Dear Culver City: Facts, Transparency, and Public Trust

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was submitted by a source unaffiliated with Culver Crescent and should not be interpreted as reflecting or confirming the opinion of The Crescent or its writers. Click here to view the full Dear Culver City disclaimer.

By David Hayen, Esq.

Dr. Jeanne Black's recent opinion piece asks readers to "care about facts." On that point, we wholeheartedly agree.

However, facts deserve to be presented completely, accurately, and in context. Public policy should be guided not by selective facts or competing narratives, but by transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation.

No one questions the importance of improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. Residents along Overland Avenue support safer streets, accessible sidewalks, and thoughtful transportation planning. The real issue has never been whether safety matters. The issue is whether this particular project has been planned, presented, and advanced in a manner that fully informs the public and appropriately balances the needs of everyone who depends on Overland Avenue.

Dr. Black characterizes community concerns as "misinformation" and "exaggeration." Yet thousands of residents have signed petitions, attended City Council meetings, submitted written comments, and voiced concerns regarding traffic circulation, accessibility, parking, emergency response, neighborhood impacts, and the long-term consequences of redesigning one of Culver City's busiest transportation corridors.

These concerns should not be dismissed simply because they differ from the views of project supporters.

The existence of public meetings over many years does not, by itself, establish meaningful public participation. Many residents who live and work along Overland have consistently stated that they did not understand the project's full scope or impacts until after key funding decisions had already been made. 

Public engagement is meaningful only when residents receive complete and accurate information before critical decisions are reached. As recent events have demonstrated, even in 2026, many residents and businesses along the Overland Corridor remained unaware of the Better Overland Project and its negative impact on their homes, businesses, and daily lives. 

Dr. Black also suggests that the project was never halted because of community opposition. Regardless of terminology, the original project did not proceed as proposed. Following significant public opposition, the City was unsuccessful in obtaining construction funding, and the project was subsequently restructured into smaller phases under a different name.

That sequence of events is an important part of the project's history.

The discussion likewise extends beyond the number of parking spaces proposed for removal in a single phase. Residents are concerned about cumulative impacts on neighborhood accessibility, visitor parking, caregiver access, deliveries, local businesses, churches, and emergency services. 

These are practical, everyday issues affecting people who rely on Overland Avenue for work, school, medical appointments, shopping, and access to their homes.

Equally important are accessibility concerns. Curb access is not merely a convenience; it is a fundamental necessity for residents, particularly seniors, individuals with disabilities, families with young children, and those who rely on caregivers or medical transportation.

It also facilitates deliveries, emergency response, and other essential services. For properties without alley access, these impacts are even more pronounced. Any proposal that substantially restricts or eliminates direct curb access warrants thorough evaluation to ensure that it does not adversely affect accessibility, public safety, emergency response, or the daily lives of residents.

Residents have also expressed legitimate concerns regarding the placement of a new pedestrian signal immediately adjacent to residential bedroom windows. Questions regarding noise, nighttime lighting, and quality of life are appropriate matters for public discussion and environmental review.

Likewise, concerns regarding congestion, emergency response times, and traffic circulation on one of Culver City's principal arterial streets warrant objective analysis before permanent changes are implemented.

Perhaps most notably absent from Dr. Black's article is any discussion of transparency surrounding the project's grant applications and supporting documentation. Residents continue to ask whether grant applications, traffic studies, parking analyses, and public outreach materials accurately represented both the project and the level of community support. These are legitimate questions involving public accountability and deserve complete and transparent answers. 

This debate is not about choosing between motorists and bicyclists. It is not about resisting progress or opposing safer streets. It is about ensuring that public infrastructure projects are based upon complete information, sound planning, and genuine community engagement. 

Good government does not ask residents to simply trust the process. It earns that trust through openness, honesty, and accountability. When thousands of residents, business owners, seniors, caregivers, and community organizations raise substantial concerns, those concerns deserve thoughtful consideration rather than characterization as misinformation. 

Overland Avenue is one of Culver City's most important transportation corridors. Decisions affecting its future should reflect not only engineering objectives and policy goals, but also the daily realities experienced by the people who live, work, worship, and operate businesses along its route. 

Before permanent and costly changes are made, the City should fully disclose the analyses supporting the project, carefully evaluate reasonable alternatives, and ensure that all legal, environmental, accessibility, safety, and economic considerations have been thoroughly addressed. Transparency is not an obstacle to good government. It is its foundation.

The residents of Culver City deserve nothing less.

David Hayen, Esq. is a civil litigation lawyer, arbitrator, and mediator who has been a Culver City resident for more than 30 years.