When Los Angeles County voters approved Proposition A and Proposition C, we did so in good faith, trusting that each measure would fund clearly defined purposes. These funds were not interchangeable, and the promises made to voters matter.
That is why the City of Inglewood’s proposed transfer of Proposition C funds into Proposition A accounts, while advancing the Inglewood Transit Connector, is deeply concerning.1 This proposal is not solely motivated by a desire to expand Senior Citizen transportation programs or bus passes; it arises from the City’s need to meet grant requirements and avoid losing funding. While understandable in context, it raises urgent questions about transparency and fiscal strategy.
It also prompts a larger question: does the City have sufficient liquid cash, independent of state, federal, or local funding, to complete this ambitious wish list of public infrastructure projects? Or does this proposed transfer offer a bird’s-eye view of how funds are being shifted to keep the City afloat?
What’s more, the accompanying staff report was not signed by City Manager Louis Atwell, but by Sr. Assistant City Manager Jose Cortes “in lieu of,” raising further questions about accountability and oversight. Meanwhile, major construction on Crenshaw has stalled, leaving unsafe conditions for pedestrians as large sections of sidewalk are nearly inaccessible — a visible consequence of stretched resources.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on the Inglewood Transit Connector — on planning, engineering, environmental review, and consultants — yet not a single foot of track has been laid. What began as a $600–700 million project has grown to over $2 billion, with little clarity about ultimate financing. Framing the proposed transfer as routine does not address voter expectations.
The planned Inglewood people mover is an outrageously expensive, $2-billion boondoggle that will travel only 1.6 miles with just three stations. Who besides the developers, advisors and consultants stand to benefit? Not the people of Inglewood.
Letters to the Editor: Rep. Maxine Waters on why she wants to cut federal funding for Inglewood’s people mover
Local outlets like 2UrbanGirls have been vital in keeping the community informed, reporting on costs and funding decisions, and providing a platform for residents to voice concerns and organize. Congresswoman Maxine Waters has also questioned the project’s value, noting it prioritizes stadium traffic over daily transit needs and suggesting more affordable alternatives, like enhanced bus service.
Transportation funding depends on public trust. Inglewood and Metro should pause and provide clear explanations, draw firm lines around voter-approved purposes, and fully disclose how the Inglewood Transit Connector would be financed. This is a call to action — for officials to lead with transparency and for residents to remain engaged. Public funds belong to the public, and accountability is non-negotiable.
Marvin McCoy
- Staff report recommending the Mayor and Council Members adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Operating Budget to authorize the transfer of $2,143,036.11 from City’s Metro Local Return Funds Proposition C (062) to Proposition A (061) to support the Senior Transportation and the MTA Bus Pass Subsidy Programs to ensure timely use of funds and prevent potential lapsing of Proposition A funds https://www.cityofinglewood.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/20170?fileID=27371 ↩︎
