Bruabf

wikipedia rocks

Expo Line

My main editing is on the LACMTA Expo Line page

Here are my comments on the current state (formerly on CheviotLA's talk page):

I think after a few missteps on both sides we are starting to get the hang of working on a common summary of a contentious issue. I dont necessarily agree that the page as a whole is well written. As it is currently it is severely biased towards the right of way route. The section on the Venice Sepulveda route is almost comical. There is not even a description of the route, simply a series of arguments about why it is bad. I dont know enough about it to contribute, but I will try to find someone to help balance this section.

As KerryLA pointed out we are neither Cheviot residents or affiliated with any homeowner group. But we have been appalled at the scoping meetings by MTAs dismissal of any option other than putting the rail at grade through a residential neighborhood. This at least is one forum where we can make sure that all options are clearly elaborated. So we will continue to work towards that end.

I dont agree with your argument about environmental justice. It was a bad idea for MTA to build rails at grade on the blue and gold lines. It would be bad for expo. And it would be bad for all the lines that follow. Sooner or later it has to stop - at grade lines are simply a mistake anywhere that there are people or cars. Its not justice to ruin everyone's environment. Bruabf 05:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

the Goodman stuff

Bruabf, why did you delete my edits? I thought we had agreed that we wouldn't delete relevant edits. Currently the Phase 1 opposition, as well as the protests to CPUC, is basically Damien Goodmon's campaign and work. Therefore, it is quite relevant and that's why it was included, along with the description of the other Phase 1 and Phase 2 groups. Note that your reference to the LA Times article as well as the protests for grade separation were kept. Cheviotla (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheviotla: OK maybe you have some insider knowledge of this that I am not privy to - but I dont see any evidence that Goodmon is some sort of mastermind behind the opposition. It seems much more likely that many people dont like the idea of at-grade crossings (I sure dont) and decided to protest. Whatever the truth is - you need to stick to the facts as far as the can be documented. None of your stuff rises to that level. It is all just innuendo. If you want to document the Goodman stuff fine - make a section about him - but dont delete MY edits which simply document that several groups are making the same argument. Bruabf (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I put a reference to his "Open letter to the transit advocates" and removed the tags as a result. It shows who is behind the "Citizen's campaign to fix the Expo Line." Also, I reworded your opposition section to make it more neutral. As it was also pointed out by Alika, it didn't sound impartial as it was originally written. Cheviotla (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My stuff is not balanced? You should read what you write. "his misleading campaign has gained popularity" What part is misleading? How do you know it gained popularity - did you conduct a poll? Where is your evidence of fliers, or that they had any effect? Actually this whole section serves no purpose. People have real concerns that are not due to Goodmon - it is not a big conspiracy of irrational people. Is it irrational to be concerned about a new risk to the students (probably less of a danger than drive by shootings)? No it would be irrational not to be concerned. Especially when the only argument against safety is that it costs too much. Also I deleted the stuff about the USC professor. A wiki page is not your forum for bashing people you disagree with. Here is a rule of thumb, if their name hasnt come up yet on this page, then they are not important enough for you to discredit here. Bruabf (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)