CORRUPTION WATCH-The reason Los Angeles housing prices are outrageously high will never published by the LA Weekly, the LA Times or any other news outlet. You can be sure you will never hear it from KNBC’s Channel 4's Conan Nolan, Garcetti’s sycophant extraordinaire. Los Angeles residential real estate does not sell for its value as Living Space but rather for the hyped-up value as a Speculative Investment. The result is that Los Angeles homeowners pay a huge Corruption Tax. 

In 2006, Gail Goldberg, then LA’s Director of Planning, warned Eric Garcetti against allowing developers to buy the zoning they wanted rather than allowing the law to set the rules. Eric Garcetti completely ignored Director Goldberg. 

A developer knows he can buy five R-1 homes and then “bribe” for then to be up-zoned to multi-family, allowing him to build 30 to 60 apartments. Sure, he may have to pay an additional $10,000 to $25,000 to Mayor Garcetti’s Fund and kick down some more favors to the councilmember, but in Los Angeles, the developer, and not the law, sets the zoning for land. 

The Need for Families to Park Their Wealth 

If you’re a Family Millennial, you are looking for somewhere to “park” your wealth. Part of everyone’s income needs to be set aside and not consumed for day to day expenses. The question is, where to park one’s income? 

The Pros of Cons of Traditional Places to Park Your Wealth 

Bank accounts do not pay enough interest to make them a good place to park savings long-term. Stocks do well, but in a market rigged for the high-end traders, it’s a serious risk. In the Crash of 2008, some once “ultra-safe” stocks like Hartford Insurance lost over 90% of their value. Whole life insurance can be a very safe place to park cash, provided you deal with an insurance company that is admitted to do business in New York State. If one does not prematurely die, Whole Life Insurance will have accumulated considerable cash value by retirement time and that can become a safeguard in old age. Millions of Americans, however, park most their money in their homes. 

Traditionally, home values tend to increase over time, at least enough to keep up with inflation. The mortgages are usually paid off before retirement, which means seniors can live “rent free” except for property taxes and special assessments. In 1950, the average age to get married was 22.8 years old for men and 20.3 for women. By the year 2000, those ages had increased to 26.8 for males and 25.1 for females. After the Crash of 2008, the age at which the young started families increased to 29 for males and 27 for females (2013 data.) These figures are important because they show that people are starting families and their economic planning about seven years later than the Baby Boomers did. That leaves them less time to accumulate income for old age. 

While typical Baby Boomers will have paid off their 30-year mortgages when they are in their early fifties, most of today’s Millennials will be in their late 50s or early 60s when they finish their mortgage payments. 

When Baby Boomers, many of whom are about to retire, originally put into their homes, it was based on the homes’ value as Living Space. Now, in areas like Los Angeles, the prices of new homes are no longer based on Living Space value but on the Speculative Value to a developer. This is one facet of the disaster which Gail Goldberg foresaw. When developers can just purchase the zoning they want, they know that buying in an R-1 or R-2 area is cheaper than buying into areas which already have been up-zoned. Thus, it makes sense to buy-up detached homes. Their payments to the Mayor’s Fund and to the councilmembers will achieve whatever up-zoning the developer needs. 

In a City not based on corruption, developers would know that zoning sets the property’s use; they would not even try to buy R-1 properties. Had Garcetti heeded Gail Goldberg, today’s families could afford to purchase homes based on their value as Living Space. 

Los Angeles’ Millennial Family has to compete against developers who will bid up the price of a detached home based on its Speculative Value. Even if the family could outbid a developer today, it has to realize that tomorrow another developer can come along and buy up five or ten nearby homes and, after contributing to Garcetti’s Mayor Fund, be able to have the land up-zoned for a four-story condo project overlooking that family’s backyard. 

Residences Purchased on their Speculative Value Result in a Crash 

As more Family Millennials re-locate away from Los Angeles, reality begins to sneak into the housing market. There are fewer people to rent these new apartments or buy those new condos in the sky. 

The birth rate of the Millennials peaked twenty-five years ago. Thus, each year there will be fewer young Millennials moving into dense urban areas. While Los Angeles’ birth rate is currently high enough to out-pace deaths and the flight of the Family Millennials, LA’s birth rate is still dropping. (This is inevitable since the Family Millennials leaving are in the child-bearing age range.) 

Why Economists Fear “Corruptionism” 

There are two types of inflation: There is the normal slow upwards creep of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Since it is slow, people can adjust to a creeping rise in consumer prices and employers can afford to pay their employees a little more so that, over all, the system remains in equilibrium. 

But Los Angeles experiences another type of inflation in the form “corruptionism” which introduces hyper-inflation into the housing market. As we have pointed out, a combination of destroying the homes of poor people and the re-valuation of residential properties for their Speculative Value have resulted in a huge increase in the cost of LA housing – an increase which reflects no increase in actual value. The housing market is based on Speculation, so rents increase in response to price increases based on that Speculation. But employers cannot afford to pay higher wages just because their employees are over paying for mortgages and rents. When housing costs jump 7% in one year, no employer can increase all his employees’ salaries by 7%.   

The increase of housing costs does not reflect an increase in the actual value of these properties as living spaces. A three-bedroom craftsman built in 1920 is not worth any more as Living Space today than it was in 1920, 1960 or 1970. Yet, when one looks at the current mortgages, one sees a monthly mortgage of about $4,000/month on a $900,000 home. Adjusted for inflation, the monthly mortgage in 2017 based on Living Space should be less than $2,000. 

Angeleno Homeowners and Renters Pay a Monthly Corruption Tax 

That means the homeowner or renter is paying over $2,000/month as a “corruption tax.” That is the amount an LA family has to pay to the bank over and above the increase of the CPI. That extra mortgage money paid each month represents no additional value to the property.   

Suppose all the money the homeowner paid in LA Corruption Tax had been invested in the stock market. Let’s be very conservative and assume that the corruption tax is only $10,000 per year. If that money had been invested in 2009, it would show a rate return of 14.315% (not adjusted for CPI inflation.) In other words, a $10,000 stock market investment in 2009 has become $14,315. In ten years, the homeowner would have an extra $140,000! 

We can all figure out our own Corruption Tax rate and how much money we would have if we had been able to invest that money in the stock market. 

Of course, we will all face the financial nightmare when corruption in the housing market again brings down the rest of the economy. That is likely to wipe out stock portfolios as well. The irony is that the closer we get to a crash, the more we should park money in insured federal bank deposits. Unlike equity in a home or stocks, those dollars do not disappear in a crash. In other words, an increase in insured savings is a hedge against the next crash. 

As Keynes knew, liquidity of capital is important to the individual. When the crash starts, you cannot get cash from your non-liquid assets fast enough to save yourself. Thus, money in government insured bank deposits can save a middle class family. But first, that family cannot have parked all its wealth in its home. The only way to avoid that financial trap is to buy a home in states like Texas or Utah or Georgia or Colorado. That way a family does not pay the LA Corruption Tax and has enough money to diversity its investments.

(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.) Cartoon: LA Times. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--We just saw a huge (yuuuuge?) turnout in Downtown LA (and throughout the nation) to let our new President know he was on notice to represent all citizens and constituencies of our nation.  So why does our City Council get away with treating ITS citizens and constituencies like lower life forms?   

Measure S allows us to have our own local turnout to serve the Mayor and the City Council that THEY, like our new President, is on notice to represent ALL of us. 

The LA Downtown Establishment, the Planning Politburo, the Developer Elites, and the Density Hawks are all ready to send us straight to an unlivable, environmentally-nightmarish, and family-unfriendly City of Los Angeles. 

Oh, those pesky taxpayers and ratepayers.  Give us an LADWP Ratepayer Bill of Rights while overcharging us in order to indirectly get that illicit cash to the City of Los Angeles General Budget! 

Talk to us about raising taxes while spending our taxes poorly and hurting us with initiatives that don't fulfill the intentions of those tax hikes. 

Supposedly, the upcoming Measure S "befuddles" candidates--and 10 out of 14 sitting City Councilmembers and our Mayor have come out against Measure S. 

And developers are "howling" over an end to spot zoning of oversized projects, while they KNOW DAMN WELL they could build aplenty along our major commercial corridors an ocean of 2-4 story livable projects with sufficient affordable housing and parking and infrastructure mitigations to the community.  

Unfortunately our "anti-Trump" "progressive" City Council only backs down when the taxpaying, voting citizens of our City raise a hoopla--like Paul Koretz did when developer Rick Caruso tried to ram an oversized project into the Beverly Center area. 

And now our LA Times, which has supported overdevelopment (to hell with true environmental and sustainable development!) as "progress" for years suddenly comes up with the idea of banning developer contributions to City Hall ... 

... because the Times, the Downtown Elites, and the Planning Politburo know that the process is rigged, favoring big money and sending the taxpayers of our City straight to hell.  We can scream and be ignored. 

• Until Measure S became a reality.
• Homeless advocates:  For Measure S.
• Affordable housing advocates:  For Measure S.
• Environmental advocates:  For Measure S.
• Neighborhood advocates:  For Measure S. 

Measure S is NOT cruel.  It demands that City Hall and the Planning Department obey its own laws, and that they cannot thwart the rule of law and the laws of physics to support oversized development "for the greater good" or "for overriding considerations" of whatever nonsensical tripe that can be thrown into the faces of the rest of us...who have to obey and uphold the law! 

We CAN make more affordable housing.  We CAN obey the law.  We CAN create livable and environmentally-sustainable neighborhoods. 

And the City of Los Angeles can learn to represent us and obey the laws.  It's a doggone pity it had to take Measure S to do it, but at this point it's the only chance we have to ensure that City Hall represents its own constituents and obey its laws. 

Vote YES on Measure S, and reclaim the City of Los Angeles as YOUR city, too!

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties.  He is also a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.) 

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD-Los Angeles Times journalists were forbidden by their management to attend Saturday's enormous demonstration against racism and misogyny. Presumably this edict did not apply to reporters who were assigned to the story, but it did ban everyone else on the staff. Normal people who haven't attended journalism school may find this a bit incomprehensible. If the KKK were marching through Silverlake, would Times employees who live there be forbidden from standing on the sidewalk and jeering? Apparently they would be. 

I would like to suggest that the Times action, although based on an old and honored principle, went too far. I would also like to suggest that the whole underlying philosophical structure that supports this sort of ruling needs to be reassessed because it is causing modern newspaper journalism to fail us. 

What is that underlying principle? The Times management used that old term objectivity to explain their reasoning. You can read about it in Kevin Roderick's piece from LA Observed in which Times representative Marc Duvoisin wrote: 

"The Women’s March on Washington and related events in Los Angeles and around the country will take place Saturday, and a number of newsroom staffers have asked if it is OK for them to participate. 

"In keeping with the LA Times’ long-standing ethics guidelines, the answer is no. Times journalists who are not covering these events should not participate in them. 

"Under our ethics guidelines, we are all obliged to refrain from public expressions of our personal political views, in order to safeguard The Times’ objectivity in fact as well as appearance." 

The idea seems to be that newspapers like the Times feel the need to be seen as honest and honorable to a fault. On a big city daily newspaper, no reporter should bring a personal interest, either emotional or financial, to an investigation, as that direction leads to biased stories. Everybody is supposed to be the reincarnation of Detective Joe Friday from Dragnet: "All we want are the facts, ma'am." 

At the level of simple facts, there is a lot to be said for journalistic objectivity. It's important to avoid printing that Joe Smith was arrested for DUI when it was, in fact, Joe Jones. It is important to quote people accurately and to avoid making accusations without careful fact checking. 

This approach to journalistic care evolved over time. By the time I started writing for The American Reporter, the editor explained to me that before I could report that someone had likely committed a crime, it was my duty to give that person a call. Even in the most obvious cases, it was my responsibility to give the subject a chance to defend himself. The rule goes wider than this, basically to all disputes, both criminal and civil. If you accuse Jones of hitting Smith, then you have to give Jones a chance to respond. 

That's an aspect of so-called objective journalism that is defensible. Our criminal justice system guarantees the right to respond to accusations. There is no reason that journalism should be less careful. 

There is a problem though. Not everyone is honest. Some people being interviewed are not credible. Some responses are grossly illogical and some are clearly and obviously contrary to facts. 

For example, the problem comes to a head when people arguing against the science of vaccination use grossly inaccurate allegations knitted together with illogic. Up until a couple of years ago, reporters took statements from both sides of the vaccine argument and treated them more or less equally. The story would be balanced in terms of pros and cons, even though there is a mass of evidence (and a mass of expert opinion) that vastly tends towards one side rather than the other. Out of this, the defenders of science have developed the term "false balance" to describe the old fashioned (and lazy) way that such stories used to be handled. 

When it comes to journalism, politics can be a lot more difficult to write than science, because politics allows for value judgments. Opposing candidates may disagree on tax policy without necessarily doing damage to the facts. One candidate believes in spending tax dollars on public services while the other believes in protecting taxpayers from rate increases. 

So far so good. Objective journalism calls for providing the statements of both candidates, as opposed to presenting the words of the person you like better or, alternately, glorifying the person who is going to hire your nephew when he gets elected. 

Now listen very closely. That system is fine, but it's based on a world in which big city daily newspapers had a lot of clout. They helped get people elected and once in a while they helped get somebody defeated or even sent to prison. It was considered OK to send somebody to prison by exposing the facts, and not OK to try to send somebody to prison using a lot of made-up lies. 

But we're in a different world. The Los Angeles Times is competing with Fox News and the National Enquirer. They are mostly not competing for advertisers but they are competing for an audience and, critically important, they are competing in trying to present their particular world views. 

Let's consider the assertion that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. The story had supporters in the tabloids and in snarky remarks made on Fox News. According to the old tenets of objective journalism, a newspaper like the Times would be careful to review the facts, provide documents and statements made to reporters, and treat the issue as done as of that point. 

Meanwhile, the big lie was circulated and repeated on a thousand talk radio stations and by the tabloids and Fox News. 

And this is where the big city dailies have failed us. At a certain point, the assertions of the birthers (as they were called) became the story. The misstatements and illogical assertions that made up birtherism had been debunked -- they were not taken seriously by logical thinkers -- but the liars kept lying and the big lie continued to circulate. 

The real story was the violation done to journalism itself in the interest of a nasty form of partisan politics. The dailies treated this national big lie as outside of the boundaries of the objective journalism they were willing to engage in. 

There is another point of view developing. Talking Points Memo refers us to a speech given by a journalist named Dan Gillmore. Speaking to an international group in Barcelona, he argued that journalists must become activists. The full text of his speech is fairly long, but the gist is that freedom of the press and of speech are in jeopardy, and journalists have to defend them. Gillmor argues that journalists need to be activists. 

The Gillmor speech and the actions of the LA Times are directly contradictory. Gillmor presents a model of journalists as critical thinkers who work to unearth the facts and to present them while in all cases maintaining their own integrity and self respect. Journalists are expected to have principles of their own and to directly defend the principles that deal with educating the public as to the real facts. 

It's a little hard to take that heroic view of journalism as a profession and as a calling, and then explain to your staff that they can't even make a personal statement against bigotry. The vision of the newspaper employee as political eunuch comes to mind. 

The Times ban against participating in a demonstration meant to defend personal and reproductive freedom is just one symptom of the problem. 

The right wing has a giant apparatus determined to destroy the ability of the newspapers to teach what is true. That's why the right wingers constantly refer to liberal bias in newspapers. They feel the need to tear down legitimate news in order to get away with the lies they tell. 

The newspapers sort of respond -- not by embracing the idea of a healthy and constructive liberalism or even a healthy and constructive conservatism -- but by denying that any staff member suffers anything close to a political thought. 

Meanwhile, the right wing opposition is nothing but political, and revels in it. 

Until the big city newspapers recognize that they are in a fight not only for advertising dollars but for defining peoples' world view, they are on the losing side. 

The old joke is that reality has a liberal bias. It came out of the recognition that conservatism has denied such straightforward truths as evolution and global warming. 

To newspapers I say, why not embrace your bias towards real truth and allow your stories to bring out the fact that Trump's staff are lying outright to the public? 

I think we can see some of that attitude coming out in the online community. It's only been three days since the inauguration, and the amazing propensity of Trump spokesmen such as Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway to lie brazenly is becoming a bigger story than the substance of what they are actually saying. 

Conway has already coined the phrase that may ultimately be best remembered from the Trump years, alternative facts. Here we are, less than a week into Trump's first term (OK, just wanted to see if you were listening) and Conway has already created her own version of Hiking the Appalachian Trail. Who knows what she'll create in week number two? 

It's time that the so-called objective sources including the Times take up the real story, the objective fact that the right wing leadership has made it a practice of telling lies chronically and without moral concern. Conway's defense of "alternative facts" should be the only clue we need. 

It should be perfectly acceptable for a political story to make clear that a politician lied to the reporter. More importantly, it should be the obligation of legitimate news sources such as the Times to develop an ongoing storyline about how the right wing outlets such as Fox are misrepresenting the facts and misleading the public.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw

ANIMAL WATCH-Priscilla Romero, a beloved and respected ten-year veteran Animal Care Technician (ACT) at LAAS North Central shelter, credits the heroic and selfless efforts of her coworkers with saving her life when she was viciously attacked by a Pit Bull on January 14. Without hesitation, they ran to her rescue, risking their own safety -- knowing they could also become victims. 

The following is how Priscilla remembers this horrific event from her hospital bed, augmented by the emotional memories of shelter employees who were on duty that morning. 

As is customary on Saturday mornings, there had been early visitors in the kennels looking at dogs for adoption or searching for lost pets. However, by around 10:30 a.m. members of the public walking in the kennels had diminished, leaving no one in the immediate area to hear Priscilla’s screams for help. 

Priscilla entered a kennel at the back of the shelter which housed a female grey-and-white Pit Bull, named Cielo. She tried to isolate the dog in a separate area, but the mechanism to keep the metal gate lowered and in place was defective (as are many in the shelter, according to employees.) Since the dog seemed calm and was standing quietly near her, Priscilla scooped the feces from the floor and reached for the hose to wash the kennel.

Without warning, the Pit Bull lunged at her, clamping onto her right arm, disabling her from reaching her holstered radio to call for help and pulling her to the floor. The dog then attacked her left arm, tearing out large chunks of flesh and muscle. 

Because of the loud barking of dogs alarmed by the attack, Priscilla's screams could not be heard at the front of the shelter where most other staff was working. Fortunately, two male ACT's were approaching the area at that time. They heard her cries and saw her covered in blood, struggling on the floor as the dog relentlessly bit and shredded her arm.

As they ran to her, one made a radio "distress" call for assistance. Other ACT’s and the Kennel Supervisor immediately rushed to help, calling 911 and bringing a "catch" pole. The first ACT's were trying unsuccessfully to physically separate the dog from Priscilla, but it kept circling back to attack her and charge them. The Supervisor then arrived with another employee and used the pole to capture the dog. 

Seeing blood flowing profusely from Priscilla's upper left arm, Kennel Supervisor Garens Lloyd quickly used a dog leash to create a tourniquet and apply it tightly above her wounds. Two male ACT's removed their shirts and covered her arms to soak up the blood and also, so she would not see the severity of the attack. 

Paramedics arrived shortly and commended Garens for his quick action. The doctor later said the tourniquet was done perfectly. One fireman commented that Priscilla’s injuries looked like a "shark attack."

Priscilla was admitted to the hospital in critical condition. She underwent emergency surgery that lasted over five hours. Both arms are bandaged from her fingers to her shoulders. From photos, it appears her entire left biceps are gone. She was hospitalized for six days and may need numerous reconstructive surgeries. 

Where was Brenda Barnette? 

No one from LAAS management visited Priscilla at the hospital, although shelter employees from the Valley to the Harbor came. GM Brenda Barnette called Priscilla’s cell phone the day after the attack, saying, “I’m checking in to see how you're doing” and left a short, awkward, dispassionate message, which did not include "I’m sorry this happened to you." 

Brenda Barnette doesn't seem to think employee injuries are serious incidents. At the last LA Animal Services Commission Meeting on January 10, GM Barnette laughed as she described the injury to an LA Animal Services Officer attacked by an aggressive Pit Bull while responding to a call. She laughed again as she announced a second injury when the officer was later attacked by a 160-pound dog and had to fight for his life. This is not the first time GM Barnette -- who has no animal control experience--chuckled about an employee being attacked in the shelter or field. 

LAAS Commission, Council and Mayor Also Ignore Dangers to Employees 

The Commission, which heads LA Animal Services, has never questioned Barnette's inappropriate reaction and dismissal of the dangers to her employees. Neither has the Commission, Councilman Paul Koretz, the SEIU union, nor the Mayor's office insisted that corrections be made to many documented safety hazards at LAAS shelters or that faulty field equipment be repaired or replaced. LAAS  employees are still driving 2001 and 2003 trucks that LA City's Director of Fleet Services, Richard Coulson reported to Koretz’ PAW Committee in Sept. 2015 were “falling apart."  

Another example of faulty equipment and poor management was the attack on a night-shift female Animal Control Officer, who responded to a call about two attacking Pit Bulls in Eagle Rock. The ACO captured one of the 90-lb. dogs (later identified as American Bulldogs) but the other bit her leg and wrist causing serious bleeding. There was no ACO back-up on night shift, her radio emergency button “went nowhere,” and no one answered the shelter phone. Luckily, a witness called 911. 

Attacks by Pit Bulls Available for Adoption 

There are frequent reports of attacks by dogs with a recorded history of aggression adopted from LA City shelters, and numerous tearful accounts of pets being almost instantly attacked or killed. There is also a history of incidents involving humans: 

"Cielo" 

Cielo, the female Pit Bull that attacked ACT Priscilla Romero had two prior entries regarding aggression. Also, she was surrendered on Oct. 16, 2016, because she attacked other dogs. Still, she was being offered for adoption to the public. Since the real world is filled with “other dogs,” why isn’t known background information clearly described on a kennel card for prospective adopters to read?  

On Oct. 27, ACT Romero wrote that the dog bit her finger, but didn’t break the skin. On Nov. 12 another ACT noted, "BE CAUTIOUS OF THIS DOG---DOG WILL GROWL, BARE TEETH AND TRIES TO BITE AS I’M TRYING TO OPEN THE KENNEL DOOR TO PICK UP EMPTY FOOD BOWL." Wouldn’t you want to know this before taking the dog home? 

Keeping behavioral records in the computer only is unfair to employees, who do not have time to check each dog for new information every day. There is no method at LAAS kennels to discover that a new negative behavioral warning has been entered, as at other shelters. Could this be because euthanizing dangerous animals would belie Brenda Barnette’s and Best Friends’ “no kill” claims? 

“Albert” 

On Oct. 23, 2015, a stray blue-and-white male Pit Bull was impounded at the West LA shelter and named "Albert." On August 11, 2016, a man saw Albert and wanted to test his reaction to his daughter before adopting him. Albert seriously bit and injured the 8-year-old child, “… during an introduction to the family in the shelter’s play yard." A critical incident report filing was made. 

A Jan. 14, 2016, note on Albert predicted problems: “This dog is an escape artist….I would use caution around this dog, requires a very strong handler. WILL BITE WHEN IN KENNEL.” Why was Albert offered eight months later to a family with a child? 

On Aug. 30, 2016 -- nineteen days after that attack -- Albert was still at the WLA shelter, with the comment, “No owner information, no interested parties, no networking being done on Albert. Euthanasia scheduled.” Why was Albert still available for release to anyone after a critical attack on a child? And why are taxpayers paying for these prolonged stays for unadoptable animals? 

“Sammy” 

On  April 28, 2016, a Pit Bull surrendered as “Sodam” (renamed “Sammy”) with-a-violent-history of repeated-aggression, and who had just bitten an LAAS kennel worker in the abdomen, was released to NovaStar Rescue at the personal instruction of LA Animal Services GM Brenda Barnette.

However, the Hayden Bill does not require the release of surrendered animals to rescues. 

On May 15, 2016, LA Fire Department and LAPD responded to an unkempt home near downtown LA at approximately 9 p.m., where a Pit Bull was attacking a woman who “was visiting dog to determine if she wants to adopt from the rescue who had been fostering the dog.” That dog was later identified by LA Animal Services as Impound #1608123, “Sammy.” 

Sammy was alive but had been stabbed 19 times by a neighbor who heard the victim screaming.

Warehousing Aggressive Pit Bulls 

LAAS employees have expressed on-going concerns about prolonged warehousing of, especially, Pit Bulls, in the City's six shelters, where confinement and isolation increases the animals' hopelessness, frustration and aggression. Many of the Pit Bulls shown on the LAAS site have been caged for months or over a year. Why? These dogs are miserable. They are not adoptable and they take up space that could allow dozens of dogs to find new homes during that same period.

Nothing in California law requires dogs that have exhibited aggressive or dangerous behavior to be offered for adoption to individuals or families where they may attack/kill humans or other pets. But Brenda and Best Friends are determined to reach a metric called "no kill." If the dogs die from injuries or illness, they are not counted in the shelter's euthanasia stats. 

Are dog attacks just "business as usual" at LA Animal Services? 

Here is an email to Mayor Garcetti by an employee who was present when ACT Priscilla Romero was attacked. Although the writer’s name has been removed, the despair obviously is beyond caring about retaliation. This feeling is increasingly permeating Los Angeles Animal Services: 

Date: January 14, 2017 at 12:04:24 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Dog mauling city employee 

            You have a serious problem within Animal Services starting and ending with Brenda [Barnette]. An hour ago a fellow employee was wheeled into the medical room, in shock, with a tourniquet on her left arm, pale as a ghost, and with tissue strewn across her chest. Employees also in shock, some crying.  Paramedics responded quickly and rushed her to the hospital.  

            The lack of response of your office, the negligence, and the dereliction that starts as your responsibility is atrocious. You should be ashamed, as this person is a friend and a good employee. Our response from our AGM after being notified and asked to temporarily close the shelter, was that 'dog bites happen all the time.' To be clear there are dog bites, and I've bandaged them, but this was a mauling. 

            This mauling, as most are now a days, was predictable. You the mayor, with the goal of "save them all" have increased and, in fact, demanded that the nature of employee's being attacked, is acceptable. Our kennels are full, dogs are in inappropriate cages, aggressive dogs are held perpetually until our statistics show that we euthanized one less dog than last year.  

            Our general manager isn't here. Why not? If I firefighter was injured on duty, or an officer shot, would the commander tell them "buck up, it's a function of your job, get back to work?" Or would they show leadership and understanding and go to the hospital to personally show their condolences. 

            This department is ridiculous and it's happening under your auspices. This time around I imagine the city will be sued, as this dog has previous memos of its aggressive nature and was otherwise placed in a public area.

(Signed by employee)

I'm sorry if this is bad form, but I'm slightly traumatized by this as well.

Time for a Grand Jury Investigation 

It is time for a grand jury to investigate why “no kill” is more important to the Mayor, Council and Brenda Barnette than protecting humans, ensuring the welfare of employees like Priscilla Romero, and safeguarding children and pets from aggressive/fighting-breed dogs. It also needs to determine the total cost of "no kill" to taxpayers. 

A grand jury should audit how much money is being contributed to LA City political campaigns and/or elected office-holders’ charitable accounts by all humane organizations (including their for-profit and non-profit affiliates/partners) which have programs or contracts with Los Angeles Animal Services and which demand/encourage the very inhumane "no kill" agenda. 

The focus of that myopic agenda necessitates the warehousing of aggressive/fighting dogs and other animals in city shelters despite documented evidence that they pose a safety hazard to employees and the public.  

"No kill" garners big donations from those who don't understand the suffering of these caged animals. It is time to acknowledge the misery and dissect the underlying financial motivation. 

(Phyllis M. Daugherty is a former City of LA employee and a contributor to CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

FIRST PERSON REPORT--On the Saturday following the Inauguration, I joined three-quarters of a million women, men, and children gathered in downtown Los Angeles in what would be the largest women’s march in the world. The crowd represented both experienced and newly minted activists. Perhaps some had originally joined for what my kids refer to as “FOMO” or fear of missing out, snapping selfies in front of colorful signage. For others, being part of something bigger quelled the fears and anxieties that had surfaced on November 8^th. With hope, everyone who participated (and those who followed from their living rooms) will feel empowered to continue activist efforts to protect rights at risk and the future of the planet. 

Helen Reddy’s a capella rendition of her feminist anthem, “I Am Woman,” spoke to those of us who are old enough to remember the seventies. Women, like one in a clip broadcast on the side of a media trailer, never believed they’d be marching again for battles fought decades ago. As I stood near the staging later in the day, I overheard a college student explain to a new friend that she had stumbled into the march– but “I’m also a feminist, you know.” If we’ve become complacent about defending our rights, this election and what’s at stake may serve as a wake-up call for those of us who have been politically active, as well as those who are new to the experience. 

The mission of the Official Women’s March Los Angeles was to “stand together in solidarity for the protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country” and in support of “the advocacy and resistance movements that reflect our multiple and intersecting identities.” In many ways, the crowds that gathered downtown represent the diversity that makes our city so special, unified to defend the rights of all. 

As many of the speakers at the event expressed to the crowd, it’s crucial to stay organized, not only for one day. Actress and activist Christine Lahti added, “If you don’t know what choice to make, make one that helps someone else, through city council, your neighborhoods, working on ordinances.” This is just the first step.

• For more pix on ‘sister’ Women’s Marches around the country and the world. 

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

-cw

IMPRESSIONS--The Saturday, Jan. 21 Women’s March in Downtown Los Angeles against the incoming Trump Administration was one of hundreds of similar marches across the United States and in other countries. (Photo above: Marchers on Grand Avenue in Downtown LA, one of many packed streets.) 

Occidental College political scientist Peter Dreir has calculated that the total for all demonstrations in the United States exceed 4,000,000 people. He also wrote that the final tally could be higher once more reliable counts are collected. For instance, in Los Angeles, ABC news, as well as the march organizers, estimated there were 750,000 people in total, while the New York Times reported 100,000, even lower than the LAPD’s estimate. Having been at both, I think this march was comparable in size to the immigrant rights march of 2006, which had 500,000 people. 

With such a mammoth event, many people never arrived on time, or at all, because METRO’s busses and subways were overwhelmed, with waits of two hours in North Hollywood to take the Red Line. Others followed from home through traditional media and social media. 

As an eyewitness, these are my other impressions, beyond the unexpected size of the event: 

• Nearly all signs were made at home, with hardly any handed out at the event itself by organizers or other supportive groups. 

• Domestic issues prevailed. The messages of these homemade signs were focused on domestic issues such as opposition to all types sexism, bigotry, racism, and nativism. They also included opposition to mass deportations, erosion of health care, and violations of civil liberties, as well as the need to combat fascist trends through more enormous street actions. 

• Foreign policy issues ignored. Media and Democratic Party finger pointing at Russia and Vladimir Putin did not gain any traction with the demonstrators. During the entire march, among the tens of thousands of signs that swept by me, I only saw two that mentioned Russia or Putin. Clearly this highly charged dispute within the foreign policy establishment over US-Russian relations did not motivate 750,000 people to walk the streets of downtown LA for this anti-Trump Women’s March. 

• Diversity: Those attending were of all ages. They ranged from babies to the elderly. On the east coast, I even heard a personal story of a 93-year-old woman who attended her first demonstration and loved it. Despite being called a Women’s March, there were also lots of men, but Latinos, Asians, and African-Americans were under-represented. If they were there in proportion to those who voted by Hillary Clinton or Jill Stein in the November election, there would have easily been over 1,000,000 demonstrators. 

• Missing: During four hours at this march, we did not see anyone from the LAPD, LADOT traffic control officers, or the media. On the various approach routes, there were many LAFD trucks, but otherwise it was just waves of marchers, in some cases mixing with snarled traffic. According to news reports, a few public officials spoke at Pershing Square and City Hall, including Mayor Eric Garcetti. Apparently Hizzoner was unaware of the irony of a mayor whose administration is in total collusion with Big Real Estate through pay-to-play protesting a President whose cabinet represents total collusion between Big Business and the federal government. 

• Insufficient planning: The organizers, working with City departments, expected 80,000 to 100,000 people, but downtown LA’s streets were overwhelmed with much greater numbers. The demonstrators had to compete with traffic on streets like Grand until sheer numbers imposed total gridlock. At Red and Purple line subway stations, there were hardly any METRO employees to help those new to transit navigate the ticketing systems and entrances. At bus stops METRO had not posted alternative routes and times because of the march. To METRO’s credit, though, bus drivers were extremely helpful in getting demonstrators into and out of the downtown 

• What next? The tiny fraction of demonstrators who heard speeches or got handouts at Pershing Square or City Hall might have been give direction for next steps, but the vast majority of those who made it to downtown LA left in quandary over what comes next, despite their feel-good day. There are so many ways, though, for them to be engaged, including those I outlined in a previous City Watch article on climate issues, that anyone who so desires can find a vast array of local projects to help with, such as immigrant rights, environmental-justice, or the expected military conflicts either in the works or to be blundered into by the new administration.

(Dick Platkin is former LA City planner who recently taught courses on sustainable city planning at USC and CSUN. He is also a former union officer, who worked hard to create labor-neighbor alliances in Los Angeles. Please send corrections or comments to [email protected].)

-cw