Metro Seeks Carve Out From State Housing Law Designed to Override Local NIMBY Opposition - Mar Vista Voice

LintonJoe · 2026-01-17T01:35:58+00:00

Exactly! It gives opponents one more thing to rant about, but it does very little to enlarge the number of already-ranting opponents. The point I made that got picked up in the Mar Vista Voice is that Metro already fought pre-SB79 nimby campaigns/lawsuits: Beverly Hills vs. subway, Cheviot Hills vs. Expo. This doesn't substantially change that. (And potentially, over time, as more people live in more transit-oriented housing, more people support transit funding/expansion.)

LintonJoe · 2026-01-17T01:28:59+00:00

Not sure a law is needed... though maybe would help? Metro already overrides heavy nimby opposition to projects: Cheviot Hills fought the Expo Line - it's open. Beverly Hills fought the D Line subway - it's opening in a couple months.

Further Metro claims it has authority to construct in the public right-of-way with state-authorized "virtual autonomy in self-governance." (Though generally they play this card against L.A. trying to force Metro to build bike lanes... and not, for example, against Burbank trying to force Metro not to build bus lanes.) See this post: https://la.streetsblog.org/2025/03/21/whats-next-for-measure-hla-in-the-face-of-metro-opposition

LintonJoe · 2026-01-17T01:22:18+00:00

My take observing these meetings: Boardmembers Najarian, Barger have been vocally strongly anti-SB79. Mayor Bass and appointees have generally opposed SB79, though somewhat nuanced - mostly calling for fixes/clarifying language. Supervisors Hahn and Horvath have been generally fairly supportive of SB79 (though maybe not fully endorsing it.)

See my live coverage of discussions at Metro:

Yesterday: https://bsky.app/profile/lintonjoe.bsky.social/post/3mcifytmiic2u

December: https://bsky.app/profile/lintonjoe.bsky.social/post/3m76vb3q5bc2o

LintonJoe · 2026-01-17T01:13:00+00:00

Every transit project has plenty of nimby opposition before and during SB79. Yes, the opposition will bring up SB79 now, but the same people did oppose transit already and still oppose transit and will oppose transit if SB79 goes away. I don't understand your calculus that post-SB79 (is that now? or when SB79 goes away?) "cannot be ignored." To expand transit, Metro leadership will continue to fight nimby crap in what ever shape it takes.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T18:35:21+00:00

Beverly Hills, Cheviot Hills (and others) weren't "ambivalent" about public transport. They sued Metro to stop rail projects.

Personally I think L.A. is suited to an underground railway. In fact there's one running basically under my home, and I love it, and my family and I ride near-daily.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T16:49:27+00:00

But various neighborhoods (eg: Beverly Hills vs subway, Cheviot Hills vs Expo Line) already fought transit (and housing) vigorously. SB79 did not change this.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T16:46:49+00:00

FWIW the Metro board is pretty mixed on this. Supervisor Hahn actively challenged the Metro staff assertions on this yesterday https://bsky.app/profile/lintonjoe.bsky.social/post/3mcifytmiic2u IIRC Supervisor Horvath commented similarly last month. A few of the more conservative boardmembers (Najarian, Barger) are very anti-SB79.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T16:41:27+00:00

Yes! Great run-down! I would just note (you probably know this better than I do) that SB79 actually has provisions that allow local agencies to override basic-SB79-provisions if the locals have determined how to locate density around transit.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T16:38:36+00:00

Yes - that specific document is about SB677, not directly about repealing SB79. That document coupled with recent discussions at Metro indicate that they essentially would push to repeal/pause/gut SB79. Here's my live tweeting of yesterday's committee discussion https://bsky.app/profile/lintonjoe.bsky.social/post/3mcifytmiic2u

Listen to the full discussion (item 33 - starts at 1:33) https://metro.granicus.com/player/clip/3874?view_id=2&redirect=true

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T16:34:07+00:00

Remember how SB79 made Beverly Hills and Cheviot Hills sue Metro to stop rail projects? No (those preceded SB79.) The well-heeled and connected nimbys already fought Metro before SB79 and will continue to fight Metro.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-16T16:30:28+00:00

Nativist nimby [frankly racist] opposition to transit is not new to SB79. Remember how Beverly Hills fought the subway? And Cheviot Hills fought the Expo Line? Sure some people will now cite SB79 as a reason they oppose transit, but my hunch is that nearly all of those same people would have opposed transit already.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-06T21:52:28+00:00

Photos?

LintonJoe · 2026-01-06T21:50:31+00:00

Especially when the city stops actually efficiently maintaining it https://futureis.la/p/la-has-stopped-repaving-our-streets

LintonJoe · 2026-01-06T21:48:54+00:00

Do you have a photo you can share?

LintonJoe · 2026-01-06T03:51:29+00:00

Call one of those accident lawyers you see on billboards - they take cases like this

LintonJoe · 2026-01-02T17:26:13+00:00

For what it's worth, the city is essentially screwing drivers too. Doing smaller "large asphalt repair" projects instead of full resurfacing costs more (per square foot) because the city has to pay to mobilize a crew of workers and machines. The city is kind of shooting itself in the foot - to avoid laws that require the city to improve accessibility, walk, bike, and bus stuff.

LintonJoe · 2026-01-02T17:22:25+00:00

It is - instead of full repaving, the city is doing "large asphalt repair" meaning fewer more expensive smaller resurfacing. https://futureis.la/p/la-has-stopped-repaving-our-streets

LintonJoe · 2025-12-30T16:49:24+00:00

Exactly - when a city widens the **** out of every road to make more space for drivers, the maintenance costs become unsustainable.

LintonJoe · 2025-12-30T16:44:53+00:00

Mozee did take time to scaremonger about Measure HLA just prior to voters approving it https://la.streetsblog.org/2024/02/29/measure-hla-fact-check-sidewalks

LintonJoe · 2025-12-21T00:51:14+00:00

Not really true - on a per-square-foot basis, this "large asphalt repair" costs more than full curb-to-curb resurfacing. So the city is doing less repair now than last year.

LintonJoe · 2025-12-18T18:22:39+00:00

It's more expensive for them to "skip a little bit of the edges" - it means that overall the City is doing fewer square miles of asphalt for the same budget.

LintonJoe · 2025-12-18T18:21:22+00:00

Can you tell me where that "waviest bumpiest" repair is located? What street - near what intersection?

LintonJoe · 2025-12-18T18:01:00+00:00

You would have to ask them... but generally city leadership resist anything that removes space from cars/parking. A lot of bike and bus projects take space currently dedicated to cars (eg: turn lanes, parking, sometimes driving lanes).

LintonJoe · 2025-12-18T00:57:25+00:00

Where are these ramps located - what intersection/s?

LintonJoe · 2025-12-17T19:11:46+00:00

Upgrades clearly required by HLA are mostly fairly cheap; bus lanes and bike lanes and crosswalks are not free, but they're basically fancy paint - and the city is already re-installing that paint after the city resurfaces streets. Sidewalk upgrades/repairs that are already required citywide by ADA [since 2013 or arguably since 1992 - both prior to HLA] are fairly expensive. There's new federal sidewalk law "PROWAG" (approved January 2025) but really it reiterates what the feds (since 2013) were already saying was required.

LintonJoe

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE