Emotions flared at Tuesday’s Inglewood City Council Meeting as the council discussed the latest attempt to move the Inglewood Transit Connector (ITC) project forward. Prior to public discussion of the item, the Council, in typical expedited fashion, bundled consent calendar items 2-10 and approved them in one collective vote before turning to the main agenda item of the day—item DR-1.
Item DR-1, the most debated issue of the day, was a resolution to appoint representatives to the newly-formed Inglewood Climate Resilience District (ICRD) board. This district is tasked with overseeing the development and financing of multiple city initiatives, including the Inglewood Transit Connector (ITC) project. The ITC, a 1.6-mile automated transit system connecting the Metro K Line’s Downtown Inglewood station to the city’s sports and entertainment district, will receive 80% of the projected $250 million the district aims to raise over 30 years, primarily through future tax increment revenues generated by increased property values in the area. The remaining 20% is set to fund affordable housing and transit-oriented housing developments near the ITC stations. The resolution named Mayor Butts, Councilman Eloy Morales, and Roberto Chavez as appointees to the board. However, the public voiced concerns over transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process.
One resident took to the podium during the public comment period, questioning the selection criteria used to appoint the individuals to the newly-formed Inglewood Climate Resilience District (ICRD) board, which will oversee funding and implementation of the ITC. The resident asked, “What was the selection criteria that allowed for Mayor Butts, Councilman Morales, and Mr. Roberto Chavez to be chosen?” The resident and several others called for postponing the vote, requesting that the decision be made through a public forum and that board members be selected by a public vote.
Despite these calls for transparency and more public involvement, other residents expressed their support for the ITC project. “We have come this far, we cannot stop now. We have to move forward,” said one supporter.
Councilman Alex Padilla defended the council’s handling of the ICRD, emphasizing the transparency of the process. “This CRD is not something that’s being taken lightly, and not anything that’s being done without taking transparency and clarity into account. That’s why we have this meeting. We’re being transparent! This isn’t a shamalama, fake left, go right, we’re gonna squeeze this through. We had this on the agenda last week, and it got pulled. There’s no mystery to it. You’re entitled to let us know as your elected officials what your thoughts are on the project, and we take all of that into account. We make our decision based on what we believe is best for the residents, the businesses, and the visitors that are gonna be coming to our community.”
“I can assure you that all of us here are going to study it very closely.”
Eloy Morales | District 3 Councilman
Lifelong Inglewood resident and small business owner Odest Riley also supported the project, emphasizing the personal convenience it would provide. “For me, I work downtown, my office is here, small business… when it’s games going on, it’s crazy. So, if we can get some people on a train, elevated, and I can get home a little faster to see my son, I’d greatly appreciate it.”
Councilman Eloy Morales acknowledged the public’s concerns over transparency, stating that while questions remain, the council is carefully considering all aspects of the project. “We’re going to take into consideration everything. How it impacts our quality of life here, how it impacts our economic development, what value does it actually bring to the residents versus what value it brings to the entertainment district, those are things we all have in mind. So, a lot has been talked about, both in the paper and otherwise, but it’s part of the process, and I can assure you that all of us here are going to study it very closely.”
A representative from the LA/Orange County Building Trades Council also spoke in favor of the project, emphasizing its importance to the local workforce. “We know how important projects like this are when it comes to the decarbonization of transportation. For IBEW electrical workers, we’re currently in a mini recession. We’ve got over 1,000 journeymen and apprentices out of work. That’s 10% of our workforce here in LA County. We have over 400 IBEW members who are here in Inglewood, and we need to push these kinds of projects forward.”
While there was vocal support for the ITC, Councilwoman Gloria Gray stood in strong opposition to DR-1, raising concerns about transparency and community involvement. “If this item was as transparent as you (Mayor) conveyed to the audience, I don’t think you would have people here saying it’s not. It’s a need to have more transparency, that’s obvious. At the meeting last night, there were 3 people out of 50-something people who even heard of ITC. So, there is a need for the community to know. They don’t know that it will take approximately $30 million (per year) to maintain this project. Nobody is saying they don’t care about jobs coming to this city or they don’t care about traffic, but is this the correct project to mitigate the traffic? It should be a full discussion, where the community has input. The points that are important to this community are what the cost would be to the people who live here.”
As the discussion unfolded, Inglewood Today was contacted by members of the public who still have questions regarding the basic language of the staff report, particularly surrounding terms like “tax increment revenue” and “tax increment financing.”
With the ITC project drawing both support and opposition, it raises the question of whether or not the public has been fully convinced that the ITC is the right path forward. This also marks a notable shift in council dynamics, as Councilwoman Gloria Gray was the sole dissenting vote on the ICRD, signaling a divide within the council that hasn’t been seen in quite some time.
