THIS IS WHAT I KNOW ON THANKSGIVING--Who among us doesn’t remember learning about Thanksgiving in elementary school? In November of 1621, Governor William Bradford organized a feast to celebrate the first successful corn harvest. He extended an invitation to Wampanoag Chief Massasoit and others to join the three-day feast. The menu didn’t include cranberry sauce, Aunt Mary’s Jello mold and stuffing. Maybe not even a 25-lb. turkey. Also, the Pilgrims and their guests weren’t rushing off for Black Friday. 

The Pilgrims probably didn’t even refer to the feast as “Thanksgiving,” but, like many cultures that have celebrated harvest feasts, it’s likely they were thankful just to have survived the challenges before them. 

For most of us, the 2016 Presidential election cycle, its outcome and the anxiety of the unknown that lays ahead have magnified the stresses of daily life such as negotiating endless rush hours and SigAlerts and trying to find street parking while translating parking restrictions. As a yogi, I try to practice daily gratitude.

Focusing on what we do have can go a long way to shift our view when feeling overwhelmed by political posts on Facebook and Twitter or watching the pundits battle it out on CNN. 

As we google Thanksgiving recipes and line up at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s, let’s remember to express gratitude for what we have, whether it’s the Hamilton soundtrack, Runyon Canyon’s reopening or that first glimpse of the Pacific we see as we drive through the awe-inspiring canyons.

I am grateful for the chance to connect with grassroots groups throughout our city. This past weekend, I celebrated with activists committed to protecting the Santa Monica Mountains. The room was filled with people of all ages who volunteer their time and efforts to ensure that current and future generations can enjoy our magnificent terrain, that wildlife will be protected, and that the land will be secured against the threat of development or vineyards that compromise the environment.

This past year, I’ve met so many Angelenos who work together to maintain neighborhood integrity throughout the city, mentoring each other through their battles. Whether we’ve moved here from somewhere else or are native Angelenos, most of us love our city for its possibilities; we love living in a community that embraces people from all over the planet.

I’ve had conversations with friends and colleagues in the weeks since the election. We’ve agreed that we must move forward in unity to protect everything from the environment to equal rights for everyone and not just a few. 

We can only conjecture what life will be like post-Inauguration but let’s remember that change doesn’t only come from the Capitol in Washington D.C. We can create change at the neighborhood, city and state levels. Focus on the issues that fire your passion, whether it’s saving your neighborhood from spot-zoning and mega-projects, helping with the housing crisis and homelessness, keeping our beaches clean, or fighting discrimination against any group that is marginalized by policy or by threats of violence, whether physical or verbal. 

Take some time to reflect not only on the need for gratitude but also on what we can do. As Julien Smith wrote in The Flinch, “You can change the world again, instead of protecting yourself from it.” 

Happy Thanksgiving!

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.)

GELFAND’S WORLD--It's hard writing about Donald Trump because, along with most of you, I find the whole thing depressing. If you are a liberal, Trump represents the dashing of hopes, but even if you are a conservative, there has to be nagging doubt. There has to be the fear that he isn't anything like he has presented himself so far. (Photo above: Bond villain General Orlov from the 007 movie Octopussy.) 

I mean, what's to keep him from reversing himself entirely from the persona he presented on the campaign trail? He certainly has changed positions often, sometimes from one day to the next. You can't even count on his loyalty to those who supported him, since the man has shown no evidence of loyalty to wives, business suppliers, or even his own lawyers. The only thing we can probably count on is that Trump will be loyal to his own economic class, even if that results in ruinous policies such as cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The one thing we can hope for is that the U.S. Senate will act as something of a brake on Trump's less thoughtful, more dangerous proposals. What this comes down to, in practice, is that we need the Senate to continue allowing the filibuster. This will allow the current Democrats to slow down the rush to destruction. In politics, sometimes slowing things down for a while is all it takes to stop them completely.

It's sobering to realize that women's liberties and ethnic harmony are dependent on there being two or three Republican senators who, to consider them in a more honest use of the term conservative, will understand that allegiance to the American ideal requires that they uphold the senate's most misused and least defensible practice. After all, in earlier eras the filibuster was used by southern Democrats to uphold segregation and Jim Crow practices. But the filibuster is fairly old and somewhat celebrated, so it is possible that a few Republicans -- particularly the ones who distanced themselves from Trump -- will defend the existence of the filibuster as a time honored American tradition.

I think it's going to take a while for the people who voted for Trump to realize that he is likely to be a weakling. But that may be the case, because Trump doesn't seem to have the broad base of knowledge or the intellectual strength to carry a serious argument on his own. His numerous lapses and gaffes during the campaign are strong testimony to this disturbing fact. Of course it's possible to be rigid and authoritarian, something that outsiders will see as strength, but that doesn't translate to votes in the legislature. 

Here in California, we had the episode where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called the state legislators girlie men. It might have worked well in a cheap movie, but it got him nowhere with the legislature. In retrospect, it got him a lot of grief. Imagine trying a stunt like that with John McCain in the hope of gaining his vote. School yard bullying is counterproductive at this level of national politics.

The guy who appears to be furthest from reality in the new government is the newly reselected Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan. He wants to get rid of Medicare. We will hear the expression Phase it out, but the meaning is the same. Politically, this provides a direct invitation to people aged 65 or older to think back on how much they enjoyed dealing with insurance companies before they became eligible for that magical Medicare card. I foresee a parade of gramps and grannies, equally divided among Republicans and Democrats, marching hand in hand in opposition.

Ryan is starting Trump's first term about the way that George W. Bush started his second term. You remember how W supported adding a little private sector investment to Social Security? It's not even that terrible an idea when compared to abolishing Medicare. At least with the Social Security gambit, there would have been some chance to develop private capital over a lifetime of investing. Abolishing Medicare just adds the fear of enormous medical expenses to one's life. It's the fear and uncertainty that were felt by the pre-65 cohort during their earning years. I would like to think that Paul Ryan and any Republican who supports him in phasing out Medicare will feel the pain.

One point in regard to the media. It is a truism in screen and television writing that you need a villain to make a drama. Our language has even adopted the term "Bond villain" for somebody who is dramatically, over-the-top-evil. It's not surprising that the pundit class have reflexively glommed onto the latest Bond villain, Steve Bannon. We've even had an anti-Bannon parade here in LA. The guy is deserving of his infamy, but there are worse folks to worry about. Mike Pence is near the top of that list, because Pence really believes what he says. It will be interesting to see how late night television comedians deal with all these Bondian extremists.

There is a growing sense that Donald Trump is a bit overwhelmed with the job he has to do. Some observers claim that he wasn't aware until now that he has to pick a whole new staff for the top of the executive branch of the U.S. government. We can speculate that he simply didn't think about such things before, because he has never been in a position where one would be required to do so. 

This is a problem, but the bigger problem that the rest of us will have to face is that Trump and his closest advisers have been considering hiring staffers and cabinet members who represent adherence to the reactionary Republican ideology rather than looking for people of competence. Let's hope we're wrong on this last point. Discussions about the future of the EPA and who will be placed in charge are not encouraging.

One last point, about which I spoke in my first column about Donald Trump. Trump has presented his claims in the form of superlatives without details. Our military will be so big and so powerful that nobody will dare to challenge us, and our medical care will be great and a lot cheaper. 

Just the other day, Trump repeated that remark about fixing the American healthcare system. It was part of an interview in which he talked about repealing and replacing Obamacare, but it didn't come across as very believable. In fact, it didn't seem like Trump was taking it very seriously, because he added the additional ad hoc promise that the transition from Obamacare to its replacement would be seamless. What we haven't seen is a detailed plan, which is evidence enough that there isn't one.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. You can reach him at [email protected]) 

-cw

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER DEBATE-There's a war going on in the Miracle Mile of Los Angeles between residents. They are divided over what is the best and most effective way to stop unrestricted out-of-scale growth that up until now has had little or no concern for maintaining the intrinsic character and charm of the Miracle Mile neighborhood. 

While there is general agreement among all Miracle Mile residents that some form of residential development restriction must be put into place immediately, that's where any consensus among competing Miracle Mile residents seems to end. 

One faction, organized around those who have been active in the Miracle Mile Residential Association (MMRA) and its President James O'Sullivan and MMRA member Ken Hixon, seems to have made up its mind that a Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) is the only solution capable of controlling development and protecting the historical character of Miracle Mile residences... even though this is clearly not the case. 

What goes unmentioned among these HPOZ supporters is that an HPOZ might be good for those Miracle Mile residents living in rent-stabilized apartments, but that it is over-kill for single family R1 residents who would see their costs for even the most modest maintenance and remodeling (consistent with the restrictions put in place by an HPOZ) double or even triple, when these R1 residences have to conform to even the most modest protracted requirements of the proposed HPOZ. 

In effect, it is as if the R1 residents, through the imposition of a costly HPOZ, are going to be subsidizing the continuance of rent stabilized multi-unit dwellings within the borders of the proposed HPOZ. 

While there are clearly less draconian measures than an HPOZ, like an R1 Variation Zone that has 16 different neighborhood model designs possible to protect the character of different types of neighborhoods without becoming an impossible and prohibitively expensive burden on Miracle Mile residents, the MMRA leadership has up until now been against even considering them. 

If you wonder why, it's because it is thought that none of the sixteen R1 Variations possible for implementation in the Miracle Mile do anything to protect residents in multi-unit smaller rent-stablized apartments that are in abundance in the Miracle Mile. 

Therefore, because of the adversarial interests between Miracle Mile residents living in single family R1 houses and those living in mostly small multi-occupant rent-stabilized buildings, it appears that O'Sullivan, Ken Hixon, and others heading the MMRA leadership, have not been forthcoming with all the necessary facts that would allow all Miracle Mile residents to make informed decisions about what would be best for everyone in the neighborhood. 

In fact, they seem to have actually manipulated the HPOZ process by alleging "facts" to support a proposed HPOZ that are verifiably untrue. 

One such distortion can be seen in this video that claims "80% of the 1351 structures in the proposed Miracle Mile HPOZ are denominated "contributors" to the proposed HPOZ zone and only 20% are not." 

And yet, when you look at the map and identify the specific residences at 5:06 minutes into this YouTube link you can see that they have included in this 80% figure "altered contributor" (yellow) residences that already have radical deviations from their uniquely historical initial architecture – supposedly a substantial prerequisite for an HPOZ. Why is that? 

In fact, the vast majority of the supposed "contributor" (green) structures that they are basing their claim for HPOZ status on are actually significantly "altered contributor" (yellow) denominated properties. 

Furthermore, when you aggregate those structures denominated "altered contributor"(yellow) and those denominated "non-contributor"(black), the claim of commonality for an HPOZ goes completely out the window. The "contributor" structures are, in fact, in the absolute minority. 

Now here's a radical notion: Even at this late date when the HPOZ train seems to have already left the station, might it not still be possible for all residents of the Miracle Mile to come together in harmony as a community and propose a compromise alternative plan to reconcile the reasonable needs of both sides? Isn't it still possible to come up with a plan that addresses all of their concerns, while incorporating all residents’ common concerns for maintaining the quality and scale of this charming community? 

Even historic preservationist Ken Bernstein of the Office of Historic Resources, Department of City Planning, seem to agree in what he has said -- if not in what he has done -- that an HPOZ is not appropriate in certain circumstances that seem to closely approximate the Miracle Mile reality: 

"An HPOZ is also not the right tool for every neighborhood. Sometimes, neighborhoods become interested in achieving HPOZ status largely to stop out-of-scale new development. An HPOZ should not be seen as an "anti-mansionization" tool: other zoning tools may better shape the scale and character of new construction. An HPOZ is best utilized when a neighborhood has a cohesive historic character and community members have reached a consensus that they wish to preserve those historic architectural features." 

Maybe you could give City Councilman David Ryu and Ken Bernstein a call to express your concerns and the fact that you are a voter. 

City Councilman David Ryu

Los Angeles City Hall
200 N. Spring Street, Room 425
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 473-7004

[email protected] 

Ken Bernstein

Office of Historic Resources, Department of City Planning

200 N. Spring Street, Room 559,

Los Angeles, CA 90012Phone (213) 978-1200 Fax (213) 978-0017

(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com. Leonard can be reached at [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

POST ELECTION HIGH-Last Wednesday the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York-based drug-reform nonprofit, held a media conference call meant to celebrate a successful election night. Voters in eight states had legalized cannabis for recreational purposes; in several more states ballot measures cleared the way for marijuana’s medical use. 

In California, where Proposition 64 passed with 56 percent of the electorate, voters had not only legalized marijuana but, in the words of the organization’s California State Director, Lynne Lyman, “eliminated nearly every marijuana violation on the books.” 

As of midnight election night, everything from transporting to selling pot had been decriminalized, reducing not just future convictions but triggering retroactive sentencing reform. 

“Over a million Californians will have the opportunity to have their record cleared reduced and expunged,” Lyman said. “We won this. And we won it in a big way.” 

An undercurrent of worry, however, ran through the celebratory mood, owing to the ascension of Donald Trump in the presidential race and the Republican lock on both houses of Congress and soon, the U.S. Supreme Court. As recently as August, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency affirmed marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug, prohibited for all purposes, including medical need and most research. And no one knows for sure whether the self-described “law and order candidate” who becomes president in January will tolerate state-by-state legalization. 

“I’m very worried about this,” said the DPA’s executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, noting that only a 2013 Justice Department memo stands between federal law enforcement and state marijuana markets. That document “really helped to provide a qualified light for states to proceed with implementation in the states that legalized,” Nadelmann continued. “I don’t think we’re going to have the same green light with the new administration.” 

Even in states where marijuana has been legal several years running, the marijuana economy still occupies a shadowy place in the law enforcement landscape. Thanks to Treasury Department guidance issued in 2014, banks can legally handle money for businesses that truck in cannabis, but only if they collect intelligence on those businesses and file reports on their activities. (Many banks still don’t trust the law, and a credit union for marijuana sellers has been blocked by the Federal Reserve.) The National Labor Relations Board will intervene in labor disputes and protect organizing efforts within the marijuana industry, but only because an advice memorandum in 2013 declared such involvement was appropriate. 

And while the Justice Department, in that 2013 “Cole Memo,” officially agreed to stand down in the face of robust state regulations that keep cannabis out of the hands of minors and prohibit stoned driving, like all the other advice and guidance from the federal government, such tolerance is by no means binding. If future Justice Department officials want to enforce federal law, they can start raiding cannabis shops on January 21, 2017. 

Whether or not they will however, remains a subject of tortured speculation among legal experts, advocates and academics. “Donald Trump has been totally unpredictable on this issue,” Nadelmann said during the conference call. “There was a moment years ago when he said he wanted to legalize all drugs, but he was also heard using drug-war rhetoric in the debates with Hillary Clinton.” 

Trump has also served up various word salads during his raucous campaign, statements that could be interpreted almost infinitely. “In Colorado,” Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly last February, “the book isn’t written on it yet, but there is a lot of difficulty in terms of illness and what’s going on with the brain and the mind and what it’s doing. So, you know, it’s coming out probably over the next year or so. It’s going to come out.” 

It’s also possible that Trump won’t be the one making the decisions. “What’s more important than what Trump says is who the new U.S. Attorney General is, and whether that person will abide by Obama enforcement priorities,” says Hilary Bricken, a cannabis law specialist at Harris Moure in Seattle. Trump’s initial short list did not augur well: New Jersey Governor Christie has promised strict enforcement of federal laws on marijuana; Rudy Giuliani oversaw a tenfold increase in marijuana arrests during his tenure as mayor of New York. 

Another pick, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican, opined at a Senate hearing last April that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”  

Now Christie seems to be out of the running, and Giuliani prefers a position as the nation’s chief diplomat. But if they’re indicators of where Trump’s headed on justice, “we could definitely see a rollback,” Bricken says. “If the Trump administration decides to revive the drug war, we could see increased enforcement in the states that have liberalization. We could start to see more raids and indictments from the DOJ.” 

When that happens, industry momentum will likely stall out. “People will not take the risk. That could stymie all of our democratic experiments.” 

Upending those experiments, however, would no doubt prove to be a recklessly unpopular move. “You now have more than half the states in the country that have some kind of marijuana legalization,” says Sam Kamin, a criminal justice professor at the University of Denver. “That’s a pretty big cadre of states where people have decided that marijuana is not something that should be treated as a criminal matter.” 

There’s also the question of states’ rights, presumably a fundamental conservative tenet. “I’ve written that I don’t believe the federal government can enjoin the states from doing what they’re doing,” Kamin says. “It’s the basic principle of federalism. They can’t make them keep those laws on the books.” 

Nor can the federal government force state law enforcement to go after people for exclusively federal crimes. “The Printz case says that with regard to gun laws,” Kamin says. In Printz v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that states were not required to perform background checks on gun buyers on behalf of the federal government. “The federal government can enforce its own laws, but can’t force the states to enforce on its behalf.” 

Where a new administration could cause trouble, however, is in the realm of regulation. “It could take the form of a lawsuit in federal court arguing that state regulatory rules are pre-empted by federal drug laws.” People worried about that happening after Colorado legalized marijuana in 2012, but it didn’t, Kamin says, “because it’s hard to see how that would serve federal goals.” If a substance is going to be freely available, it’s better to have it taxed and regulated. 

Bricken says she and other lawyers with clients in the marijuana business are paying close attention to the trend in federal law, but they aren’t slowing down in anticipation of a new administration. “If the federal government goes around arresting attorneys, then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. But for us, it’s business as usual until we get some dramatic turnaround.” And even in that event, she says, “I wouldn’t be afraid to take up the fight.”

(Judith Lewis Mernit writes for CapitalandMain.com … where this piece was first posted.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GUEST WORDS-The results of this election have made me think a lot about the Aeneid – an allegory of self-righteousness, subterfuge, vengeance, and loss. The story of Aeneas provides one of the more iconic metaphors of all time -- the Trojan horse. The Greeks, in their imperious haze, allow a gifted wooden horse to sit inside their fortress gates. During the night, Trojans hasten from within its lumber walls and decimate the city. The moral of the story: flashy can be fatal. Our desire to be right and relevant coupled with our false sense of impenetrability can blind us to the deadly dangers lurking within the horse, across the street or on the ballot.

The current situation in the U.S. is heartbreaking and overwhelming. An unstable and insecure man ran to be President. On Tuesday, he won. Now, wanting to win and wanting to be President are two very different things. He either ran believing all he espoused or he said whatever to win. Regardless, there is now a mandate of hate and cleansing blowing in the wind like a starched confederate flag, and this country must shoulder the responsibility for raising it. 

If the President-Elect believes what he espoused on the campaign trail, then we have a Eugenicist waiting in the wings. If he doesn’t, then he will continue to find affirmation via tweets and ”yuge” adulation-intended events while relinquishing the less flashy, but incisive tasks and responsibilities to the very smart and strategic white supremacists, climate deniers and xenophobes that have now been freed from the sidelines and are jockeying for positions in his inner circle and cabinet.

It took only hours for them to pour from his coattails. The recent position announcements of Stephen Bannon and Reince Preibus, the further elevation of Mike Pence, and rumors of Rudy Guiliani, Harold Hamm (Energy Secretary), Byron Ebell (EPA), Newt Gingrich (State Department), and Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor or Defense Secretary), Jan Brewer (Interior Secretary) and Forrest Lucas (Interior Secretary) should scare the bejesus out of us all. And yet, for some, it doesn’t. His campaign resonated, not in spite of what he said, but because of what he said. This election was a backlash on “othering.” Ultimately, this election was about reminding the world who remains first on the list.

So where do we go from here? 

Progressive Pipelines 

Seeds are planted to bear fruit. It takes time, care, focus and planning, but if tended to correctly, a bounty will produce. That bounty will serve many purposes. Our bounty, as progressives, should be school and community college boards, city councils, tax boards, county supervisors, judges, and district attorneys. Races for mayor, governor and state representatives are flashy, but diligently working at the local level can produce the kinds of progressive pipelines that we need. 

For example, District Attorneys and judicial seats may be the least prominent of state and county government, but they can deliver the most passionate and tangible results for institutional change. Together, they are a deadly combination. 48% of state supreme courts are conservative (strong or leaning). They have been responsible for decisions relating to increased voter suppression, increased executions, and decreased education funding. Conservative groups have been working overtime to keep and turn state supreme, appellate and superior courts as red as possible. Yet, if you take a poll, most folks don’t vote that far down on the ballot, don’t know who the judicial candidates are and do not seem to care. 

A recent study revealed that 95% of all elected prosecutors are white and 83% are men. Prosecutorial discretion has a direct impact on how other systems (criminal justice, and education, especially) work, and hard-liners in the DA’s offices have left many communities under siege. Inmate monitoring, police prosecution and accountability and mandatory minimum sentencing are examples of the one-two punches delivered by these two groups. So, start examining the pipelines of these candidates, and the histories of those currently in office. 

Strategic Obstruction 

It’s time to become obstructionists. It sounds aggressive, but this is survival. Conservatives have been good at mapping out lines of attack, and in investing time and money into figuring out where and how to use law and policy to plug liberal holes. The Heartland Institute, ALEC and the Cato Institute are just a few of the many conservative, neoconservative and libertarian think tanks working to ‘right-set’ the trajectory of our country. 

Progressives are good at funding on-the-ground grassroots efforts, but it takes more than just registering voters to change the tides. It takes those efforts in concert with strategic geo-mapping, constitutional law review and good old-fashioned math (counting your votes and your states) to win. It’s time to call in the product placement gurus, the neuroscientists, the policy researchers and the lawyers and shut the door until some viable strategies are born. Say “No” until you have enough votes and law to say “Yes.” At this stage of the game, lives depend on it. 

Education Still Matters 

Education is the great equalizer and it has been slowly dismantled over the past decades. Discontent with unions, changes in tax distribution, and state deficits have denigrated our public education system to something almost unrecognizable. Just look at the election results. Those without a college degree backed the President-Elect 52% - 44%. This is widest gap since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college educated whites backed the President-Elect. When we defund civics classes in the schools, we do more harm than we think. 

Civic participation happens because of educated engagement and a connection to the outcome. Public education has always been ground zero for civic engagement. I support the arts because I took music in the 5^th grade. It’s really as simple as that. It’s time to rethink Proposition 13, streamline the passage from K-12 into the community colleges and address the lack of compatibility between current student curriculum and the trending job markets. We need to get real about the inter-complexities of globalization (automation vs. union jobs), our inherent consumer tendencies (will we pay higher prices?) and how and who we educate. 

After listening to President Obama’s latest press conference, I was infuriated and depressed all over again. Listening to all of the progress that has happened, his unwavering intelligence on the issues, and his cues to Democrats to gear up for 2018 gave me some fire. It also reminded me that the system is bigger, smarter, and more complex than one person. Pernicious self-preservation is the foundation of its design. Obama suffered from being too smart and thoughtful (and black). The President-Elect will suffer from being an outsider and unfocused. Pawns they both are in a weird way – Obama was red meat for the conservative right, and the President-Elect was their Trojan horse. 

And now, the fights for equity, equality and existence are on the line more than ever before.

(Sydney Kamlager is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

TRANSIT TALK--After years of calculating and planning and outreach, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, Westside LA Councilmember Mike Bonin and former Santa Monica Denny Zane reached high with the advocacy of Measure M. And after decades of being told it would "never happen", the Westside/Valley rail line--the Holy Grail of Transit--can become a reality.

Of course, it's remembered by so many how the Expo Line--arguably the seminal effort that made LA County's elected leaders recognize that all of LA County wanted rail alternatives to car commuting and mobility, and not just the San Gabriel Valley with their Gold Line--would "never happen".

So why is the Westside/Valley rail line (call it the Valley/Westside rail line if you live in the San Fernando Valley) the "Holy Grail" of Transit?

Three reasons:  the geographic distance from other connecting rail lines, the cost and the previous lack of political support and cohesion for this project.

1) With Measure M, we can fast-track the Wilshire Subway to reach the 405 freeway and the West Los Angeles VA a decade or more earlier, and upgrade the Orange Line to a rail line, so that the connection between the two east-west lines will occur in a more planned, comprehensive fashion.

The location of this far-west line is what also vexes the Southeast LA County Cities and the South Bay Cities with their own rail lines--they're far away from the central core of Downtown LA, but their regional traffic requires the presence of rail alternatives.

Of interest, though, is that a huge portion of those voting for the measure were from the Westside and Valley. 

One can only hope that the north-south Westside-Valley Subway will be planned and constructed in coordination with the Wilshire/Purple Line Subway.  And for those keeping score on other transit projects, ditto for a Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Line northern extension that will be a subway between the Expo and Purple Lines. 

2) The cost is prohibitive, but that was true for the Wilshire Subway.  After virtually 100 years of talking about it, the subway under Wilshire Blvd. is being built, with political and financial support that is now universal. 

Demands to both Sacramento and Washington for matching funds will almost certainly be ramped up, and a dogfight between Republican Congressional budget hawks and President-Elect Trump will occur over how to pay for $1 trillion in national infrastructure projects. 

For now, it should be remembered that $1 billion in Measure R's plan (the forerunner of Measure M) was dedicated for a Westside/Valley transit project, and it's not hard to conclude that paying for buses and Rapid Bus stations will occur between the Orange Line Busway and the Expo Line, with stops on Sunset and the Getty Center. 

Perhaps a Busway will be built, but that may be too expensive and inflexible--would that reside in the middle of the 405 freeway, and take over the carpool lanes?  Perhaps...but the stations need to be at the destinations residing off the freeway, so that a Rapid Bus line with many new buses (paid for by Measures R and M) might be what we see in the immediate future. 

At this time, however, the concerns of $5-7 billion for a north-south Westside/Valley Subway appear to have gone the direction of the Wilshire Subway: "Yes, it's expensive.  And?" 

3) The political will of a given region overrides all obstacles, or places a given rail project at the back of the line. 

There was never a counterpart to the "Friends4Expo Transit" for a north-south Valley/Westside (Westside/Valley?) transit project.  Of course, there was also no equivalent or counterpart to an Exposition Rail Line Right of Way.  And there was certainly no cohesion between San Fernando Valley and Westside political leaders, or even political cohesion within the Valley. 

And San Fernando Valley leaders are paying the price for not showing courage and vision when they let a rail right of way become a second-rate Orange Line Busway which could have been a first-rate light rail line like what occurred with the Exposition Light Rail Line. 

What to do, what to do?  The conversion of the Orange Line Busway to a light rail, or doing the big dig with a Valley/Westside rail tunnel?  Which should come first?  Can they both be worked on together? 

Similarly, the South Bay Cities, which did not vote in as high numbers for Measure M, are paying the price for not advocating for a South Bay Green Line Extension earlier (they've got their own roadblocks, and hence that region will have to suffer until the right leaders can expedite that project and confront those among them who are blocking it. 

And ditto for the Southeast LA County Cities (Gateway Cities) who still have major freeway projects and a lower priority for any rail projects.   

The regions without the political will suffer the most, but with Latinos and Millennials overwhelmingly voting for Measure M, it's likely the chorus for more rail projects will grow ever louder. 

On a final note, there is yet ANOTHER "holy grail" that has been ignored, and will remain ignored until LAX is connected to Metro's countywide transit system: a direct LAX to Downtown rail line.  

There almost certainly WILL be more individuals noting how Metro spent money and effort to create a cute Bikeway along the Harbor Subdivision rail right of way between Inglewood and the Blue Line and Southeast Downtown LA and Union Station. 

But that, too, is an issue of geography, cost, and (especially!) political will.   

Because the dilemma of HOW, and not IF, we're going to get to these "holy grails" is one we can now enjoy with the passage of Measure M. 

Which is a dilemma that transportation experts have sought for years to confront.  And that is one dilemma that will bring cheers and smiles (and jobs!) for decades to come. 

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties.  He is also a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)