Dear Editor,
Jeanne T. Black asserts, in her July 1, 2026, letter, that those of us who oppose the changes to Overland are being misled by “fear tactics.” She may as well be calling us “stupid.” Jeanne—rest assured that the opponents to the Overland project are not being misled and are certainly not stupid. We see the abject failure of the current infrastructure to draw utilization and do not want our illustrious council to do further harm to our city. In short, we are not stupid. Please stop treating us that way.
I am a fairly avid cyclist (right now logging about 10 miles a day while I recover from an arm injury). I regularly use the Culver path, the Washington path (east of downtown), the creek path (both toward downtown and the beach), and lots of side streets in Culver City, the Marina, and Los Angeles. I mostly ride between about 5pm and 7:30pm (rush hour) on some of the busiest streets in Culver City and the surrounding area. During these rides, I can count the number of cyclists and buses I see (both going my direction and in the opposite direction) on less than one hand. Except for the creek path to the beach (which is primarily recreational), the utilization (by both bike and bus) is abysmal.
This is pretty mature infrastructure—Washington and the west-of-Elenda part of Culver having been completed several years ago and the rest far older. The city built it, but they didn’t come.
Worse yet, when we do build new infrastructure, it basically goes nowhere… the spur on Adams from Washington? Virtually no reason to ride on it (few retail businesses, not much housing—although it was a great photo op for Bubba and Freddy). And the celebrated Elenda strip? It goes from Washington to Culver, but there are no paths from downtown to Elenda on Culver and no paths on Washington at all. Why are these dots not connected?
Ms. Black’s criticism of the Save Overland movement asserts that false information is the leading reason that people don’t want Overland changed. That’s hogwash. Anyone with functioning eyeballs can see that the promised utilization of existing infrastructure has never been achieved, with that failure always being met with an assertion that “we need more bike lanes because if we build it, they will come.” But given the lack of utilization elsewhere, building more would be a waste of public resources… whether paid for by the city, the state, the federal government, or god.
Ms. Black, and the biking advocates, should understand that folks who don’t share their progressive, activist values are not stupid. Instead they are tired of the activist class smugly asserting their faux superiority. Opponents see that (a) the ridership does not support the investment and disruption (even in mature, existing paths), (b) the likelihood of disruption is significant, and (c) the city is already in a financial bind (the budget balanced on the backs of our future taxpayers, now children, that the current council claims to care about).
In other words, people are against the Overland project in masse because it is a bad idea that is not supported by credible evidence. They see the obvious, system-wide lack of utilization and recognize that adding this infrastructure to Overland will significantly disrupt their daily lives. They are also not hood-winked by Freddy’s assertion of a balanced budget (balanced on the municipal equivalent of high-interest cash advances). These folks are not misled, they are not blind, and they are absolutely not stupid. It is time for the bike advocates to stop treating them as if they are.
Gary M. Zeiss, Esq., JD, MBA, MFA
