News of the Arroyo


Title:

Rose Bowl's dichotomies

Subtitle:

Date:

2005-05-20

Summary:

May 20, 2005 - A Pasadena Star News editorial points out the inconsistencies in the planning and environmental documents recently released about the NFL in the Rose Bowl.

Author:

Editorial

Publication:

Pasadena Star News

Content:




Thursday, May 19, 2005 - NOT that we want to encourage already busy, civic-minded residents to take on another task, but it can be instructive to look at the actual documents our political leaders are grappling with rather than just reading news accounts about them.

For instance, while everyone\'s talking about the Pasadena City Council, the National Football League and the Environmental Impact Report on the Rose Bowl, few enough are actually plunging into the EIR itself.

With some trepidation, we did so.

And, very simply, it\'s clear from the get-go that there is a dichotomy between the initial \"Project Objectives\' in the report, which a City Council majority has approved, and the reality of what would happen if pro football came to Pasadena.

According to Exhibit A, Section II, \"the objectives of the Project include: To facilitate long-term economic viability of the Rose Bowl Stadium by attracting a long-term tenant; To provide modern, state-of-the-art amenities to enhance the patron experience and upgrade safety features; To improve traffic and parking conditions in the Arroyo Seco; To preserve the setting and integrity of the Arroyo Seco; To maintain the National Historic Landmark status of the Rose Bowl without impairing the ability to make the improvements necessary for long- term continued use.\'

It doesn\'t take much of a quibbler to note a few of the dichotomies. There already are long- term tenants, considering that the UCLA Bruins just signed a new 20-year contract, not to mention the Tournament of Roses, which built the stadium. The monthly, lucrative swap meet is rather a long-termer, too. Bringing in an NFL team, whether you are for it or not, is not the ideal way to improve traffic in the Arroyo Seco nor its setting and integrity. And most everyone agrees that stadium redesigns at least as proposed so far would automatically negate the Rose Bowl\'s National Register status.

If these are indeed the project goals, we wish that the council had more clearly addressed the problems we would face reaching them during its recent meetings on the subject.

Without wanting to delay matters further, we also wish there were a better explanation of why the Planning Commission was entirely bypassed in the EIR process. It is simply not true, as some are saying, that zoning issues are the sole purview of that commission. Though not strictly true, either, it would be more reasonable to say that EIRs are its sole purview, and yet its members didn\'t even get a glance at the Rose Bowl EIR until the very last minute, with the rest of us.

It\'s a big deal to Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley, this consideration of pro football and the brouhaha that surrounds it. Unfortunately, the Anderson School study showed that the NFL\'s economic impact on Pasadena and the surrounding area wouldn\'t be what we had hoped for. And even its projections may have been overly optimistic, given the full- service restaurants and shops envisioned in a revamped stadium. Whereas quite clearly the environmental impact would be high, and the impact on thousands of locals who use the Arroyo Seco for recreation would be devastating.

Meanwhile, we await the next step, which is to see if the NFL owners, at a meeting early next week in Washington, D.C., vote to keep the Rose Bowl under consideration for a Los Angeles- area team. Given their negotiating skills and abilities to play communities off each other, don\'t hold your breath waiting for a clear signal about whether they want to bring pro football to Pasadena or not.

Url:


Back