-
08/05/2011 6:45:00 PM
Hmmm .... Mr Peak Oil here!
I see Los Angelinos are having breathing problems. Don't worry, I'm going to take care of that for you! In a year or two, the US won't be able to afford fuel on the international market. There will be shortages that nobody 'in charge' will be able to manage.
Why? Because your politicians are evil wrongdoers who keep insisting I don't exist! Ha haha!
What will happen after I take over is your automobile industry will collapse. This almost happened in 2009 but was given a reprieve because the evil politicians stole your money and gave it to their auto-and-freeway friends. Not so next time. Why? Because you are now broke and have nothing left for the politicians to steal!
Without automobiles and easily available fuel the air in Los Angeles will become a lot cleaner. There will also be a lot less carbon in the atmosphere! I am ready to solve all kinds of intractable problems.
Because there will be less fuel, many other things will change. I know a lot of people will be angry with me but being a superhero is not a popularity contest. Angelinos will be stuck for a long time without transit because the automobile racket convinced the politicians that transit was unnecessary. However, millions of unemployed men will eventually be put to work on crash programs tearing up the useless freeways and building new rail systems running on electricity.
At that point the breathing problems will be banished! Of course, there will be other problems but nothing's perfect, right?
Anyway, that is falling a bit off the subject: I'd like to introduce you to my friend,here. If you think I am going to bring big changes for the better in Los Angeles, wait to hear what he has in store ... hello, Mr Peak Water!
-
Czarinaz 06/08/2011 2:21:00 AM
City officials must be taken to task. Within the last four years even new schools were constructed within just a few feet of slow lanes. Obviously, the health of LA's children means very little to those holding the purse strings. Time to leave LA.
-
Kathy 03/17/2010 12:01:00 PM
This could be any city. This is one of the most significant health issues facing our society and we can't even see these fine particles that go deep into our lungs.
The problem is not the developers; it is the people who should be setting policy to deal with pollutants from brake wear and tire dust.
-
Ben 03/14/2010 10:55:00 PM
Wouldn't it be at least helpful to install and regularly replace air filters in each of the units, or the entire building, located near congested roadways?
Besides, the real problem is the amount of vehicles, and the exhaust they spew on the road anyway. This should be used politically as a wake up call to expand mass transit.
-
Clara Kong 03/10/2010 7:49:00 PM
I agree with all those who mention the pros and cons of living in a big and densely populated city as LA, so if those who complain have any choice to improve their "quality" fo life, then do move to somewhere with less people, less car, etc..
Now, why the article keeps mentioning Puerta del Sol, I live in one of the units and when I was given the choice to buy an unit overlooking Freway and another overlooking the really nice courtyard, I bought the later one. There was not one mention on interviews with people who live at Puerta del Sol, and your reporter kept on mentioning it throughout the article, could you ask him to check the facts and use the appropriate building name when writing? There are at least 4 different buildings, just a reminder that in order to report, one needs to be factual and stay away of misinterpretations.
And yes, we are quite happy to be back in town, from blessed years from the suburbs. Its conveniences outweights the hassles. We are next door to a metro station, next to 2 freeway entrances and exits, minutes away from Downtown, Pasadena, Silverlake, Eagle Rock, China Town, Little Tokyo, Korea Town, Glendale. The only think we need is a good Supermarket.
So, next time your reporter decides to write on urban life, how about writing on how previously abandoned industrial inner city neighborhoods are being renewed with people from all walk of life and cultural background, just an idea.
-
anonymous 03/10/2010 7:01:00 AM
Ira, thank God your lungs are doing great. Just as all smokers do not develop cancer, not all people living near freeways will get sick. The article was really about what is the City doing about it. Is there a rational and sane policy from the Planning Department regarding land uses adjacent to freeways. Does our Mayor who controls the Planning Department even care. He lives way inland in Hancock Park. I applaud Mike Woo for bringing a serious issue to the public's attention. Those with the healthy lungs are welcome to live next to the freeways. What about the others who were not even aware of these ill-effects, and may not have the health of people like Ira.
-
Ira 03/09/2010 11:57:00 PM
I've lived on Avenue 20 in Lincoln Heights, right along the 5 freeway, MY ENTIRE LIFE. Yes, natives read the Weekly too. My lungs are in great condition even despite my regular herb sessions. Now, this one here should be filed under that very precise "IF A TREE FALLS AND A HIPSTER HEARS IT" file. People, you live in Los Angeles. One of the most densely populated regions in the country. And most everyone drives. Seriously, what do you expect???
And on a side note, here's something that made me chuckle... "She says these sicknesses started before she moved to Avenue 26"
-
ohplease 03/09/2010 4:17:00 AM
Boo Freaking Hoo. They weren't complaining when to quote the article "the Los Angeles Housing Department provided down payments to buyers to move into Puerta del Sol".
So let me get this straight, you are GIVEN a downpayment and you want to complain.
Fine, move out and let those of us who would APPRECIATE a life changing hand out move in. Four bedroom apartment for free?
How do we sign up???
-
Sunyoung Yang 03/08/2010 11:12:00 PM
Mayor V nor the rest of the city council never challenges developer interests. The city is putting out the age old pro-corporate argument we need jobs and can't worry about public health. When did the health of children become second class to "jobs" or developer's pocket? Let's get real, jobs can be made without compromising our health. If the city really wanted more housing they would convert the empty lots throughout the city for housing and not for commercial development-or do they only exercise eminent domain on parcels of land next to toxic freeways? Even the city's transit oriented development still promotes car use by dedicating the first 3 stories of any housing development for parking while most of these developments are still not affordable to families making below poverty wages. The city's corruption will have lifelong impacts on our health and children if communities don't organize and fight back--we need to strongly pressure and do our own community "lobby" just as developers do to the politicians to get anything changed in this city.
-
anonymous 03/08/2010 6:49:00 AM
The "elegant density" is a fraud perpetrated on the city in order of blame by: The Mayor, his appointed Planning Commission, and his appointed Planning Director. On the City Council side it is Ed Reyes and Garcetti. All benefit with gifts from developers who save/make millions with reduced parking.
-
James 03/08/2010 6:27:00 AM
The increased air toxicity near freeways has been known long before these reports were released and yet schools and new housing has been allowed to be developed in very close proximity to freeways despite - Warnings and guidelines were ignored.
-
Kate 03/08/2010 4:21:00 AM
There are so many contradictory positions taken by the elected officials of Los Angeles. They claim to be "green" but whether intended or not, have acted opposite to what they preach. The push for high-density development is over burdening the infrastructure, ignores the reality of water supply to Los Angeles, and grows the automobile population instead of promoting public transportation.
LAUSD should also be taken to task for going against obvious environmental/public health issues affecting children in building the Helen Bernstein High School right at a 101-freeway overpass and attempting to locate another school near La Mirada and Western Avenue at the entrance of the same freeway.
Where is the leadership from the LAUSD, the City Council, and the Mayor's office? The Mayor after all has been focused on LAUSD for a long time, but allowed the LAUSD to put the health of our youth in danger.
-
rich 03/08/2010 3:37:00 AM
Patrick Range McDonald: The "elegant density" hypocrisy of former City Councilmember and now City Planning Commission member Michael Woo, and current City Councilmembers Ed Reyes and Eric Garcetti is on FULL DISPLAY with the two "smart growth" developments located along Avenue 26 and almost hanging over the I-5 freeway.
Reyes, enabled and urged by Woo and Garcetti's "elegant density" theory, not only tore down industrially-zoned buildings that once stood next to the I-5 at this location, but approved these two massive "low and moderate income" housing projects next to the I-5 with huge reductions in required on-site parking. At every meeting Woo urges the Planning Commission to reduce, reduce, reduce the developer's Code-required parking in order to "force" the residents to use public transit.
Guess what? It does not work. The "elegant density" fraud of Michael Woo, Ed Reyes, and Eric Garcetti is simply a massive give away to developers. The community and the people living in the units are left with the decades of wreckage of these scandalously short-sighted policies of our City's "knowledgeable" planners and "esteemed" City Councilmembers.
Because of the seriously short parking allowed in these two buildings (Tesoro Del Valle and Puerta del Sol), Fay Green's four bedroom family apartment may have only one parking space reserved in the basement. Multiply that times all the 534 apartments and condos at this location and it is no mystery why the once open streets surrounding the complex, immediately adjacent to the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park Gold Line Station, has hundreds of vehicles parked on all of the surrounding streets. Readers should drive by, especially in the evening, when the poor residents are circling and circling the blocks trying to find a street parking space.
So now, in the morning during the height of the peak commute along the I-5 and SR 110 freeways, the residents of Tesoro del Valle and Puerta del Sol, walk around choking in the massive I-5 fume/chemical cloud looking for their cars parked up and down the streets surrounding the two complexes. The nearby single-family neighborhood is also overrun with these cars.
This case study of one complex without similar "elegant density" projects next door offers the best chance for transportation and air pollution academics to study whether the City Council ought to be allowed to continue reducing parking for complexes next to major nodes of the rail or bus system -- especially those constructed in the range of the emissions cloud of the major freeways in Los Angeles, Hollywood, and the West Side.
Ed Reyes, Michael Woo and Eric Garcetti argue that plopping "elegant density" down next to or within 1,500 feet of a rail station/transit bus stop means that people will magically sell their cars and use rail/express bus. Wrong! Totally wrong! Irresponsibly wrong! Criminally wrong! If the very low income and low income families at these two developments on Avenue 26 did not give up their cars to live at a rail station, what are these men smoking that they say with a straight face that luxury apartment and condo dwellers will sell their cars and walk 1,500 feet one way to a subway station or major bus stop? Eric: It will not happen in Hollywood and the parking situation among the folks at these Avenue 26 apartments, who are low-come, proves it. This has been a multi-year strategy of Garcetti and others on Council to give away millions and millions of dollars of profit to the developers that line City Councilmember campaign treasuries. Imagine the dozens of huge complexes Garcetti wants to approve and has approved in Hollywood with grossly reduced parking. Think the parking is bad now? Just wait until "elegant density" is fully unfurled. These men are DESTROYING the quality of life for City residents by eliminating parking requirements and siting massive apartment/condo projects along freeway corridors.
-
zulu1 03/07/2010 9:58:00 PM
The cruel car culture in all of its toxic manifestations is the root of this horrendous assault on human health. Are all the drivers empty headed? They recklessly spew harmful exhaust out of their vehicles with not a thought given to the great suffering they cause with each driving moment.
Signed,
Very Concerned
-
D. Notsonice 03/06/2010 9:20:00 PM
God, you Californios are dense as hell. What did you expect living right next to a major thoroughfare? Fresh air, a lack of particulate monoxide and health benefits?
A two year old could have told you better! Jeez.
-
anonymous 03/06/2010 6:24:00 AM
Can the City of LA and the developers be sued for building next to freeways when they are aware of these hazards?
-
claire 03/06/2010 4:22:00 AM
I been leaving next to the 10 fwy for over 10 yrs and there is always dust in my house!!
-
austin 03/05/2010 10:22:00 PM
Get with the times people, it's not just smog it's called chemtrails, the only thing that will work for this lady is an I.Q air GC gas model. It's a 1200 dollar purifier, trust me I have researched it. If you don't know what chemtrails are you should google them. Later
-
Nando 03/05/2010 8:15:00 PM
An issue such as this one that cuts across demographic and socioeconomic boundaries will be hard ignore. Once again, these L.A. politicos can't relate to the plight of many of those affected since they don't live in the "hot zone". When they see more of their kin being affected by this issue, then they will probably change their tune. I doubt, however, many of them live in the communities aforementioned so don't count on it
-
Tornadoes28 03/05/2010 8:10:00 PM
LA Weakly. Typical poor article that misses the big picture and is not based in reality.
-
Anna 03/05/2010 8:08:00 PM
More evidence for why we need to rip out all the freeways and replace them with rail lines.
-
Guest 03/05/2010 11:10:00 AM
This has been a problem since the 1940s, when freeways cut down the Arroyo and people had their back yards up against them. Then in the 50s the freeways cut across Boyle Heights and East LA and Monterey Park and West Adams, cutting right through residential communities, leaving some houses literally less than 10 feet from the freeway, and 30 feet from moving traffic.
Nobody gave a damn, because it was working class and people of color being affected. Years later, asthma risk seemed to be so much higher for lower income children than others. Adults seemed to develop asthma later in life, too. I've heard a few older residents of East LA and Jefferson, who moved to the nearby suburbs, say "it seems like everyone is getting asthma." One of the reasons is so obvious - extended exposure to pollution from the freeways that cut through their communities (and resulted in community members moving to the burbs oddly enough).
Caltrans should have paid to remove more houses to put in freeways. The freeways needed at least 200 feet of clearance from the nearest residence.
-
Concerned82nd 03/05/2010 7:34:00 AM
Interesting article. I pay $1800/Mo for a 1 bedroom, which is along Franklin Ave here in Hollywood. I know just how Mrs. Green feels about having to wipe the "dust" just 2 days after you cleaned. The illegals blowing the dust around doesn't help the situation either....
-
Jonathan 03/05/2010 6:58:00 AM
Further study is needed before measures stricter than risk warnings are implemented. Too little is known about the actual air quality INSIDE freeway-adjacent buildings, relative to other locations and types of buildings. Apparently, nothing is known about how to build traffic-adjacent building more safely. "Scientists say" no mitigation measures can be effective in reducing exposure, but have tests and comparisons actually been done? Many effective techniques are known in industry for controlling fine particulate infiltration, such as positive pressure buildings and HEPA filters. Why can't these known effective techniques be adapted for use in residential buildings?
-
Asthma sufferer 03/05/2010 6:25:00 AM
Thank you LA Weekly for this excellent article. We can't depend on our "Green" Mayor or our "Green" Planning Director found at every "Green" conference to care about the public's health. With this information about health risks, people can now make informed choices about living next to freeways.
-
Tornadoes28 03/05/2010 4:27:00 AM
Blah, blah, blah
-
UV Res 03/05/2010 4:05:00 AM
As a resident of UCLA’s University Village, I read your article with a lot of concern and a little confusion. (A “hipster feel?” The biggest demo here is “Chinese grandparent.”) Although our unit is closer to Sawtelle than the 405, the dust that collects on our windows is disgusting. While $1300 a month for a 2 bedroom is hard to pass up, when it’s time to have kids, we’re moving. But after your recent exposés on the Santa Monica Airport fumes, the toxic Veterans Administration land, and the rats in Pacific Palisades, I’m wondering: is there any part of the Westside that won’t kill me?
-
not tornadoes28 03/05/2010 3:13:00 AM
The developer calling himself tornadoes28 did not read ALL of the story, which makes it clear that the very close parcels of land are the problem, not land one-half mile away or a mile away. Don't be so hysterical, tornadoes28!
On page 5, the scientist McConnell goes into some detail about how bad the land is RIGHT NEXT to freeways. They mostly studied the land within 528 feet, and the air was abysmal. It was also pretty bad within 984 feet -- and that's right about where a HUGE dropoff in bad air begins.
Got it?? Not a mile. That would be 5,280 feet, Toradoes28. There's not really enough of this land to slow down the millions who are living in urban sprawl. But there is just enough of this filthy land around to make thousands of children very very sick if you put their bedrooms there.
Here's one interesting section of Black Lung Lofts:
As McConnell told the city's planning commission in 2008, when pollution is tested next to Southern California freeways "you see a huge increase in a number of traffic-related pollutants, and it diminishes quite rapidly when you go back to 300 meters" or 984 feet, about two city blocks. The number of asthma cases among children, McConnell explained, tracks the same way — more sick kids near the freeway, more healthy kids farther away."
-
uc grad 03/05/2010 3:08:00 AM
see also: similar damning research studies on effects of children being near freeways incl in schools from UC Irvine dating back to 80s, possibly 70s. ie. lead levels, asthma, illness etc etc ....
-
UC grad 03/05/2010 2:54:00 AM
There are also studies about the lead content in the blood/lungs/bodies of children in L.A./So Cal schools by researchers from UC Irvine (probably dept of Social Ecology) dating back to the 80s and possibly 70s!
-
Tornadoes28 03/05/2010 2:43:00 AM
Buick, try reading ALL of my comment. If you did, you would see that banning development near all of the freeways would only increase urban sprawl. Do you want that? So Cal is laced with freeways. If development was banned near all of them, land prices in the remaining areas would go even higher and force more people to live in Lancaster and Riverside and then commute all the way here.
Got it?
-
Dan 03/05/2010 2:10:00 AM
Move to the Desert!
-
Tornadoes28 03/05/2010 1:05:00 AM
What do they suggest? There are some studies that state even up to within a mile of the freeway is unhealthy. Should the city not allow any new housing within one mile of all freeways? And what happens when a study comes out about the negative health affects of living near a busy street or intersection. Does the LA Weekly really believe that once you pass a 500 foot buffer than you will be OK? Silly.
LA Weekly gives the impression that they are fighting for the people and exposing all the bad stuff but this is a good example of the LA Weekly not really providing anything useful at all.
Martha Arguello and her Physician group apparently don't get it either. Amazing they seem to think it's as simple as banning new housing within 500 feet. The magical 500 foot barrier. And also forgetting the health and environmental affects of urban sprawl is pretty ignorant.
-
Tornadoes28 03/05/2010 1:03:00 AM
What do they suggest? There are some studies that state even up to within a mile of the freeway is unhealthy. Should the city not allow any new housing within one mile of all freeways? And what happens when a study comes out about the negative health affects of living near a busy street or intersection. Does the LA Weekly really believe that once you pass a 500 foot buffer than you will be OK? Silly.
LA Weekly gives the impression that they are fighting for the people and exposing all the bad stuff but this is a good example of the LA Weekly not really providing anything useful at all.
Martha Arguello and her Physician group apparently don't get it either. Amazing they seem to think it's as simple as banning new housing within 500 feet. The magical 500 foot barrier. And also forgetting the health and environmental affects of urban sprawl as guest #3 correctly pointed out.
-
Do hold your breath 03/04/2010 11:49:00 PM
Hey Westwood Sam, also check out the horrific freeway-adjacent setting for the "Rosa Parks" senior development practically floating over the 10 Freeway in West Adams. It's for old folks who will suck in toxins from 280,000 cars daily. Cheered wildly by all the politicians. Curbed LA was so thrilled by this particulate-palace that their post last fall said the Rosa Parks Villas could cause us "wonderment" and "cheer." As below:
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/08/constructionwatch_rosa_parks_villas_rising_off_10_freeway.php
-
Westwood Sam 03/04/2010 11:16:00 PM
6 Words:
Casden
405 adjacent (at Pico)
538 apartment units
-
anon 03/04/2010 9:26:00 AM
"Mayor V. has 12 deputy mayors, 10 financial advisers, eight communication advisers, seven energy-and-environment advisers, six transportation advisers--". Surely, one of these highly paid flunkies could take a leadership role or require that do-nothing Gail Goldberg to address this serious issue.
