mark hertsgaard

Independent Journalist & Author


Spielberg’s Other Lost World

The last open space in Los Angeles is about to disappear.

Stand at the ocean end of the property, your back to the Pacific, and
the land stretches out before you in a vast green oblong slightly
larger than New York City’s Central Park. In the distance rise the
smog-obscured skyscrapers of downtown and, behind them, the San
Gabriel Mountains. For thousands of years, the Ballona Creek, once a
vital stream, flowed through this property on its way to the sea.
Today, all that remains is its concrete-encased remnant and some 200
acres of tidal wetlands—the marshes sometimes called the earth’s
kidneys for their role in purifying the water supply.


Over the ridge to the south, jets take off from Los Angeles
International Airport. Yet the Ballona wetlands still attract plenty
of wildlife: monarch butterflies, brown pelicans, snowy egrets, and
even such endangered species as the southwestern willow flycatcher.
These birds have fewer and fewer places to stop as they migrate up and
down the Pacific coast flyway; California has lost 90 percent of its
historic wetlands to buildings, farms, and other human development.

Now, this 1,087-acre oasis of greenery and wildlife is on the verge of
becoming one of the biggest real estate developments in the history of
Los Angeles. Playa Capital, a consortium led by the New York
investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, is
preparing to pave almost two-thirds of the property and construct what
amounts to a fair-size city on the site. Dubbed Playa Vista (Spanish
for beach view), the development will include 13,000 housing units,
5.6 million square feet of commercial and retail space, and 750 hotel

Environmentalists say Playa Vista will not only obliterate one of the
last open spaces in Los Angeles and destroy some of California’s last
remaining wetlands, it also will generate 200,000 extra car trips per
day, worsening the city’s already severe air pollution and condemning
western Los Angeles to permanent gridlock. Activists instead want the
Ballona property turned into a public park and wildlife refuge.

What has most attracted attention to the development is its star
resident: DreamWorks SKG, the entertainment company founded by
Hollywood megamoguls Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David
Geffen. DreamWorks plans to build its new headquarters on some 50
acres at the far inland corner of the Ballona property—and the
company’s commitment is crucial to the project’s success.

Spielberg has a reputation as a politically concerned artist (No one
person has done as much for environmental causes as Steven
[Spielberg], his spokesman told E: The Environmental Magazine in
1998), so local environmentalists have been trying to shame DreamWorks
into backing out of the deal. In August, DreamWorks publicly
threatened to do just that, but not because of any environmental
concern—from the start, the project has been fraught with tortured
financial dealings; nevertheless, in November, Spielberg and his
partners signed an agreement to purchase 47 acres of the property,
although they can still withdraw during the five-month escrow period.

Spielberg, who, through a spokesman, refused repeated requests to be
interviewed for this article, has simply laughed off
environmentalists. When activists—one clad in a frog suit (a gesture
to the wildlife potentially endangered by Playa Vista)—picketed the
1995 press conference where DreamWorks originally announced the
development, the director quipped, I also welcome every frog in L.A.
to please come to Playa Vista. You have a home here, too.

For their part, environmentalists scored a significant legal victory
in June when U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lew ruled that Playa
Capital’s permit to build a water retention basin to compensate for
wetlands lost during construction violated the National Environmental
Policy Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may now have to do an
environmental impact statement, which could take up to two years.
Playa Vista opponents say this throws the entire project into
question, since wetlands restoration is a requirement of the legal
agreements surrounding the project. The corps is appealing the

But builders are going full steam ahead, apparently willing to risk
the possibility that the courts might eventually order them to halt
their work. Already, bulldozers have begun clearing the land. Weather
permitting, the developers plan to begin construction on buildings as
early as this spring. Still, opponents of the project haven’t lost
hope. Even if the construction does commence, they believe court
action or political pressure may yet block its completion.

It seems incredible that any major American city still has the
opportunity to add a huge new park; in most places, urban sprawl
gobbled up all the big expanses of open space long ago. Even visionary
metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco, must struggle to preserve
green space by cobbling together what fragments still remain. Yet Los
Angeles is in a category by itself—a city so entombed in concrete
that even the riverbanks are paved. Los Angeles devotes less land to
parks than do other major American cities—a mere 5 percent, compared
roughly to Boston’s 7 percent and New York’s 14 percent. While Los
Angeles’ Griffith Park is an impressive 4,200 acres, much of that is
steep canyon land.

How has the Ballona property remained (largely) empty of the houses,
highways, and shopping centers that clutter the rest of the Los
Angeles landscape? For decades the land belonged to Howard Hughes, and
as the richest man in America, Hughes didn’t need the profits
development promised. The film and aviation tycoon bought the property
in 1940 and promptly built a factory, where he promised to construct
the largest military transport plane ever made—out of wood. The
infamous Spruce Goose barely got off the ground during its single test
flight; the project went sour after federal officials investigated
Hughes for attempting to bribe Pentagon officials to win the contract
(foreshadowing Hughes’ role in the Watergate scandal 25 years later).

Despite this dubious legacy, it was the Hughes connection that helped
draw Spielberg to the Ballona property. At the 1995 press conference,
held in the very building where Hughes built his plane, Spielberg
explained that creating an entertainment studio from scratch was a
passionate dream for the DreamWorks partners, so there must be some
kind of karmic relevance that we are here in a hangar that Howard
Hughes built to bring his dream to life.

DreamWorks spokesman Andy Spahn calls Playa Vista a win-win for both
the city and the environment. In fact, Playa Vista officials portray
themselves as Ballona’s environmental saviors. They note that, as part
of the reported $7 billion Playa Vista project, they will spend more
than $13 million to restore the property’s wetlands, which have
degenerated from years of neglect. The way I see it, the public is
getting their cake and eating it too, says Playa Vista president
Peter Denniston.

Local politicians share these sunny views. In my prior incarnation as
[a] mayor, I would have sold my family to get a project like this,
California Gov. Pete Wilson has said. DreamWorks, after all, is
building the first new movie studio in Los Angeles in more than 50
years. Playa Vista will generate thousands of new construction jobs
and yield tens of millions in tax revenues. Los Angeles Mayor Richard
Riordan has said bringing DreamWorks to Playa Vista is the biggest
business win that any city has ever had. And the politicians have
shown their gratitude in the most tangible way possible: by opening
the taxpayers’ wallets. The Los Angeles City Council approved
Riordan’s request for $13 million in subsidies for Playa Vista while
Wilson pledged $40 million from state coffers.

The politicians and the developers take the 1950s mentality that
development is what matters and they’ll restore a little bit of the
wetlands while turning most of the area into a housing and shopping
development, says Steve Crandall, the attorney representing Wetlands
Action Network and the California Public Interest Research Group
(CALPIRG), two environmental groups who are fighting Playa Vista. The
1990s mentality should say, Let’s save this thing! If you put
biologists to work, you could restore it into a beautiful flyway. It’s
one of the last open spaces in Los Angeles, and it’s important to the
future of Los Angeles, and even the world, that it be saved.

One recent afternoon, I climbed the bluffs above Playa Vista to get a
bird’s-eye view. Though it was a Saturday, eight earthmovers were hard
at work. Snorting like crazed metallic bulls, they raced back and
forth, carrying load after load of fill dirt to where construction is
slated to begin. The bulldozers have scraped much of the land clean of
vegetation, leaving behind only a smooth surface of naked brown soil.

Nevertheless, Bruce Robertson and Marcia Hanscom, activists with the
Citizens United to Save All of Ballona (CUSAB), a coalition of 86
environmental groups fighting Playa Vista, insist it’s not too late.
You could restore this land if you wanted to, says Robertson, a
private investigator. Until there are buildings on it, this land can
be saved.

Officials at Playa Vista express bewilderment that any genuine
environmentalist would want to stop their project. Playa Vista, they
argue, is a model community for the 21st century—sustainable
development at its best. Robert Miller, Playa Vista’s vice president
of planning and entitlements, says that California’s population growth
must be accommodated. Do we continue with suburban sprawl, and the
pollution, traffic, and other stresses it brings to our society and
environment? Or do we adopt an approach that increases housing
density, emphasizes pedestrians and community living, and reduces the
automobile reliance that now characterizes Southern California? he

Playa Vista is intended to be a self-contained community with its own
stores, theaters, schools, and parks. Rather than climbing into the
car every time they need a quart of milk, residents will walk to many
destinations, reducing pollution while enhancing a sense of
neighborhood. Sixteen acres of wetlands, pending appeals, will be
filled in, concedes Miller, but the proposed freshwater marsh will
more than compensate for those losses. Miller is confident the courts
will agree.

The developers’ own environmental impact study estimates that Playa
Vista will generate 200,000 vehicle trips a day, but Miller says this
isn’t cause for concern. Only 14,000 of those trips will occur during
peak [driving] hours, he says. I’m not going to tell you 14,000
extra trips isn’t significant, but we think we can reduce their impact
through mitigation measures such as increased bus service and an
improved local road system.

On traffic, they have this cockamamy report about how a little
lane-widening and three natural-gas buses for Santa Monica will solve
[the problem], responds California state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los
Angeles), an opponent of Playa Vista. Hayden claims to be one of the
few outsiders who has actually read the Playa Vista environmental
impact report, and he singles out a devastating section that
discusses, in tortuously opaque language, the project’s impact on the
juncture of the San Diego and Santa Monica freeways, the most crowded
freeway intersection in the United States. The report, says Hayden,
dismisses the increased traffic that Playa Vista will generate on the
[San Diego Freeway] because the freeway is projected to be at LOS F
[bureaucratese for gridlocked] with or without the project.

As proof that Playa Vista is environmentally correct, DreamWorks’
Spahn has claimed that 90 percent of the local environmental
community supports the project. But interviews with activists tell a
very different story.

That makes me sick to my stomach, replies Mark Gold, executive
director of Heal the Bay, a widely respected local group, when told
that Playa Vista developers cite him as a supporter. Our organization
has not in any way, shape, or form supported any of the work going on
there. Now Wall Street is coming in, and—let’s be candid—I don’t
think there’s an environmental group in town that feels more
comfortable with them in charge.

Los Angeles environmentalists are, in fact, deeply divided over Playa
Vista. Aside from one organization called Friends of Ballona Wetlands,
almost no local group actively supports the project. The coalition
opposing Playa Vista includes the Sierra Club (the Los Angeles chapter
has 45,000 members), CALPIRG (60,000 members), and the Surfrider
Foundation (25,000 members). But many of the coalition’s most active
groups have much smaller memberships, and conspicuous by their absence
are such mainstream groups as the National Audubon Society, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and even Heal the Bay. Hayden and
the coalition’s Hanscom suggest that these groups shun the coalition
for fear of angering Spielberg and other potential donors—a charge
the groups deny. A more mundane explanation is that many
environmentalists believe the battle against Playa Vista is a lost

They’re fighting to save a garbage dump, and that time and money
could be spent doing more valuable things, declares Richard Epps,
president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Audubon Society.

Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney at NRDC’s Los Angeles office, says,
We’re watching [Playa Vista] very closely. NRDC sees itself getting
involved in phase two, when it’s more clear what the project will be

The problem is, by the time phase two is under way, there could be
some two dozen apartment buildings on the site and it will be too late
to stop the project.

As in so many modern environmental disputes, the Playa Vista
controversy has split activists into two camps: those who refuse to
compromise with the developers and those who believe cooperation can
make a bad situation tolerable. For example, Ruth Lansford, co-founder
and president of Friends of Ballona Wetlands, argues that some
development is inevitable, so activists should work to make it as
environmentally benign as possible. Lansford led the fight in the
1980s to block an even more disruptive real estate project slated for
Ballona. In 1990, Friends settled its lawsuit against the developers
in exchange for restoration of the wetlands as part of a scaled-back
development plan. The Friends retained the right to oppose future
projects that adversely affected the wetlands, but signed away the
right to criticize Playa Vista’s impact on traffic or air pollution.

I think Ruth did want to save all the wetlands, says Hanscom, but
she settled for too little [in 1990]. She became a victim of the
typical developer’s strategy in these kinds of situations: Take the
idealists and turn them into realists, turn the realists into
opportunists, and never talk to the radicals like us.

Lansford contends that today’s Playa Vista is a reasonable compromise,
and says the legal triumph over the marsh that opponents scored last
June was a Pyrrhic victory because it only halted wetlands
restoration, not the larger development. Thanks to these ill-informed
zealots, restoration of the wetlands now must wait, while phase one of
Playa Vista gets built, she says.

That argument presupposes that some development is better than none
and that the sump pond the developer calls a freshwater marsh will
actually work, responds Crandall. But the supposed freshwater marsh
is really, as Judge Lew wrote in his ruling, a retention basin for the
development’s storm and flood water, a concept that one of the
developer’s own biologists has criticized as ‘biologically unsound and

Our problem is not that the June decision wasn’t a victory, he adds,
but that the project might get built before the new environmental
impact study can be completed. I think that’s Playa Capital’s
strategy: Get the houses up and the infrastructure installed as soon
as possible and make the project impractical to reverse.

Every party to the Playa Vista dispute except DreamWorks agrees on one
point: In an ideal world, the Ballona wetlands and the surrounding
area would become a nature preserve and public park. Where the parties
disagree is whether such a scenario is plausible.

In 1975, the California Coastal Commission, the agency charged with
regulating coastal development, recommended that the land be bought
for public use. But in 1991, new commissioners approved phase one of
Playa Vista. Peter Douglas, the commission’s executive director, says
that public purchase of Ballona would be wonderful. But, he adds, it
does not appear likely, despite California’s 1998 budget surplus of
$4.4 billion. Wilson allocated $1.4 billion of that to tax cuts for
citizens even as he vetoed $124 million in environmental spending.

Even Playa Capital’s environmental affairs director, Lisa Weil, does
not dispute that, from an environmental point of view, Ballona would
be better off as open land. In an ideal world, yes, we’d like to
restore it to its original state, says Weil. But is the funding
realistically available? No. (Weil has since left Playa Capital.)

Hayden responds: If [she’s] speaking officially, [she] should call me
and I guarantee we’ll put a bill in to raise the money through the
bond process tomorrow. I mean, come on. They’re destroying [this
land], and their last line of defense is blaming us for not buying it.
But it’s not for sale!

Noting that the California legislature is putting up $230 million to
buy the Headwaters Forest and other areas in Northern California’s
Humboldt County, Hayden argues that the political will exists to buy
valuable ecosystems like the Ballona wetlands. He half-jokingly
suggests that the DreamWorks partners, with their enormous personal
fortunes, could themselves buy the Ballona property for the public.
But in fact, the Playa Vista opponents want the land bought with a
combination of public and private funds, which could include the $53
million in city and state subsidies already on the table for Playa

A key point, says Hayden, is that DreamWorks could still make its home
on the site: I don’t have any problem with a studio going in there.
Something has to go in the old Hughes site. But they don’t need all
those condos in there.

If DreamWorks wanted to turn this situation into a win, they could
lead the campaign to buy that land for the public, says CUSAB’s
Robertson. If Spielberg, Geffen, and Katzenberg put up seed money for
the purchase, and encouraged others in both the private and public
sectors to follow suit, it would happen. And those guys would be
remembered forever in the history of Los Angeles as heroes. .



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Book


By now, almost everyone knows what Edward Snowden did: leak top secret documents revealing that the US government was spying on hundreds of millions of people around the world. But if you want to know why Snowden did it, the way he did it, you need to know the stories of two other men.

The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the very same surveillance ten years before Snowden did and got crushed. The other is The Third Man, a former senior Pentagon official who comes forward in this book for the first time to describe how his superiors repeatedly broke the law to punish Drakeā€”and unwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches.

Pick up your copy at: | Barnes & Noble

About Mark

Independent journalist Mark Hertsgaard is the author of seven books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including Bravehearts: Whistle Blowing in the Age of Snowden; HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth; and A Day in the Life: The Music and Artistry of the Beatles. He has reported from twenty-five countries about politics, culture and the environment for leading outlets, including The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Time, Mother Jones, NPR, the BBC and The Nation, where is the environment correspondent. He lives in San Francisco.