By Yotala Oszkay Febres-Cordero

I have said it before but unfortunately, it seems I need to repeat myself: I, Yotala Oszkay Febres-Cordero, am the lead representative in the lawsuit filed by Friends and Families for Move Culver City (FFMCC) against Culver City. No Culver City candidates or elected officials are part of this plaintiff group, nor have any of the candidates or elected officials been involved in the lawsuit whatsoever. Campaign flyers suggesting various candidates sued the City over this matter are peddling blatantly false information.

If you are angry about this lawsuit and its financial cost to the City, you should take issue with me — or with the city for refusing to disclose the safety and environmental impacts of the redesign. I sued because I felt the city was being reckless by removing the bike and pedestrian protections my family depends on daily. Had the city done an environmental impact study, as many recommended, this lawsuit and costs could have been avoided.

Other widely circulating disinformation has suggested that various candidates funded this lawsuit.  There was a community fundraising effort – a GoFundMe page that clearly states that all money raised would “go towards protecting and expanding our bike and bus lanes” and adds that “any extra money left over will be donated to nonprofit org BikeLA.” None of the money raised has ever been used in the lawsuit.

While we were disappointed that the judge ruled against us, I stand by my decision to pursue litigation. I led this legal fight not because I hate Culver City, but because I love it, and want to make it safer and more loving. Clearly this was not a frivolous case. Culver City would not have spent $200,000 hiring the top CEQA lawyer in California to fight a frivolous case.

Culver City is also in jeopardy of losing another approximately $400,000 in “deobligated” grant funds from Metro; some of the initial Move Culver City funding came via a MAT (Metro Active Transportation) grant, and the reduction in the level of protection for active transportation users triggered a potential clawback, which Metro’s board will vote on soon. The language about this potential de-obligation was clearly laid out in the contract that the City Council agreed to and was brought up in public comment.

The Move Culver City project has been controversial enough. In a political atmosphere dominated by mudslinging at the federal level, let us stop muddying the waters with deception and lies.