LATINO PERSPECTIVE--This is a very interesting KCET viewer supported story in which they aimed to find out which way is South LA heading? As Latinos have become a numerical majority in what was recently an African American neighborhood, do we see tensions, collaborations or segregation? 

Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California, and Walter Thompson-Hernandez, a former research assistant for the Roots|Raíces research project at the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII), together with their team at the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, they spent the last year interviewing one hundred Latina/o residents in the Watts, historic Central Avenue, and Vermont Square neighborhoods for the Roots|Raíces research project and put this story together. While there is no one monolithic portrait of Latino South LA, they found common stories and struggles—and also some interesting key generational differences. 

They argued that in the 1980s, thousands of Mexican and Central American immigrants began setting down roots in South LA. Some had just crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, fleeing Civil Wars and economic devastation, and others moved here after living in crowded neighborhoods near downtown and MacArthur Park; but they all came looking for the same thing: a better life.  

These were tough times in South LA. During the 1980s, South LA was reeling from the aftermath of deindustrialization, with gang wars, a crack epidemic, and impoverished neighborhoods featuring more liquor stores than grocery markets. 

One of their respondents drew a mixed portrait of neighborhood life when asked to recall what it was like in the late 1980s. “Mira, hay cosas que eran buenas…Look, there were things that were good, and bad things. At that time we were about the only Latinos on the block … Everyone else was Moreno (Black). But the majority of those who lived there were older people, and they were very nice. We never had any problems with any Black neighbors.” 

Many of these first generation Latina/o arrivals found a kind of next door neighbor civility (even if relations stayed somewhat superficial) with their older African-American neighbors, but on the streets they often encountered hostility from youth gangs, street crime, over-policing, and a climate of violence and racialized resentment that was very particular to the 80’s and early 90’s in South LA. Pushed inward also by the language barrier, the work of daily survival, and the street violence, most Latina/o newcomers responded by “shutting in and shutting out,” basically keeping to themselves. 

However, their interviews also highlighted another important aspect of South LA racial dynamics: Generations think about race in different ways. While the first generation migrated to South LA with anti-black racist ideologies—which were often hardened in the tough street climate in the 1980s and 1990s—the second generation Latinos who were raised in South Los Angeles related starkly different racial experiences with African Americans. While some had faced racially motivated tensions in the schools or the street, a large majority of the second generation expressed an affinity for African Americans that was almost non-existent among their parents’ generation. 

One of their interviewees expressed her views about the interconnectedness of South LA African American and Latino identities this way: “We grew up together. You know, they fed us collard greens; we fed them beans. You know, we grew up in each other’s homes, and we grew up together. So to us, it’s a similarity. They’re our people. We struggle, we consider them our people.” 

What to make of these generational racial differences? When thinking about the future of South LA—particularly the face of leadership—we are left with the almost inescapable reality that the face of future South LA leadership will be a cohort of young leaders who will have grown up in a community that was predominantly Latino but with a strong inclination towards the African-American political and cultural legacy of South LA. These will be leaders who will have been impacted by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta as much as they will have been impacted by Martin Luther King, Jr. 

NEED TO KNOW 

Learn more about the “Roots|Raíces: Latino Engagement, Place Identities, and Shared Futures in South Los Angeles” researched by the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) at USC at http://bit.ly/rootsraices.

(Fred Mariscal came to Los Angeles from Mexico City in 1992 to study at the University of Southern California and has been in LA ever since. He is a community leader who serves as Vice Chair of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition and sits on the board of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council representing Larchmont Village. He was a candidate for Los Angeles City Council in District 4. Fred writes Latino Perspective for CityWatch and can be reached at: [email protected].)

-cw

WATER WATCH--After a decision by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, legal pollution limits have increased to allow excessive amounts of copper and lead in the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. High levels of toxic pollution pose a serious threat to the marine life and possibly to people that depend on Los Angeles’ waters. 

That’s where watchdog organizations like Los Angeles Waterkeeper come in. On July 18, LA Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit against the State and Regional Water Boards to hold them accountable for ignoring public criticism and allowing dangerous levels of pollution in our waters. 

Rather than enforce existing standards against polluters and protect the residents consuming the water in Los Angeles County, the State and Regional Water Boards tried to redefine water pollution. Both Water Boards approved a set of weaker standards — known as site-specific water-quality objectives — that override the existing, more protective water quality standards limiting copper and lead pollution levels. Compared to the existing regulations, these objectives increase pollution limits by up to 1,000 percent. 

That’s up to 1,000 percent more copper and lead in the water you and your family drink. 

These pollution violations an urgent environmental and public health issue. Copper in the water threatens aquatic life, while lead pollution poses more of a hazard to humans. These new objectives are so weak that, if allowed to continue, Los Angeles could stop treating its storm water entirely, and it would still remain in legal compliance for copper and lead pollution levels. 

This case marks the first time any organization has legally challenged the scientific validity of studies used by the State Water Board to justify site specific water quality standards. The scientifically flawed studies supporting the dramatically weaker standards were paid for and overseen by stakeholders with a financial interest in weaker water quality standards. These include cities that line the river and its tributaries, as well as Caltrans and Los Angeles County. Local and state agencies can be liable for permit violations if they discharge excessive pollution into the river. 

Our team is filing the lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the federal Clean Water Act. LA Waterkeeper seeks to reverse the approval of the negligent site-specific water quality objectives and restore the original – and more protective – water quality standards for copper and lead. 

This type of water management is irresponsible and damaging. These actions create a ripple effect across the state that harms our residents, our children and our quality of life. Our local communities and wildlife depend on these waters, and we demand better standards for all of us. 

Visit lawaterkeeper.org to learn more about protecting water quality in Los Angeles.

(Bruce Reznik is Executive Director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper. This piece special to CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ANIMAL WATCH-On July 1, 2014, Mayor Garcetti launched his Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles, “to advance civic initiatives.” It amassed $14.6 million the first year, according to the LA Times. 

An e-mail exchange between LA Animal Services GM Brenda Barnette and Maggie Neilson, former Animal Services Commissioner and CEO of Global Philanthropy Group, and the Mayor’s Office --provided AFTER my CityWatch article, “CA Feuer, Mayor Garcetti, Councilman Koretz Ignoring Public Records Requests - Is There Something to Hide?” – reveals that wasn’t the only charitable fund the Mayor planned to launch in 2014. (Photo above: Mayor Garcetti with City Attorney Mike Feuer.) 

While Garcetti’s then-Deputy Doane Liu was setting up a preliminary meeting with Neilson regarding a proposed non-profit foundation to support LA Animal Services, he was abruptly informed that Mayor Garcetti -- who has historically shown only a politically correct interest in animals -- would meet personally with Ms. Neilson. 

Here’s how the usual formalities were bypassed: 

On August 13, 2014 10:17 AM Brenda Barnette wrote to Maggie Neilson: 

“FYI us [sic] met with the Mayor yesterday. Would like to arrange for you to meet him for personal introduction. He wants an opportunity to speak publicly for the animals and would love it to be the Foundation launch this fall.”

About 90 minutes later Maggie Neilson responded: 

“Hi Brenda! First I hope your summer is going well. Give my best to Pam and let’s get together in Sept…?  I‘ve been meaning to reach out for a few months now to apologize for the slowdown in progress on this…we are poised to begin again in full in Sept. I would love to connect with the mayor; just let me know when works for him and we will make it happen. This is going to be awesome despite the brief delay.  Xo, m”   

This affectionate exchange portrays an uncomfortably informal relationship between the GM and the sole incorporator of a proposed charitable arm for LA Animal Services. Trevor Neilson and Maggie Neilson of Global Philanthropy Group reportedly advise such celebrities as Madonna, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in how to spend charitable dollars to maintain a humanitarian profile. Brenda Barnette claims to have been a “former fundraiser” (and later used that influence to have restrictive items in the MOU removed by Deputy City Attorney Dov Lesel). Shouldn’t a formal letter, or at least an professional business e-mail, have been used in arranging a meeting with the Mayor of Los Angeles?  

According to the CA Secretary of State, Maggie Neilson had filed as sole incorporator for “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” on August 11, 2014. 

Following is some of the history garnered from 540 pages of e-mails provided by the City Attorney’s office, plus the delayed responses from the Mayor’s Office and GM Brenda Barnette to my CPRA requests, which indicate that Brenda Barnette was intending to be very closely involved. 

On Apr. 22, 2014, Maggie Neilson wrote to her pro bono attorney, who was developing the MOU for “The Animal Rescue Foundation, “The first issue is that we want to confirm Brenda’s ability to serve on the Foundation’s Board.”  

The answer was apparently negative because later Brenda wrote to Deputy City Dov Lesel:

“With permission of the Mayor would it be permitted for me to serve as a volunteer Board member?” 

The MOU later approved by the Garcetti-appointed Animal Services Commission, showed that annual financial statements of “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” would be provided only to the LAAS General Manager, the Department’s senior accountant and the Commission. 

Maggie Neilson’s last-shown contact in the Mayor’s office, according to e-mails provided, was Diedre Lind, President of the Mayor’s fund. 

Doug White, director of  Columbia University's graduate program in fundraising management, advised the L A Times that, “Information about a nonprofit shouldn't be channeled through a politician's office . . . Because of the nonprofit's association with government, its officers and directors should be particularly attentive to maintaining independence.” 

An attorney for a major governmental agency explained, “When a governmental agency, such as LA Animal Services, joins with an allied non-profit to raise funds, they then have an unaccountable partner that is not subject to the scrutiny of CA Public Records Act requests. That organization then is branded by, and has the benefit of, the department’s name, trademark and good will for soliciting donations without objective requirements or accountability.” 

A CITY CHARITY BY ANY OTHER NAME 

In February, we asked, “Has L.A. Animal Services’ Brenda Barnette Crossed the Line with Questionable Fundraising MOU?”  Maggie Neilson’s new non-profit corporation purportedly created to assist LA Angeles Animal Services -- and be patterned after Foundations for LAPD, LA Fire Dept., and the Library -- is called, “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation.” 

Neilson’s foundation does not contain the name “LA Animal Services” in its title as the other city department foundations do, nor is its corporate mission statement even similar. 

The Articles of Incorporation state, “The specific purpose of the Corporation is to ensure every animal has a home and that no adoptable animals are euthanized in Los Angeles.” 

However, the Department of Animal Services, which is a tax-funded public safety department, has a posted mission statement and mandate: “To promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of animals and people.” 

How do we correlate this and the MOU which states, “… the specific purpose of the Foundation is to raise funds to support the mission of the Department…” when seminal factors are vastly dissimilar? 

There are fundamental legal and functional differences between a public, tax-funded animal control agency such as LA Animal Services -- which is mandated to pick up and impound stray/sick animals, maintain open-entry shelters, and enforce laws to protect animals and people -- and a private, donation-based “rescue,” which offers homeless animals for adoption after owners relinquish them or fail to claim them from the shelter.  

Would donors seeking to support the idealistic goals of “The Los Angeles Rescue Foundation” feel deceived that their money were to be spent on the public-safety obligations of a city animal-control agency, including humane euthanasia when necessary? Or is money assumed to be donated for the shelter allowed to be distributed otherwise? Is it reserved to help shelter animals? Not according to the changes made by the City Attorney in the standard template that is used by other City fundraising arms.   

Other questions are:  Will “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” usurp the fundraising efforts of independent local rescue and animal-welfare groups in Los Angeles? And, why are City officials ignoring the fact that the LA Animal Services already has a robust, generously donor-funded and closely monitored, Animal Welfare Trust Fund? 

DEVIATIONS FROM OTHER CITY-DEPARTMENT FOUNDATIONS

GM Brenda Barnette and Maggie Neilson each received a copy of the draft MOU with the Los Angeles Fire Foundation. Deputy Dov Lesel writes: 

“Animal Services was advised to look at that contract as a model for using with a foundation to do fundraising for that department.” 

But “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” and Brenda Barnette requested changes. 

In a January 9, 2015 e-mail to Dov Lesel, Brenda Barnette describes herself as a “former fundraiser” and agrees with The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation’s pro bono attorney that the standard 20% overhead limitation applied to other departmental foundations is unnecessary, because “…the marketing to elevate the Department for community members will be expensive and worthwhile.” 

On March 11, 2015, after Lesel agrees to remove the 20/80% limitation on overhead, Maggie Neilson writes: 

“Thanks Dov – I do want to clarify that we are not raising funds “for” the city in the sense that the $ we raise won’t go through the city system. This will be an independent non-profit organization that will work side by side with the Department towards the same mission.” 

Lesel responds:

“If you are raising money using the Department’s name, etc., how exactly do you envision the funds being held and how do you envision the funds being spent? 

“Will you be engaging in a discussion with the Dept. re its needs and agreeing to fund certain projects during the year or funding projects that you think the Dept. needs?” 

(Note: Any answer by Neilson to these questions was omitted from the CPRA response.) 

On Oct. 06, 2015, in compliance with the Foundation’s request, Dov Lesel also agreed to remove “financial” from the support to be provided to the Department and remove any support for the Department’s “needs” — only its “mission and function.” 

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY FAILED TO NOTICE 

According to e-mails, it wasn’t until January 13, 2016, (after Commission approval and before the Council’s PAW Committee meeting) that Dov Lesel finally read the Articles of Incorporation for “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation.” 

On that date he sent an e-mail to Global Philanthropy Group, cc’d to Brenda Barnette, stating: 

“I noticed that there is no mention that the purpose of the organization is to support the Department.”   

The next-day response from Maggie Neilson’s assistant: 

“The articles of incorporation describe the mission of the Foundation as working to ensure every animal in Los Angeles has a home and that no adoptable animals are euthanized.  This mission supports the goals of the Department.  The purpose of the MOU is to establish the official relationship between the two entities.” 

Lesel (finally realizing what he had been working on for two years) replied:  

“[M]y concern is that this issue may be raised by City staff as it goes through the approval process, as these articles are very different than the ‘normal’ articles of incorporation for City partner fundraising organization. [sic] Normally, this type of non-profit incorporates specifically to assist the City. 

GM Brenda Barnette sent a testy retort soon after:  

“Dov, Two years later and much back and forth and NOW we have a big question after the Commission has approved.  I will appreciate your good efforts to get ma [sic] a document I can transmit without further delay.”  

Dov Lesel backs down(!): 

“Brenda you can transmit the revised clean MOU with their existing Articles, unless you believe the existing Articles might raise a red flag.” 

Lesel added:

“I can check with the CLA’s office in advance to see if this would be a concern.” 

Apparently the fact that “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” articles are notably “very different” from other City-department fundraising partners and failed to include that it is intended “specifically to assist the City” did not bother the CLA either, because it traveled on to the Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee with no changes or “red flags.” 

With the excuse that his one-hour Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee on March 13, 2016, ran out of time, the LAAS charity item, CF16-0070, was continued.  On April 4, my CityWatch article was published. No further action has been taken yet.

HOW IS MAGGIE NEILSON CONNECTED TO LA ANIMAL SERVICES? 

On March 5, 2013, word spread through the Los Angeles humane community and far beyond City Hall that Kathleen Riordan, daughter of former Mayor Richard Riordan and popular 14-year veteran Animal Services Commissioner, was being replaced by Maggie Ragland Neilson, an unknown in animal circles. 

Neilson admitted that she had no animal experience except being a dog owner. Her background also failed to reveal any professional interest in animal welfare or experience in city government. 

Riordan’s analytical mind and penchant for asking probing questions had often set her at odds with then-Mayor Villaraigosa’s aide Jim Bickhart. And, at one meeting, Riordan’s insistence that the City’s mandatory competitive-bidding practices were not being followed caused GM Barnette to bang her head down on the Commission table and later stomp out of the meeting when the Commission agreed with Riordan.  

According to an interview with Kathy Riordan by Dana Bartholomew of the Los Angeles Daily News, Jim Bickhart informed her by telephone late on February 28 that she was being replaced by someone with “more to contribute...” 

Maggie Neilson served less than four months and was not reappointed by Mayor Garcetti, but wrote to Brenda Barnette that not being a Commissioner would allow her to work on forming a foundation to do fundraising for LAAS. 

(Animal activist Phyllis M. Daugherty writes for CityWatch and is a contributing writer to opposingviews.com.  She lives in Los Angeles.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

NEIGHBORHOOD INVASION-Despite deep concerns among North Hollywood residents about the controversial NoHo West mega-project at 6150 Laurel Canyon Boulevard near the 170 freeway, Los Angeles City Council member Paul Krekorian made clear on Tuesday, July 26, at a public hearing that he fully supports the oversized development that’s located next to a low-slung, residential community. Once again, City Hall appears to be siding with deep-pocketed developers. 

At a well-attended LA planning department hearing at Van Nuys City Hall, Karo Torossian, the director of planning for Council Member Krekorian, testified that Krekorian backed NoHo West as proposed. Torossian and his boss, who represent North Hollywood in Council District 2, were unmoved by local residents’ (photo above) worries that the mega-project would destroy the character of their neighborhood and create nightmarish traffic problems. 

“We are concerned about the six-story apartment building,” said Diann Corral, president of the Laurel Grove Neighborhood Association, at the hearing. “It’s not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood.” She also added that no traffic mitigations had been offered to residents. 

Merlone Geier Partners, a San Francisco-based firm, and Goldstein Planting Investments, a Los Angeles-based firm, are the developers behind NoHo West, a project that features a whopping 1.6 million square feet of retail and residential space with 742 rental units. It’s a massive project that the developers have been pushing hard at City Hall. 

Merlone Geier employees, including chairman Bradley Geier and partner Peter Merlone, have given $6,500 in campaign contributions to LA politicians between 2008 and 2015, and the developer paid $240,182 for a City Hall lobbyist to schmooze with the City Council, the planning department and the building and safety department. 

Goldstein Planting Investments employees have spread around $7,400 in campaign contributions to local pols between 2009 and 2015, and the firm shelled out $174,349 for a City Hall lobbyist to meet with the City Council and city agencies. 

During the hearing, the developers seemed to wave off community concerns, going so far as to tell residents what was best for them. 

“The neighborhood needs to grow,” a representative for the developers said at the hearing. 

But many residents sounded a similar theme — while retail development was welcomed, the proposal to jam 740 rental units into two large towers with no traffic mitigations was not. One resident testified, “Density is a buzzword of developers. It is their profit point. But in a neighborhood, it is a killer.” Another resident said, “Your decisions today will affect my life.” 

Residents also believed the traffic studies in the project’s environmental impact report were inaccurate with bad data. 

There was little mention, however, about the health impacts of building NoHo West next to the 170 freeway — according to top scientific researchers at USC and UCLA, children and pregnant women who live in freeway-adjacent homes, known as “Black Lung Lofts,” are more likely to suffer serious health problems. The LA City Council continues to ignore the serious public health problem and approve such housing. 

But that’s what happens in LA’s broken planning and land-use system. Developers spread around big cash at City Hall, and expect profitable favors in return from City Council members no matter what local residents have to say. Since 2000, the real estate industry has contributed at least $6 million to the campaign war chests of LA politicians. 

Enough is enough. We need to reform LA’s broken planning and land-use system, which is what the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will do. 

In fact, the Los Angeles Times, the LA City Council, Mayor Eric Garcetti and numerous neighborhood groups all agree that reform is desperately needed. 

Join our citywide, grassroots movement by clicking here right now to donate any amount you wish, and follow and cheer our efforts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. You can also send us an email at [email protected] for more information. 

Developers and their politician pals will do anything to defeat our reform movement and continue their wrong-headed policies. But together, we, the citizens, can create the change that LA needs!

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for the Coalition to Preserve LA where this piece was first posted.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CROOKED POLITICS, CROOKED DEVELOPMENT-If it is organized and it is criminal, it is organized crime. No, it does not have to come from New Jersey. No, it doesn’t have to have an Italian name, but Italians like Jews are not excluded from organized crime. At the LA City Council, crime is non-discriminatory. We’ve got Whites, Gays, Jews, Hispanics (formerly known as Mexican-Americans), Blacks, a woman, etc. The requirements to be “organized crime” are simple: (1) be organized (2) be criminal. 

What’s so bad about organized crime? After all, aren’t crime lords known for being great family men, er, I mean “family persons?” Don’t we hold the heads of organized crime in great esteem? Who doesn’t know the name Michael Corleone or John Gotti or Eric Garcetti? 

Al Capone must be turning in his grave, green with envy at the brilliant scam that has become the Los Angeles City Council. Gone are the days when hoods bribed public officials. In Los Angeles, they are the public officials! 

We don’t mean to imply that the more traditional forms of organized crime have left the scene altogether. One always wonders about the large unions, especially in the building trades. Now, we’re not saying. We’re just wondering. One tends to look askance at multi-billion dollar public works projects. That couldn’t be happening here in Los Angeles, could it? No one would ask the voters to blindly give $120 billion for mega-construction projects…would they? 

Here’s the crux of Los Angeles City Hall’s organized crime: Joe Blow city councilman is keen to tear down a bunch of rent-controlled units in the Valley and construct some of these small lot subdivision “homes.” One might ask, why tear down poor people’s homes to build these so-called single family homes which are separated by eight (8) inches?   

Here’s why: rent-controlled units are bad tax shelters for millionaires and rent-controlled units are terrible for money launderers. The only people who benefit from rent-controlled apartments are the elderly, the disabled and the poor, otherwise known in Los Angeles as the “Expendables.” As we have learned, when it comes to destroying poor people’s homes, Garcetti wins the Olympic gold medal. 

As the Los Angeles Times reported on July 28, 2016, the Feds are looking into a lot of these real estate deals. It’s almost as if the administration at LA City Hall got a heads-up on the cut-offs for reporting transactions to the Feds: the dollar limit to trigger reporting is just above the investment amounts in these fancy condos and “small lot subdivisions” single family homes. 

Rather than construct a 26-unit apartment complex where developers looking to hide their money would have to cough up several million dollars above the new federal reporting limit, they can now “invest” in several of these new individual “homes” -- where each one costs well below the reporting limit. We are sure there is no connection here between Don Garcetti’s having already raised all the money he needs for his re-election and these new small lot subdivisions. 

Here’s the genius of Los Angeles’ organized crime: It’s been in operation since 2006, the year that Garcetti first became City Council President and Penal Code § 86 criminalized vote trading. But under the City Council’s own “vote trading agreement,” each councilmember purchases the votes of each of the other councilmembers by his/her promise to never vote No on a development project in another councilmember’s district. 

We are certain the ghost of Meyer Lansky must be trying to come back from the dead so he can partake in this brilliant con. All a developer has to do to get his construction project approved is be “nice” to one Los Angeles City Councilmember. Wow, in days of yore, the old time mob had to buy off or at least intimidate the majority on a city council. In today’s LA, though, developers have the sweetest deal of all – just be nice to one councilmember and, as if by magic, City Council unanimously approves whatever each developer wants. 

They are guaranteed 100% approval no matter how many codes they violate…no matter how many poor people the developer drives from their homes…no matter how much ethnic cleansing occurs…no matter if entire neighborhoods are destroyed. 

All that matters is that the nice city councilmember puts the project on the City Council agenda for it to be unanimously approved. Let’s note that juicy word, unanimously. No matter how crooked a project may be, it is guaranteed unanimous approval. 

And the system is fool proof. Under the rigged LA voting trading system, unanimous approval does not even require a single councilmember to vote for the project. The LA City Council has fixed – and we do mean “fixed” – its vote tabulator so that the machine itself automatically votes “Yes,” even if not a single councilmember actually votes!   

Tax shelters and money laundering are big business. Billions of dollars are looted each year from foreign governments and of course drug traffickers also need places to wash their loot. So it’s interesting that at the same time demographers are reporting that more Angelenos, especially middle class professionals, are leaving Los Angeles than are choosing to move to LA, the Garcetti Administration is constructing more and more of these condos and tiny houses separated by eight inches. When more people leave a city than move into it, the housing supply increases – even if no one adds a single unit. So why is Garcetti building us into a glut – with prices just below the federal reporting line? 

Although Penal Code 86 criminalized the “vote trading agreement” that exists in the Los Angeles City Council, it has operated undisturbed for a decade under the law enforcement and judicial assumption that 10,000 consecutive unanimous votes in a 15-member city council is just a “coincidence.” Now, in our opinion…that’s a well-organized criminal enterprise.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--The changing landscape of Los Angeles and environs has prompted concerned groups to mobilize to protect neighborhood integrity and stop the deep pockets of developers from yielding undue influence on council members and planning commissions.

All that could change if SB 734 were to pass. The bill would provide protection against potential lengthy litigation against large developments in California. In Hollywood, the $1 –billion redevelopment of the Crossroads of the World complex and a $200-million hotel/residential development at Yucca Street and Argyle Avenue are among the projects that would be protected by the new law that is intended to reduce lawsuits against large developments throughout the state.

In a nutshell, the bill would not protect mega-projects ($100-million plus) from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) suits but would fast-track the suits to wrap up within nine months instead of up to three years. The bill would also provide for higher wages for construction workers and place strict guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy.

SB 734 would extend by two years a 2011 measure supported by Brown and influenced by legislation that year that would have benefitted the now defunct Farmers Field football stadium project downtown.

However, since the 2011 measure passed, only six projects qualified for the fast-track process, including Apple’s expanded corporate headquarters in Cupertino and a proposed arena for the NBA Golden State Warriors in San Francisco. Although some of the six have been built or are currently under construction, none have needed to utilize the provisions.

Critics of the 1970 CEQA intended to preserve the environment say the law is overbearing. However, the proposed bill is limited to massive developments like sports arenas and condo towers, which could absorb any litigation costs, unlike smaller developments.

Proponents say the bill is essential to California’s economic recovery, fast-tracking job-producing, environmentally-friendly projects. The bill’s co-author, state Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) is hopeful for a bi-partisan super-majority vote in both houses by the end of the legislative session in August. If the bill is signed into law, developers would need to apply to the governor to be certified to meet the investment, wage, and environmental parameters.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups oppose the bill because they are unhappy with the standards that developers need to meet. The state’s Judicial Council, which is sets policies for the courts, is also opposed to the measure on the grounds that the bill would push these suits to the front of the line, even before previously filed suits.

While encouraging green projects that would add to employment seems sound, SB 734 would provide fast-track litigation and special treatment only to large-scale mega-projects, weakening the ability of activist and environmental groups to impact or stop mega-developments in their neighborhoods. Large-scale projects often compromise traffic, parking, affordable housing, and neighborhood integrity and citizens should have a voice that is not quieted by a shorter litigation process.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.)

-cw