Los Angeles Times: PSL Candidate Carlos Alvarez on transportation issues

Published: February 16, 2009

With the March 3 primary election drawing near, The Times asked candidates for Los Angeles mayor to respond to questions about key issues facing the nation’s second-largest city. Here are the responses from candidate Carlos Alvarez:

1) What concrete proposals would you pursue to reduce traffic congestion in Los Angeles?

Transportation in Los Angeles must change drastically in the next 10 years if we want our children to inherit a livable and safe environment. My campaign for the Party for Socialism and Liberation ( www.votepsl.org) believes that mass transit must be vastly expanded and emissions lowered. We need more hybrid buses, more subway lines going into working-class communities, and expanded access to Metrolink.

These services should be made free for all travelers, and the mayor’s office should launch a far-reaching educational campaign to encourage ridership. Access to public transportation should be a right, especially for low-income people.

As mayor, I would work to subsidize these projects by heavily penalizing polluting corporations, who rake in huge profits while we choke on smog. I would also direct money away from private developers and the police budget to help with this.

Using these funds, thousands of union jobs could be created to build more subway lines, more buses, and to ensure the safe operation of the expanded transit system.

My campaign strongly favors environmental justice and fights for a socialist society organized to be sustainable for everyone. Working people should benefit from the wealth they create.

2) Do you favor building a Subway to the Sea? What would be your preferred route?

My campaign is for the expansion of all forms of mass transit, including a Subway to the Sea. We need a Subway to the Sea, but we also need subways to East Los Angeles, South Los Angeles, San Pedro and all working-class areas. Building these lines should be prioritized in terms of travel and recreation needs for these communities, not based on making profits for the tourist industry.

These subway lines absolutely should not be used to gentrify neighborhoods and kick out low-income residents or people of color. This is how the current mayor and City Council view transit expansion — as a giveaway to their friends, the greedy capitalist developers. My campaign supports the right of working people to get to and from work and school free of charge.

A Subway to the Sea could traverse numerous acceptable routes; I believe Wilshire Boulevard makes the most sense. It is accessible and centrally located.

3) Do you favor making more Los Angeles streets flow one way? Do you favor putting toll lanes in place of freeway lanes?

My campaign supports reorganizing Los Angeles so that it will be more eco-friendly, safe, and livable for all, especially working and poor people. Making more L.A. streets flow one way is feasible and could lessen traffic; therefore, I support it.

As mayor, I would also convene an emergency task force on sustainable transportation alternatives to study other road proposals and to come up with solutions that benefit everyone. The voices of people who work, live, and go to school in Los Angeles, including undocumented immigrants, should be heard.

I do not, however, support toll lanes. No one should have to pay to use a road. Tolls penalize poor people by treating them as equal to the rich. Freeways should be maintained by creating more union jobs to ensure the quality and safety of each roadway.

4) What approach would you use to evaluate real estate development projects in the city? Is there any project that should not have been approved over the past decade?

People should be prioritized over corporate profits and unchecked development. This is my campaign’s central point. And this is how I would evaluate real estate development projects.

We have seen numerous development projects that should not have been approved. The $3-billion Grand Avenue boondoggle is still bleeding the city of needed funds. The $2-billion L.A. Live project is another. The racist gentrification projects in downtown and Boyle Heights should never have made it through. But this is the way the city has operated on Mayor Villaraigosa’s watch. His goals have always been to further enrich capitalist banks and corporations, while sticking it to working-class people.

The people of Los Angeles need more affordable housing, more hospitals, more schools and more community centers in working-class and poor areas — not more high-end residences, lofts, corporate offices and commercial buildings for the rich. As we face an unprecedented budget crisis in L.A., we cannot afford business as usual. The failures of the current system are so apparent and need to be addressed.

As mayor, I would only support development that meets people’s needs. This is what socialism is all about.

5) Would you favor tougher restrictions against billboard advertising like those in Santa Monica and Beverly Hills?

Right now, billboard advertising can only be paid for by rich corporations who want the rest of us to buy their products and services. None are for the benefit of working-class people. My campaign is firmly against the exclusive use of billboards for high-dollar commercial ads.

As mayor, I would push to have 50% of all billboards in the city of L.A. set aside for use by community groups and neighborhood councils free of charge. These would be used to promote economic justice, to point out racist abuses by the Los Angeles Police Department, to highlight people’s campaigns for housing, better education, and immigrant rights, and so much more.

The Santa Monica and Beverly Hills restrictions are understandable. People do not want to be inundated with corporate advertising at each street corner. But if instead of billboards featuring paid ads, community-oriented and educational information marked L.A.’s skyline, such restrictions would be unnecessary.