YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Coliseum's Need for Compromise'

March 13, 1987

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?

The fact is that The Times editorial staff has been tricked by a Raider "flea flicker" and an instant replay would be terribly embarrassing to them.

The fact is that Al Davis and the Raiders removed at least 1,700 seats from the Coliseum before a mutually agreeable plan to replace them has been reached.

Al Davis wants no part in helping fund seats displaced by the luxury suites so he calls for a "flea flicker" to disguise his true intensions. Unfortunately, The Times editorialists fell for this play.

Fortunately, I believe a majority of the Coliseum Commission will protect the greater interest of the taxpayers who own the stadium and the Sports Arena.



First District

Los Angeles

Los Angeles Times Articles