No transportation agency is as self-sabotaging as Los Angeles Metro.
On Jan. 22, the Los Angeles Metro Board of Directors voted to oppose SB 677 unless it is radically amended to give Los Angeles County a backdoor out of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). Their justification was explicit. “Tying increased density to proximity to transit projects is what creates the opposition to our projects,” said Executive Officer of Communications Michael Turner. Turner is, in the best case, misguided in his reasoning.
Opposition to transit projects is as old as public transit itself. In the latter 20th century, public transit was constructed to exclude non-white and poor residents from affluent, white neighborhoods. Over time, this concern shifted to the ever-elusive worry over “crime” being delivered via transit. While ‘not in my backyards’ (NIMBYs) still use crime as a rhetorical weapon, today’s cudgel of choice against development is “neighborhood character.”
To believe that TOD is the catalyst for opposition is to forget that the past exists. Complaints about SB 677 and its progenitor bill, SB 79, are no more than a smokescreen for NIMBYs. When opposing TOD, NIMBYs are engaging in a war not only against density but against desegregation. The historical connection is clear: The exclusionary zoning practices that created single-family developments are rooted in the separation of racial minorities from primarily white neighborhoods.
A case study for this behavior is the Bus Rapid Transit project connecting North Hollywood to Pasadena. Approved in 2021, residents along the route, particularly in Burbank and Eagle Rock, have gone so far as to sue LA Metro over procedural concerns to halt the project. Yet, as soon as news of SB 79 – the newest suburban bogeyman – reached Burbank, it became the primary complaint from detractors. Burbank protesters have taken a page right out of the segregationist handbook on swimming pools: “The only way to stop the coming zoning changes is to stop the bus.” If white neighborhoods can’t monopolize the benefits of society, then there ought to be no benefits for anyone.
Insincerity from petitioners was addressed during an LA Metro Board meeting, when Director Janice Hahn stated that much of the opposition to these bills that she received was from homeowners who were not affected by them. This is the case for most petitioners, especially considering that SB 79 only applies to areas within half a mile of a “transit-oriented development stop.”
These detractors cannot be called NIMBYs, for they aren’t opposing development in their own “backyards.” Instead, they are opposed to anyone having good urban environments. We can consider these people BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
If this is the opposition that Turner is referencing, then he’s either incompetent, lying, or believes that this vote means nothing. In the Board’s best-case scenario, Los Angeles County is excluded from SB 79’s effects, the NIMBYs and BANANAs stop complaining about TOD, and then promptly find another ghost to chase.
I have to ask Michael Turner and the LA Metro Board of Directors: What is your agency’s purpose?
If your agency’s only purpose is to spend billions of taxpayer dollars, stay the course. If it is your aim to build a world-class transit network for a world-class city, quit while you’re ahead.
It is in a transit agency’s best interests for density to be high around their services. When proximity to transit is high, people ride it more. When workplaces and storefronts are near transit, people are more likely to use transit to commute and shop. This completely ignores the possible benefits of leasing or developing LA Metro-owned land, which would generate a consistent source of revenue.
With increased farebox recovery rates and land use revenues, it may be possible to reduce the sales tax currently levied on Angelenos, last estimated to be upward of $4 billion for 2026. Instead, the LA Metro Board of Directors would prefer to avoid upsetting BANANAs before considering weaning off sales tax revenue.
When the LA City Council voted to oppose SB 79, Councilmember Nithya Raman spoke out in support of the bill. “The only times that they have met this moment are when Sacramento forces us to do something.” The best part of state mandates, as Raman hinted at, is that the hardest political decisions have already been made.
The most likely result of LA Metro’s opposition to SB 677, however, is for nothing to happen. The bill already exempts Contra Costa County. Were Los Angeles to get an exemption as well, a series of requests from other counties could follow. Sacramento would not jeopardize the integrity of a bill that was so hard fought and passed with such high margins.
In a post-SB 79 planning world, LA Metro should consider expanding its purpose. Where they are currently content to do no more than run buses and trains, they can now take part in land-use decisions. I have argued before that Metrolink should do the same; LA Metro is no different.
However, giving the benefit of the doubt, this could have been a tactical decision by the LA Metro Board of Directors. SB 79 is already law, and it is likely too late to request an amendment as large as exempting the most populous county in the country. Michael Turner’s suggestion to formally oppose the application of SB 79 may be a concession to NIMBYs and BANANAs, but only as lip service. Now that the political work of opposing the policy has been done, the directors who hold other elected positions, such as Mayor Karen Bass, can get to work implementing it in the county.
It is my hope that this is the course LA Metro is following. I call Los Angeles home, and I’ve loved much of the work LA Metro has done recently. This momentary lapse in forward thinking can be excused if it is accompanied by well-reasoned action and cooperation with state mandates.
Featured Image Source: Wikimedia