[Hacksaw]

Well then who the F ordered the editor to take it down? Or was it a rogue piece?

[Stranger]

This is bizarre, where did the story go?

Was Fenno the author?

Link works for me, but looks like the story has changed....


Inglewood stadium developers working to resolve FAA concerns
North Bowl

An artist's rendering of the proposed Inglewood stadium. (HKS)
Nathan FennoNathan FennoContact Reporter

Developers of the proposed NFL stadium in Inglewood are working to resolve the Federal Aviation Administration's concerns about the venue's impact on radar at nearby Los Angeles International Airport.

“As we advance our design documents, our project has reached the point where it is time to obtain the many permits required of an effort of this scale," Chris Meany, senior vice president of the Hollywood Park Land Co., said Tuesday in a written statement. "The permit process involves working closely with dozens of relevant agencies like the FAA. We are in the midst of that process now, and fully expect to address and satisfy any issues or concerns that may arise.”

See the most-read stories in Sports this hour >>

In a preliminary report issued last month, the FAA said that the $1.86-billion stadium backed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is "presumed to be a hazard to air navigation." The report isn't a final determination, but a starting point for negotiations between the FAA and developers.
Proposed new Inglewood stadium

Artists renderings of the NFL stadium proposed as part of the development of the Hollywood Park site. (HKS)

A primary issue is a large portion of the stadium's exterior covered in metal skin. The FAA report warned that the building's proximity to LAX runways plus the metal skin could interfere with radar that tracks inbound aircraft. The report suggested several potential measures to mitigate the problem -- including the far-fetched idea of relocating the stadium -- but covering parts of the stadium with radar-absorbing paint is expected to be part of the solution.

Citing ongoing discussions, an FAA spokesman declined to comment.

The developers have until early January to respond to the FAA report.

[email protected]

[RamsFanSince82]

The article/story didn't change. It's an old/bad link. The link is for the Dec. 1st article about the FAA story being a non issue for Inglewood.

[Elvis]

Exactly. The link now leads to an old Fenno piece from December 1st, not the article that was briefly up today.

Whatever happened, i'm sure we'll find out soon enough...

[Stranger]

The article/story didn't change. It's an old/bad link. The link is for the Dec. 1st article about the FAA story being a non issue for Inglewood.

I'm using the following link, which is for a Dec 22, 2015 story.

Code: Select allhttp://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-inglewood-stadium-20151222-story.html

When I use this link, it refers me to the story I posted, and redirects me to the following URL, which is for a story published on Dec 1, 2015:

Code: Select allhttp://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-inglewood-stadium-developers-working-faa-concerns-20151201-story.html

This second link is not the story posted in the OP and published on Dec 22nd.

PS. I'm emailing Fenno

[SoCalRam78]

This is odd, maybe someone from Kroenke group didn't want this published (silent Stan effect), maybe Marc Ganis managed to mess up the website because the article was too pro Kroenke, and we can't have that.

Articles for the next day's paper usually are posted online in the evening.

This article obviously was written, briefly posted on the website and then removed for some reason.

[BuiltRamTough]

No worries I got you guys and I promoted RFU too.

[Elvis]

Ed Wiggum?

[RamsFanSince82]

No worries I got you guys and I promoted RFU too.

That's you? That's cool. Good job.

[BuiltRamTough]

Ed Wiggum?

Lol ya that's me.