Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The impression I got from travis bickle was that preservationists were somehow FORCING the city to do this, when they really don't have any way to apply such force. The alternatives presented by the city were basically "move it or lose it," so SORD said "well, okay, move it then" and supported the "Sacramento Northern" plan (the relocation of the existing station) and the city picked that plan. That's about the extent of SORD's influence on the decision.
As to whether or not it will actually happen, who can say? It's kind of a weird idea, but it isn't impossible--and a lot of the structural stuff that would have to be done, like interior bracing and putting the building on rollers, are things that would be required for seismic upgrades anyhow. We'll see.
|
The way I remember it was that preservation groups were forcing the city to move the station and use it exclusively as a functioning terminal through the threat of a lawsuit.
This is a common ploy among anti fill-in-the-blank groups. They know that the window of opportunity for every project is limited. If you want to kill a project, you tie it up in the courts, or incessantly appeal, or demand more hearings or any number of other ways to drag a project out without actually having to go on the record of opposing it.
That is what I recalled as happening, preservation groups had threatened to sue and instead of fighting them and potentially losing critical federal/state funding the city capitulated to this extortion and agreed to move the terminal.
wburg has corrected my recollection and I am grateful.
But that is what I meant by forcing the city to move the station. If SORD didn't use it here, they certainly are aware of the tactic as every preservation group with which I have dealt has implied, if not overtly stated, this tool was at their disposal.