economic Waste?
By: Pamela Simmonite
The Los Angeles City Council has designed a plan that will use $2 billion to revitalize the Los Angeles River. Does the city of Los Angeles have that much money to spare in order to renew this concrete waterway?
The goal is appealing and councilmember Jose Huizar sees the benefits. “Imagine flying into Los Angeles and looking out the window to see a continuous greenbelt running through the region”, he said. Shelly Backlar, Executive Director of the Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) agrees. “Think of what an amazing site...and what a tremendous resource we have just waiting to be utilized," she said.
The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP) was created by the Los Angeles City Council Ad Hoc River Committee, a clearinghouse for river projects in the city. Councilman Ed Reyes led efforts in 2002 to establish the committee in order to encourage community involvement in river improvements and help organize river-related projects within Los Angeles.
The LARRMP is quite a magnificent plan that has high hopes for the L.A. River. Whether or not these hopes can be achieved is a debatable subject.
A few goals of the plan include:
• Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the river
• Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife
• Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River
Despite the plan’s good-natured goals, are they realistic? When the plan was made public in February, 2007, Steve Hymon of the Los Angeles Times pointed out the problem: “After decades of enduring jokes about the city’s concrete-lined waterway, officials today will release an ambitious master plan for restoring the Los Angeles River, a project that reflects lofty dreams and carries a big price tag.”
Revitalization of the L.A. River has always been somewhat of a fantasy. Environmentalists have worked to improve water quality and educate residents about the river, but nothing seemed to work. The Master Plan is the first organized attempt to deal with this neglected resource that has a possibility of success.
Money completely controls the success of the plan. The Master Plan's estimated $2 billion financial obligation for complete river revitalization is a hefty commitment. Despite 2004's Proposition O which raised $3 million for river protection, a huge amount of money remains to be funded. Where the Los Angeles City Council intends to get the rest of the $2 billion remains to be a mystery.
Lina Chung wrote for UCLA's "Daily Bruin" that, "The LARRMP is an ambitious proposal, yet the project faces its biggest challenge ahead: gathering funding from a city that puts traffic and public transportation at the top of its tax-dollar priorities". Her February 2007 article was titled: “Even a concrete jungle deserves an eco-friendly river".
Money is needed just to get the plan off the ground. Alicia Katano, education director for FoLAR explained that not only must funding be raised to do construction, but also for hiring architects to design the actual construction plans. At this point the Master Plan is more of a vision, not something concrete or ready made.
So where will all of this money come from? Backlar of FoLAR said, "I don’t think that a tax – such as increased sales tax – would be the way to go on this." Well, what is the proposed solution to this monetary need? No one seems to be stepping up to suggest a source for funding. Furthermore, should this problem even be on the city's to-do list giving other pressing needs?
Despite the river’s importance in certain Southern California communities, (It runs through 13 different cities), the importance of its revitalization may not be as crucial as environmentalists say. Although environmental health is important and should be addressed by city governments, should it be funded along with the likes of healthcare and education?
Katano says yes. Specifically, she doesn’t believe that environmental problems should trump medical care or education in terms of importance, but that there should be a healthy balance to the city’s budget distribution.
On the other hand, one person’s crucial project is another’s low priority. Although three substantial parks have been created along the river over the last three years, by funds raised, the plan still has a long way to go. If the city has to spend years trying to locate funding for total river revitalization, will that be wise?
The Master Plan has an estimated time table of 20-50 years. Should the Los Angeles City Council spend time rallying for money for a long-range project that may not even affect all of its citizens?
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa thinks so. In a letter addressed to all Los Angeles citizens, the mayor said: “The adoption of this Plan marks an auspicious moment in our collective effort to revitalize the Los Angeles River. Whether you live in a neighborhood adjacent to the River or in a community 20 miles away, I hope that you will celebrate with us.”
While communities next to the river would definitely be opinionated about the revitalization plan, someone living miles away but still in the city of Los Angeles might not be so happy to see tax money going to funding a park project, an elaborate bike path, or enhancing water quality of the river.
Although organizations such as FoLAR would like to think of the L.A. River as a possible recreation destination for all Angelenos, perhaps the locals are just fine without it in their lives.
Catalina Tapia, 17, may have spoken for that constituency. She said, “I’m fine without the L.A. River in my life. Everyone knows that it’s dirty and really ugly with all of that concrete. I don’t even notice it at all living in L.A. The city shouldn’t waste its time or taxpayer money.”
Whether or not the Master Plan will succeed remains to be seen. It is up to the city, communities, and local residents themselves to rally together if they really want to make it work. As of now, however, the economic obligation that needs to be fulfilled is the main aspect controlling the rise or fall of the L.A. River Revitalization Master Plan.
The goal is appealing and councilmember Jose Huizar sees the benefits. “Imagine flying into Los Angeles and looking out the window to see a continuous greenbelt running through the region”, he said. Shelly Backlar, Executive Director of the Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) agrees. “Think of what an amazing site...and what a tremendous resource we have just waiting to be utilized," she said.
| See just how much potential that you think |
The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP) was created by the Los Angeles City Council Ad Hoc River Committee, a clearinghouse for river projects in the city. Councilman Ed Reyes led efforts in 2002 to establish the committee in order to encourage community involvement in river improvements and help organize river-related projects within Los Angeles.
The LARRMP is quite a magnificent plan that has high hopes for the L.A. River. Whether or not these hopes can be achieved is a debatable subject.
A few goals of the plan include:
• Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the river
• Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife
• Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River
Despite the plan’s good-natured goals, are they realistic? When the plan was made public in February, 2007, Steve Hymon of the Los Angeles Times pointed out the problem: “After decades of enduring jokes about the city’s concrete-lined waterway, officials today will release an ambitious master plan for restoring the Los Angeles River, a project that reflects lofty dreams and carries a big price tag.”
Revitalization of the L.A. River has always been somewhat of a fantasy. Environmentalists have worked to improve water quality and educate residents about the river, but nothing seemed to work. The Master Plan is the first organized attempt to deal with this neglected resource that has a possibility of success.
Money completely controls the success of the plan. The Master Plan's estimated $2 billion financial obligation for complete river revitalization is a hefty commitment. Despite 2004's Proposition O which raised $3 million for river protection, a huge amount of money remains to be funded. Where the Los Angeles City Council intends to get the rest of the $2 billion remains to be a mystery.
Lina Chung wrote for UCLA's "Daily Bruin" that, "The LARRMP is an ambitious proposal, yet the project faces its biggest challenge ahead: gathering funding from a city that puts traffic and public transportation at the top of its tax-dollar priorities". Her February 2007 article was titled: “Even a concrete jungle deserves an eco-friendly river".
Money is needed just to get the plan off the ground. Alicia Katano, education director for FoLAR explained that not only must funding be raised to do construction, but also for hiring architects to design the actual construction plans. At this point the Master Plan is more of a vision, not something concrete or ready made.
So where will all of this money come from? Backlar of FoLAR said, "I don’t think that a tax – such as increased sales tax – would be the way to go on this." Well, what is the proposed solution to this monetary need? No one seems to be stepping up to suggest a source for funding. Furthermore, should this problem even be on the city's to-do list giving other pressing needs?
Despite the river’s importance in certain Southern California communities, (It runs through 13 different cities), the importance of its revitalization may not be as crucial as environmentalists say. Although environmental health is important and should be addressed by city governments, should it be funded along with the likes of healthcare and education?
Katano says yes. Specifically, she doesn’t believe that environmental problems should trump medical care or education in terms of importance, but that there should be a healthy balance to the city’s budget distribution.
On the other hand, one person’s crucial project is another’s low priority. Although three substantial parks have been created along the river over the last three years, by funds raised, the plan still has a long way to go. If the city has to spend years trying to locate funding for total river revitalization, will that be wise?
The Master Plan has an estimated time table of 20-50 years. Should the Los Angeles City Council spend time rallying for money for a long-range project that may not even affect all of its citizens?
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa thinks so. In a letter addressed to all Los Angeles citizens, the mayor said: “The adoption of this Plan marks an auspicious moment in our collective effort to revitalize the Los Angeles River. Whether you live in a neighborhood adjacent to the River or in a community 20 miles away, I hope that you will celebrate with us.”
While communities next to the river would definitely be opinionated about the revitalization plan, someone living miles away but still in the city of Los Angeles might not be so happy to see tax money going to funding a park project, an elaborate bike path, or enhancing water quality of the river.
Although organizations such as FoLAR would like to think of the L.A. River as a possible recreation destination for all Angelenos, perhaps the locals are just fine without it in their lives.
Catalina Tapia, 17, may have spoken for that constituency. She said, “I’m fine without the L.A. River in my life. Everyone knows that it’s dirty and really ugly with all of that concrete. I don’t even notice it at all living in L.A. The city shouldn’t waste its time or taxpayer money.”
Whether or not the Master Plan will succeed remains to be seen. It is up to the city, communities, and local residents themselves to rally together if they really want to make it work. As of now, however, the economic obligation that needs to be fulfilled is the main aspect controlling the rise or fall of the L.A. River Revitalization Master Plan.
g the 
