So a rare prized possession of the people of Los Angeles, the Exposition Park rose garden, considered "one of the top display gardens in the country," is going to be dug up to make room for a massive parking lot!
And a "more logical--and less expensive--site" in a largely unoccupied area south of the Natural History Museum was "rejected" because traffic might not flow as easily and "because it is a farther walk to the museums!"
Well, doesn't that beat all?
Has it occurred to the members of the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission that they owe it to the people of Los Angeles to find a way to make the traffic flow (isn't that what traffic experts are paid to do?) and that shuttles could be provided to take people to the museums from the "rejected" site?
To destroy one of the city's few oases and deprive more than a million people a year of the beauty, peace and quiet of Exposition Park rose garden-- when another site is available --is a brutal, uncaring solution to the parking problems of the Coliseum and Sports Arena. We accept that there are problems to be alleviated. But why should we accept the worst alternative?