Roski seeks relaxing of environmental rules for NFL stadium

Billionaire real-estate developer Ed Roski Jr. met with legislative leaders in Sacramento on Thursday in hopes of relaxing environmental rules holding up his proposed football stadium in Industry, according to legislative and local officials. Full Story
Mike

Hermosa Beach, CA

#1 Sep 6, 2009
High paying jobs? Asking "Do you want another beer with that order of fries, sir?" is *not* a high paying job! And what about all the traffic and pollution caused by this stadium? When the new Dallas Texas stadium opened a few weeks ago (which $1.5 billion to build), people paid $60 per car to park a mile away. Is this really what we need in the southland? Isn't there already enough greed and corruption to go around? LA hasn't had a pro team in almost 20 years, and, last time I looked, everyone seemed OK with that. We actually get to see *more* football games on TV, because local events aren't blacked out. Who in this area has the money to pay $300 (or more) for a pair of mid-level tickets, only to watch the $10 million dollar quarterback throw a pass to the $7 million dollar receiver?
Dont Be Stupid

Downey, CA

#2 Dec 29, 2012
Roski has been outwitted, out played, and out run by the Farmer's Field crowd. They don't stand a snowballs chance on the Sun of getting a NFL team in Los Angeles TV market. Not going to happen.
Majestic MikeC

Riverside, CA

#3 Jan 5, 2013
Dont Be Stupid wrote:
Roski has been outwitted, out played, and out run by the Farmer's Field crowd. They don't stand a snowballs chance on the Sun of getting a NFL team in Los Angeles TV market. Not going to happen.
OMG....are you still there? The racist lives.

Anyway, on your continuing stupidity, no one has moved into Farmers Field or Roski's now have they? And it is important to note that the NFL is not happy at all with the Farmers Field deal. But you were never one to let facts or reality get in the way.
Majestic MikeC

Riverside, CA

#4 Jan 5, 2013
Since I am here and I love to point out how incredibly stupid you are, did you happen to notice that Roski is still on the Forbes list. And in fact has gained wealth?

Now who was that eeediottt who claimed he would fall off? Let me see.....what was that morons screen name?
CEQA sold out for what

La Habra, CA

#5 Jan 5, 2013
Roski got a grand dispensation from the state waiving ceqa requirements to speed the stadium project along in the name of "jobs".

Where is the stadium?

Where are the jobs?

The CEQA process could have, and should have, played out in the way it is designed, with all stakeholders participating.

As we see, no time would have been lost, and the project probably would have been better - assuming it ever gets built.

That the likelihood the project will get built is diminishing proves even more that the ceqa process shouldn't be tossed aside for perceived short term overriding considerations.
Majestic Mike C

Riverside, CA

#6 Jan 6, 2013
CEQA sold out for what wrote:
Roski got a grand dispensation from the state waiving ceqa requirements to speed the stadium project along in the name of "jobs".
Where is the stadium?
Where are the jobs?
The CEQA process could have, and should have, played out in the way it is designed, with all stakeholders participating.
As we see, no time would have been lost, and the project probably would have been better - assuming it ever gets built.
That the likelihood the project will get built is diminishing proves even more that the ceqa process shouldn't be tossed aside for perceived short term overriding considerations.
And you do notice that Gov Brown is now all for limiting the CEQA process. It was clear than and it is clear now that the process only provides an avenue for the killing of growth and progress. CEQA will be curtailed as the law has been abused and will continue to be abused.

I wonder, how could the project have been better? Better for who?

And assuming it does not happen then Industry will fill the 600 acres with warehouses and offices. The same number of vehicle trips for a single Sunday game, but now every day. Is that better for the environment? If it isn't then why wasn't the CEQA process valuable then? There were no objections to that project.
CEQA sold out for what

La Habra, CA

#7 Jan 7, 2013
Brown appears to be for some changes to CEQA not suspending it as was done for the Stadium proposal.

There should have been a widening of the 60, and maybe the 57, Freeway as well as other traffic flow increasing infrastructure as part of the Stadium project.

Who knows what else would have improved if the process were followed.

The point is that Roski got a dispensation on the grounds of saving the time of going through the CEQA process in return for immediate jobs and the Stadium, but nothing has happened.

The same thing is happening with LA Stadium, dispensation but no action.

Since: Jan 13

Chandigarh, India

#8 Jan 7, 2013
Good conversation.... and good work. keep it up!
Majestic Mike C

Riverside, CA

#10 Jan 10, 2013
CEQA sold out for what wrote:
Brown appears to be for some changes to CEQA not suspending it as was done for the Stadium proposal.
There should have been a widening of the 60, and maybe the 57, Freeway as well as other traffic flow increasing infrastructure as part of the Stadium project.
Who knows what else would have improved if the process were followed.
The point is that Roski got a dispensation on the grounds of saving the time of going through the CEQA process in return for immediate jobs and the Stadium, but nothing has happened.
The same thing is happening with LA Stadium, dispensation but no action.
The CEQA process was not suspended for the stadium and it wasn't done to save time.

A complete EIR was done and approved by the City of Industry as required by CEQA. It was also approved by the Cities of Walnut and Diamond Bar. The CEQA process was indeed followed according to the law. The exemption is indeed a legislative process allowed by CEQA.

The fact is that the citizens group of Walnut residents refused to accept a mediated settlement regarding the stadium. Their only goal was to stop the stadium not to minimize the impact of the stadium on the environment. The legislation acted in the best interests of the State as is allowed by CEQA.

And what was holding up the approvals? Items such as bans on billboards beyond the borders of Walnut, lower water rates for Walnut, annexation of Grand Ave through to the 60, new soundproof windows for Walnut citizens, and limiting traffic on Valley and numerous 'projects' that only benefitted folks in Walnut. None of these were done to benefit the environment, but rather to benefit Walnut. So the exemption simply removed that single road block of the citizens group. Everybody else negotiated or settled with Industry.

BTW: You do know there was already a pre-existing project to widen the 60/57 as a result of an earlier proposal to fill the now empty 600 acres with warehouses and offices?
CEQA sold out for what

La Habra, CA

#11 Jan 10, 2013
Majestic Mike C wrote:
<quoted text>

BTW: You do know there was already a pre-existing project to widen the 60/57 as a result of an earlier proposal to fill the now empty 600 acres with warehouses and offices?
Yes, I did.

I know the warehouses had an EIR.

The project changed to the stadium, which significantly altered traffic impacts.

The other side of the coin was that the State Legislature interfered with an ongoing court case to resolve CEQA issues.
If they were as inconsequential and irrelevant as you imply, the legal process would have dispensed with them in time, if not swiftly.

If you look back to the news articles and legislative discussion at the time, the driver of the exemption was to save time to get the jobs and construction activity going, in a dire economy.
Majestic did promise, or imply a promise of a swift start to construction if the dispensation/exemption were granted.

So, as I asked in my first post:

Where are the jobs?

Where is the stadium?

Since three years later, there are neither, what was the time saving benefit of exempting the project for further CEQA review and the benefits of that process?

I think the lesson to be learned here, by the legislators, is don't let perceived short term gains negate appropriate review of projects that will be around for decades if not longer.

Since: Jan 13

Chandigarh, India

#12 Jan 28, 2013
Good conversation......... thanks for providing a useful information.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sacramento Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Skeletal Remains Found Near Isleton (Mar '08) 4 hr stephen 10
Former sheriff john mcginnis is a hypocrite. (Apr '12) 13 hr Sam Toliver 25
Review: Dos Rios Homes Housing Prjct (Apr '10) Fri Grace 17
Sac City Fire Department Urging Public to Get W... Fri KD Grayson 1
Every lawyer is guilty Fri Roger 3
The Corner Coffee Shop: The new NOTHING Thread (Jan '08) Fri sams frijole 6,717
Illegal Immigrants Should be Deported not Rewar... Fri Toaster 2
Sacramento Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Sacramento People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Sacramento News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Sacramento

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:52 am PST