Jim Newton's Op-Ed column begins with a promising, to-the-point headline, one that implies that the interests of the people of Los Angeles are in conflict with developer AEG's. But in his second paragraph Newton writes, "AEG, the developer, has
so successfully courted influence over the years that it's hard to drive a hard bargain."
Why say it so politely? What Newton must actually mean is, "AEG owns Los Angeles; it has paid off so many officials for such a long period of time that there is no one left to defend the city's interests."
Can't anyone actually say it like it is?
After reading Newton's column, I'm more aware of the old adage that you get the best government you can afford.
What makes him write that the proposed football stadium in downtown L.A. will create thousands of jobs (and for how long)? How were most critics "melted away"? Are we going to lose years of possible tax revenue just to make the deal, like we have lost on similar deals?