How many times must history repeat itself before Inglewood residents and business owners pause and ask whether our city’s leadership is truly acting in the best interests of the community?
I write this thoughtfully and without personal animosity, fully aware that Mayor James Butts and the City Council have dedicated supporters. But when a consistent governing pattern results in repeated litigation, controversial reversals, and financial exposure for taxpayers, it becomes a civic obligation to raise concerns.
Some have recently applauded the City for voiding a development agreement approved by the City Council in 2015, describing the outcome as “shrewd legal maneuvering” that may save taxpayers substantial money. Fiscal responsibility should always be welcomed. Still, the path taken to reach this result raises deeper and more troubling questions.
If the City now argues that the agreement was never legally binding or enforceable, residents deserve to know why it was approved in the first place. Were elected officials fully informed? Did the City have the legal authority to enter into the agreement? And if not, why were those deficiencies not identified before commitments were made in the public’s name?
These concerns cannot be separated from the broader context in which major development decisions have been made. Public campaign finance records show that entities affiliated with developer Stan Kroenke have financially supported the campaigns of Mayor Butts and members of the Inglewood City Council.
While campaign contributions are legal, they inevitably raise questions about influence—especially when City Hall repeatedly adopts legal positions that favor powerful developers, only to later reverse course when those positions become costly or untenable.
This is not an abstract concern. In Madison Square Garden v. City of Inglewood, the City advanced aggressive legal theories to justify its actions—arguments that were ultimately rejected by the courts. That case cost the City time, money, and credibility, and it should have served as a warning about the risks of decision-making driven by expediency rather than sound legal grounding.
When agreements are promoted, defended, and then disavowed, residents are left wondering whose interests are truly being served. Businesses lose confidence in the City’s reliability. Taxpayers bear the risk. And public trust erodes.
This is not about accusing anyone of wrongdoing. It is about recognizing that transparency, independence, and accountability matter—especially when millions of dollars and the future of the city are at stake. Leadership should not rely on retroactive legal defenses to correct past decisions. It should ensure that decisions are lawful, clearly explained, and defensible from the outset.
Inglewood deserves governance that places the public interest first, not governance that repeatedly asks residents to accept legal reversals as victories. Until these patterns are openly acknowledged and addressed, history will continue to repeat itself—each time at the expense of the people who call this city home.
Marvin McCoy is a longtime Inglewood resident
2 Comments
What’s this ?
Can it be another incident where those pesky naysayers fears have been proven justified?
Marvin McCoy definitely pulled the thread of what has been an intricately knitted history of falsehoods, cover ups and out and out deceit.
The other critical points he left out as he pointed out that Inglewood residents have paid significantly for the TV News splashes in horrific traffic, poor air quality, loss of community service,….
is that WE HAVE PAID REALLY BIG BUCKS IN LEGAL FEES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DOLLARS have paid really big and yes the traffic cone placement/ removal