In your editorial (March 3), "Coliseum's Need for Compromise," you take a position that a default of contract by the Los Angeles Raiders organization is praiseworthy and that majority rule by the Coliseum Commission is unnecessary.
The editorial staff of The Times is confusing the word "compromise" with "rip-off." In researching the "Coliseum's Need for Compromise" editorial, did the staff discover that the Raiders have been using the Coliseum rent-free for the past five years?
Did the fact that the Raiders have defaulted on at least two sections of the lease agreement dealing with construction of luxury boxes seem unimportant to Times editorialists?
Do those same editorialists truly believe that statements allegedly made by one or two commissioners should be binding on the entire nine members of that body?