WEST COAST CITY OF LIGHTS-Imagine stepping into a time machine and traveling 100 years into the future. You find out that the city of Fargo, North Dakota, once barely a speck on the map, has become the country’s second-largest metropolis and the place to be for cosmopolitans and immigrants of every stripe – an internationally renowned commercial and cultural hub. 

That’s exactly what Los Angeles is today. Over a century, the city has risen meteorically from a sleepy farming town in the middle of nowhere to a world-famous center of entertainment, business and pretty much anything else you can name. As of 2015, the Greater Los Angeles area was home to over 15 million people, making it the second largest urban area in the country and 19th largest in the world. Los Angeles’ gross domestic product is closing in on $1 trillion, placing it in the top tier of urban economies globally. 

But for all its people and businesses, the city faces equally legendary problems: Its housing shortages, traffic jams, homelessness, inequality and issues of racial injustice have all become as well known as any movie studio in this city. And with it, the city is going through a bit of an identity crisis. 

Make no mistake, Los Angeles’ era as a boomtown is over. The city – built on natural assets and sustained by the offer of a unique lifestyle centered around the automobile – now needs to reinvent itself as a true urban center if it wants to remain important in the coming years. 

City leaders are emphasizing density, transit and social justice more than ever. But in order to find a way forward, the city must establish its civic identity once and for all – in other words, what it means to be an Angeleno in the 21st Century. 

The Western frontier 

Americans didn’t really pay attention to Los Angeles for most of its early history. 

When Felipe De Neve – then-governor of the Spanish province of Alta California and namesake of our beloved dorms and dining hall – commissioned the establishment of El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora de los Angeles de Porciuncula in the Los Angeles Basin in 1777, the site was a chaparral-covered prairie home to dozens of native Tongva tribes. 

A hundred years later, the pueblo had become a ranching community of about 6,000 people built on the backs of native laborers. Spanish and Mexican rule, the California Gold Rush and the cattle rancheros had come and gone, but Los Angeles was still just a Wild West town – rowdy and lawless, with most of the violence squared on its Mexican population. 

All that quickly changed when the railroads came to town. In the process, Los Angeles found a civic identity as a booming farm town on the western frontier supported by good weather, cheap land and wealth eventually provided by the oil and movie industries. 

When the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1881, it provided Southern California’s first direct link to the eastern United States. That same year, the California State Normal School opened a southern branch – one that would eventually become UCLA. Los Angeles was clearly moving up in the world. 

Local farmers soon found that the area’s temperate Mediterranean climate was perfect for growing big, juicy oranges. With the advent of refrigerated boxcars, agriculture replaced cattle ranching as a mainstay of the Southern California economy. The orange industry left an impression on the growing town that can still be felt to this day. 

By 1890, over 50,000 people called Los Angeles home. 

It’s tough to pin down a single explanation for the city’s sudden explosive growth. In an 1890 edition of the “Historical Society of Southern California,” historian J.M. Guinn laid out various reasons for the city’s stunning success. First, railroads from the U.S.’s eastern population centers eliminated the six-month transcontinental trek to even reach the place. Second was the orange business, which attracted thousands of migrants looking for work. Third, the area’s world-famous sunny and warm climate proved an obvious draw for frostbitten easterners. 

There were other factors too: easily available land through the Homestead Act of 1862 promised newcomers a healthy chunk of Southern California real estate, and the discovery of oil in 1892 attracted speculators – and their money – in droves. 

Looking back, it’s easy to see similar factors and growth patterns in other Sunbelt cities like Houston, San Diego and later Phoenix. But Los Angeles was the only city with a potent enough combination of cheap and open land, a strong economy and good weather in the prime time of Western settlement to sustain a population boom that lasted decades. 

Land was cheap when Los Angeles was still booming. This advertisement for lots at Pacific Palisades ran in a February 1929 issue of the Daily Bruin. (Daily Bruin archives)

If Los Angeles’ early growth was fueled by its natural assets, it was quickly becoming a major city in its own right – complete with electric trolleys, the newly opened University of Southern California and a 280-mile aqueduct carrying water from the Owens River in the Sierra Nevada area to the Southland. The city even had its first skyscraper, the Braly Block, open in 1904. 

The population would continue to boom over the next 20 years as the petroleum and silent film industry attracted more residents and business to the Southland. 

But this was just LA’s warmup. A particular invention that was becoming popular at the time would cement the city’s place as the boomtown of the 20th century: the automobile. 

Eventually, the orange groves would give way to palm trees and housing subdivisions as Los Angeles discovered its next identity. 

Paradise on the freeway 

Fun fact: Only one species of palm tree is actually native to Southern California. Of the countless different types of palms throughout LA, every one that isn’t the tall Washingtonia filifera – better known as the California fan palm – came from elsewhere. 

Yet palms of every shape and size have come to define the city’s urban landscape, and they provide an important clue to discerning why Los Angeles continued to grow and thrive while other cities across the country lost population and relevance. 

Los Angeles’ second identity was, simply put, a 20th-century paradise. It promised its citizens what its eastern counterparts could not: a mild climate, affordable housing and – most importantly – an entire city built around the allure of a freewheeling auto-centered lifestyle. 

And it delivered – at least for a while. 

The city had plenty of room to grow into this model from its perch in 1920: its population of almost 600,000 was largely confined to the city center and got around with one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country. Most of the surrounding land was still farmland or wilderness – including a pocket of land out west where a new UCLA campus opened in 1929. Los Angeles also began aggressively annexing surrounding communities. City Hall opened in 1928 as a towering celebration of the city’s newfound prominence. The 408-foot structure would remain the tallest building in the city for 40 years. 

By 1930, the population of Los Angeles had ballooned to over a million people, cementing its place as one of America’s great cities. No one was ignoring LA anymore. 

The population only continued to grow during the Great Depression and World War II, when the Southland set itself up as the West Coast’s economic center and primary magnet for wartime manufacturing.

All those people had to live somewhere, so housing tracts began to spread in all directions from the city center, aided by a growing street grid and an intricate Red Car streetcar system – the largest in the world at its peak. 

And traffic isn’t just a modern LA gripe: riders often complained of slow streetcar speeds along its busiest lines, prompting civic leaders to look into an alternative route of transportation. They found it in the freeway. When the national freeway frenzy began in earnest during the 1950s, the megaroads were considered saviors that would be cheaper, faster and more versatile than the streetcars. The Red Car system began dismantling at the same time.

By the 1950s, LA’s trajectory was clear. The city was still growing at a breakneck pace in every direction. Every direction, that is, except up. The city passed an ordinance way back in 1911 restricting the height of any new building to 150 feet, with the sole exception of City Hall.

But that played perfectly into LA’s allure. People – wealthy white people, to be specific – were fleeing America’s crowded, polluted and oftentimes snowy inner cities en masse for suburbs in the phenomenon known as “white flight.” And LA marketed itself as one giant suburb. 

Even the buildings were built around the car. The line of skyscrapers down Wilshire Boulevard’s “Miracle Mile” were envisioned as the nation’s first “linear downtown,” where every building was easily accessible just by driving down the street. 

A large, single-family home on a generous lot, with a lawn artificially irrigated by water from the Colorado and Owens rivers – the American dream offered itself in full gear. And lest residents ever feel that they weren’t living in paradise, the palm trees were always there to emphasize the tropical vibe. 

Los Angeles and the California lifestyle made its mark on the national psyche through pop culture: James Dean raced cars in “Rebel Without a Cause” and The Mamas and The Papas had some “California Dreamin’,” singing “I’d be safe and warm, if I was in LA.”

Which was all well and good – if you were white. But discriminatory housing covenants meant that the Angeleno take on the American dream was virtually off-limits to the city’s sizeable Latino and black populations. The covenants were banned by the Rumford Fair Housing Act of 1963 but reinstated when California voters approved Proposition 14, which nullified the Rumford Act, in 1964. The California Supreme Court declared the proposition unconstitutional in 1966, but racial minorities were still forced into the eastern and southern parts of the city. These neighborhoods suffered from decades of divestment and neglect, which can still be felt to this day. 

Los Angeles continued to grow throughout the postwar era – in sharp contrast to its already-developed counterparts in the East and Midwest, which saw their populations decimated in a one-two punch from economic malaise caused by deindustrialization and suburbanization at the expense of the inner city. Notably, of the U.S.’s 10 largest cities in 1950, only New York and Los Angeles have a larger population today.

 But all this growth led to a whole host of new problems, forcing the city to question its comfortable suburban identity and once again transform – this time into the densifying urban colossus we see today.

City of lights 

The year was 1984, and cheers flooded the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Athletes from around the world gathered to show their physical prowess in the XXIII Summer Olympics. And Los Angeles was the center of the world’s attention. 

A mere 100 years after it was a rough-and-tumble farm town newly connected to the outside world, Los Angeles had become a behemoth megapolis that was hosting the Olympics for the second time and had just overtaken Chicago to become the second-largest city in the country. The age of modern LA was just beginning. 

But as the saying goes, not everything that glitters in this city of lights is gold. The modern city is defined by dichotomy: old and new, rich and poor, low and high-rise. Many of the current issues Los Angeles faces like homelessness, traffic, pollution and housing shortages stem from its status as a boomtown metropolis for most of the 20th century. 

In 1957, city voters repealed the ordinance restricting building heights. The Union Bank Plaza opened downtown 11 years later as LA’s first modern skyscraper and part of a controversial redevelopment of the Bunker Hill neighborhood. The neighborhood’s stately old Victorian homes were quickly razed and replaced by gleaming glass and steel skyscrapers. 

Some people liked those Victorians, though. There has always been a tension between pro- and anti-development visions for the city, reflected in the fact that control over development has been the one of the most contentious issues in local politics as of late – the high rise-restricting Measure S on this year’s ballot is just the most recent example. 

This tension underscores yet another one of Los Angeles’ civic identities. But this time, the city is torn between visions of its suburban, exclusionary past and diverse urban future, and Angelenos are living in a moment of civic rediscovery. 

The facade of a car-based utopia was already beginning to crack by the 1970s, as it turned out that building an entire city around the automobile had some unintended consequences. Jammed freeways and an internationally notorious smog problem prompted swift and aggressive action by the city. Now, most of Los Angeles’ transportation initiatives are aimed at getting people out of their cars – not into them. 

Moreover, the still-rising population introduced a problem new to Angelenos: Housing was becoming too expensive. Some people couldn’t even pay their property taxes anymore. In the “taxpayer revolt” of 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which caps property taxes and provided respite from crushing tax burdens – at the expense of state coffers. 

A bigger backlash to the city’s rapid development took place in 1986, when city voters passed Proposition U. The measure imposed significant reductions on the size and height of buildings in many areas of the city. 

And the suburban legacy of racial injustice has continued into the 21st century. Today’s majority-minority neighborhoods are still struggling with basic environmental justice issues like having enough grocery stores and handling toxic waste. The issue has slipped under the city’s radar for years, but thanks to increased activism and focus on social justice, it may finally be getting the attention it deserves. 

It hasn’t been all doom and gloom for Los Angeles, though. The city is still growing, albeit not as quickly as before. It’s made significant investments in mass transit, most recently via Measure M, a sales tax passed last November that will finance major expansions in the city’s transportation infrastructure. And in the era of President Donald Trump, Los Angeles’ leaders have positioned themselves as advocates of social justice – how well they can carry out that promise and address the city’s infamous inequality and racial tensions remains to be seen. 

The legacies of the city’s previous identities have manifested in the attractions and problems of the LA we see today. But housing tracts are a lot harder to bulldoze than orange groves, and unlike before, Los Angeles isn’t going to be able to organically grow its way out of its problems. 

The decisions city leaders make over the next few years can determine whether LA sinks or swims – if it becomes a thriving metropolis influenced by its suburban roots, or just another overcrowded city that can’t meet its residents’ needs.

Changing tides

Every now and then, when I get a break from my responsibilities at the Daily Bruin, I take the Expo rail line downtown. It helps me escape the Westwood bubble for a bit, and I like watching the city whiz by as the train barrels down the tracks – or crawls, as it gets closer to downtown. 

From my window, there’s a pretty stark difference in the layout and development between Westwood and Palms – and Crenshaw, and West Adams, and Exposition Park and Downtown, for that matter. 

But there’s one thing all these places, along with the countless other neighborhoods throughout the city, have in common: They’re developed, yet still growing. 

Los Angeles is a megapolis. The chaparral-covered wilderness and orange groves are long gone, replaced by houses, apartments, skyscrapers and strip malls. The City of Angels’ days as a frontier boomtown and America’s suburb are over. 

And yes, the city faces challenges of Angeleno proportions: homelessness, crime, inequality, fights over development, gridlock and gentrification. Unaddressed, these issues threaten to buckle the city under the weight of its own problems. 

But tackling these issues can put Los Angeles on the brink of a major urban transformation. Like it has in the past, it will grow and change yet again. It must adapt to changing cultural and demographic tides to cultivate a bustling but sustainable and livable environment for all its citizens.

If it’s done right, the city can find a new identity as true urban center. The assets are there: an economic, entertainment and cultural hub of international prestige, a wide array of lifestyle options and one of the most diverse places in the world to boot. 

Now, it needs to do what it hasn’t before and provide the Angeleno dream to all its citizens. It’s a future the city must embrace – after all, it’s already grown out. Both literally and metaphorically, the only way to go now is up.

(Chris Campbell is the current Daily Bruin Opinion editor. He previously served as Radio Director and as a Radio contributor. He writes about everything, but focuses on Westwood and city issues. This column appeared originally in the Daily Bruin.)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RUN-OFF?-Last week, I had a brief sit down with Joe Bray-Ali – the upstart, independent candidate for the City Council seat in Council District 1. As of this writing, Bray-Ali looks poised to head into a runoff with Gil Cedillo. It would be hard to create a more polished, poised, committed, and competent candidate than Bray-Ali. If Mr. Smith rode his bike to Washington, he’d look and sound a lot like Joe Bray-Ali. (Photo above: Joe Bray-Ali on left, Gil Cedillo.) 

Contrasted with the mumbly, creepy-uncle vibe of Cedillo, it’s hard to believe we even need a runoff. But this is LA, where voter turnout inching above 18% is considered pretty darn good, and the population completely tunes out local politics until it spills into their backyard. In a city full of faux-progressives screaming at their iPhones over the latest outrage in Washington, Los Angeles had a collective yawn on Election Day and sent a crop of bought-and-paid-for incumbents back to City Hall to kick business as usual into overdrive.

I can’t say I’ve been paying much attention to CD1 – most of my time is spent in my own neighborhood. But I’ve known Joe for a while, seen him in action in the community, and know he’s paid his dues. We disagreed over Measure S, but – as I’ve said all along – we don’t need Measure S if we have elected officials committed to doing what’s right in our neighborhoods rather than the bidding of bankers and developers. Joe Bray-Ali is that kind of guy. 

But even a surface understanding of the race in CD1 leads overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the time has come to elect a true independent to City Council. 

Word on the street is that Cedillo can’t really be bothered to get to know his true constituents. Even his supporters note his "somewhat aloof governing style."  If you want the opposite of aloof, vote for Joe Bray-Ali. He’s literally on the streets of his neighborhood every day, riding his bike, working for his neighbors, and talking to people. You don’t need to be a VIP to talk to Joe. Just look for him in the neighborhood. 

But the most important reason to vote for Joe is because he’s not beholden to the big money interests who look at our neighborhoods the way Donald Trump looks at a cheap steak. Cedillo – like every one of the incumbents on his (and I do mean “his”) way back to the halls of power – is in deep with the money men, including local do-gooders Chevron Corporation.  

During our conversation last week, Joe made an interesting point. He said, although he could compete with the incumbent on a 19th Century playing field – shaking hands, going door-to-door, meeting people in the neighborhood – as well as on a variety of 21st Century platforms – Internet, social media – the 20th Century was killing him. Big media – newspapers, radio, television – where blood and money are the only things that break through the gate, and old-fashioned mailers – where name recognition is forged in the minds of many low-information voters – all came down to one element: money. In order to break through the strangle-hold that money and apathy have on City Hall, we’ve got to find a way to get up off the couch and vote.

It can’t be that hard.

(David Bell is a writer, attorney, former president of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council and writes for CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

HEALTHCARE WATCH--The GOP's healthcare plan narrowly passed out of the House Budget Committee on Thursday, while "stakeouts" began in Congressional home districts aimed at pressuring lawmakers to vote against the widely unpopular legislation. (Graphic above: A sign at the stakeout targeting Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas)

Three right-wing Republicans on the committee, Reps. Dave Brat (Va.), Mark Sanford (S.C.), and Gary Palmer (Ala.), voted against advancing the American Healthcare Act (AHCA) —but their opposition was not enough to stymie the plan. Now, the bill heads to the House Rules Committee, "where leadership might make amendments to appease conservatives and moderates unhappy with the current legislation," The Hill reported. A full House vote could come as early as next week. 

And so the resistance must act fast, hence this week's "Congressional Stakeouts to Save Healthcare," organized by MoveOn.org and taking place outside the district offices of nine Republican senators and more than two dozen Republican representatives who "hold the decisive votes" on AHCA.

"By holding vigil outside the offices of key Republicans who hold the decisive votes on 'TrumpCare,' MoveOn members will ensure that anyone coming in or out of the office—staff, visitors, and the members of Congress themselves—will face their constituents and hear our health care stories, our songs, our hopes, our anger, and our cheer," said Victoria Kaplan, organizing director for MoveOn.org.

"Passing this repeal bill is the GOP's top legislative priority—but because of strong opposition from constituents recently, including at intense and packed town hall meetings, GOP leaders are in a bind," she continued. "If millions of MoveOn members and activists nationwide mobilize—by showing up at Congressional offices, making phone calls, and sharing our healthcare stories—we can prevent this bill from ever becoming law."

The targeted lawmakers are:

Senators:

• Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
• Tom Cotton (Ark.)
• Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
• Cory Gardner (Colo.)
• Bill Cassidy (La.)
• Susan Collins (Maine)
• Dean Heller (Nev.)
• Rob Portman (Ohio)
• Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.)

Representatives:

• Martha McSally (Ariz.)
• David Valdao (Calif.)
• Ed Royce (Calif.)
• Darrell Issa (Calif.)
• Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.)
• Mimi Walters (Calif.)
• Jeff Denham (Calif.)
• Steve Knight (Calif.)
• Carlos Curbelo (Fla.)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
• Peter Roskam (Ill.)
• Kevin Yoder (Kan.)
• Erik Paulsen (Minn.)
• Leonard Lance (N.J.)
• John Katko (N.Y.)
• Elise Stefanik (N.Y.)
• Patrick Meehan (Pa.)
• Ryan Costello (Pa.)
• Pete Sessions (Texas)
• Will Hurd (Texas)
• John Culberson (Texas)
• Barbara Comstock (Va.)
• Dave Reichert (Wash.)

The stakeouts had begun as of Thursday afternoon.

And with additional town hall meetings planned for this weekend, legislators are likely to get an earful over the next few days—much like Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price did during a CNN town hall on Wednesday night.

"Medicaid expansion saved my life and saved me from medical bankruptcy," colon cancer survivor Brian Kline of Pennsylvania said to Price during the televised session. "Now, I earn $11.66 an hour at my retail job. And obviously, I cannot afford to pay for my cancer care out of pocket. My life really depends on having access to my doctors and medical care. Getting a cancer diagnosis is bad enough. But Medicaid expansion gives me the economic security in knowing that funding is always going to be there for my cancer care. So my question for you, Secretary Price, is pretty straightforward: Why do you want to take away my Medicaid expansion?"

Price responded: "The fact of the matter is, we don't. We don't want to take care away from anybody. What we want to make certain, though, is that every single American has access to the kind of coverage and care that they want for themselves."

Kline said later that he didn't think the secretary had answered his question.

Watch the exchange:

Another attendee zeroed in on the plan's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. 

(Deirdre Fulton writes for Common Dreams … where this report was first posted.)

-cw

RANTZ & RAVEZ--A RantZ is something negative while a RaveZ is something positive. I will begin with some RaveZ this week. 

Hats off and Congratulations to Mayor Eric Garcetti for a huge victory in the election for Mayor of Los Angeles. With 10 opponents in the race, Mayor Garcetti was able to generate a huge victory with over 80% of the votes. That is an incredible victory for our Mayor who will have a firm position to continue his vision for Los Angeles over the next 5 and one half years. 

While the usual term for the Mayor and the other elected city officials is 4 years, a change in the election cycle is providing the leaders of our city with an extra year and a half to adjust the election cycle to align with state and federal elections. The intended purpose is to encourage more voters out to vote in local elections. 

Time will tell if this tactic works. It has not worked in the past and that is why the city elections pulled away from the state and federal election cycle to stand alone a few years ago. It was part of the Charter Reform. If there is a magic formula to motivate large numbers of voters to vote, Los Angeles needs it. 

It is interesting to note that while thousands of eligible voters can gather to protest an issue or situation they refuse to vote where real change can be made. While many of the protests are peaceful, a quicker way to make change in America is by voting. A simple and highly successful process in our form of Government in America. 

For the record, the County of Los Angeles spent around $19 Million Dollars of our tax money on the March 7 election.    

####

The vision of the Mayor includes an urban city with denser development along transit lines. That means the continuation of more apartment and condo construction throughout the city and an expansion of the public transit lines. With the passage of Measure M in a previous election, the funds will be there to push forward with more public transit projects. It is all part of the vision to build up with more density. More residential units in the form of condos and apartments. 

With rents of newly constructed one bedroom apartments going for over $2,000 in many communities of the San Fernando Valley, and much higher in other parts of the city, rents will never be brought down to a more reasonable cost. No matter how many residential units are being built in Los Angeles, the rents will remain out of the reach of many families. In order to purchase a single -family home in the Los Angeles area, a person needs to make an annual income in the Hundred Thousand Dollar range to simply qualify for a loan. With interest rates increasing, fewer people will have the funds to purchase a single -family home with a yard for the children to play and a dog to run around. 

The only option is to pay rent for an apartment or hope to possibly purchase a condo that one can qualify for and afford.

####

My son recently showed interest in a condo in Culver City. The condo had 3 bedrooms and had been upgraded. The asking price was over ONE Million Dollars. To say the least, he did not purchase the unit. 

Congratulations again to Mayor Garcetti for his victory in leading Los Angeles forward for the next possibly 5 1/2 years. The door is open for the Mayor to run for United State Senator if Diane Feinstein decides to retire or California Governor when Governor Brown terms out of office. Either way the future for Mayor Garcetti is clear to follow his dreams for leadership in our region of America.

####

Congratulations are also extended to the other Elected City Officials that won their race with no opposition in the race, City Attorney Mike Feuer, Controller Ron Galperin and District 3 Councilman Bob Blumenfield all won. The odd numbered seats of the council will all be returning and there will be a runoff for the North East San Fernando Valley Council seat in the 7^th District. 

Congratulations to District 1. Councilman Gil Cedillo, District 5 Paul Koretz, District 9 Current Price, District 11 Mike Bonin, District 13 Mitch O’Farrell, District 15 Joe Buscaino.

###

How about Measures S and H? 

It turned out that the majority of the voters were opposed to measure “S” and supportive of measure “H”. 

What this means is that massive development will continue in Los Angeles and the gridlock transportation and congestion will not be improved in our region of California in the immediate future. More apartments and condos and traffic on our roadways. When it comes to rents in the new units, it is all about Market Rate that means what the market will bear. Little is any will be affordable for people making $10.15 or even $15.00 an hour.   

Being a native of Los Angeles all my life, I can remember the public transit system that once transported people around Los Angeles in a smooth and efficient manner. Once very efficient and effective all scraped for the comfort and convenience of a personal car. Now we all live in gridlock 7 days a week on our freeways and local roads. The people have voted on Measure S and we will all live with it into the future. 

Measure “H” won in the election. The measure will increase the sales tax in Los Angeles County, not just the City of LA, ¼ cent for the next 10 years. Time will tell if the 10 years turn into permanent as others have in the past. The money will be used to assist with the homeless situation in Los Angeles County. 

Serving as a Board member for Hope of the Valley, a Homeless Service Center in the Valley, I have seen firsthand the sadness of the Homeless in our region. Will the funds honestly be applied to those organizations dealing with the Homeless or just chewed up with administrative and other operational costs? 

The homeless situation is not improving and if the funds are not properly used to address and help eliminate the homeless on the streets with supportive services, we can point the finer and blame ourselves for not holding our elected officials responsible for improving the quality of life for all in our county.   

I welcome your observations and comments.

(Dennis P. Zine is a 33-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department and former Vice-Chairman of the Elected Los Angeles City Charter Reform Commission, a 12-year member of the Los Angeles City Council and a current LAPD Reserve Officer who serves as a member of the Fugitive Warrant Detail assigned out of Gang and Narcotics Division. Zine was a candidate for City Controller last city election. He writes RantZ & RaveZ for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected]. Mr. Zine’s views are his own and do not reflect the views of CityWatch.)  

-cw 

CYBER CRIME FOR SALE-Last March, Bloomberg Business ran an article called “How to Hack an Election” in which Andrés Sepúlveda, a computer hacker now serving time in a federal prison in Colombia, describes his career rigging elections throughout Latin America. Usually, Sepúlveda explains, he was working for Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who’s been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. 

For $12,000 a month, according to the article, a customer could hire Sepúlveda and a crew of 5-10 to hack smart phones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. 

“My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors,” Sepúlveda is quoted as saying, “the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see.”  

Pretty shocking stuff, but get together a group of government watchdogs these days, and you might be surprised what you hear. The truth is that a fair number in that community have experienced first-hand some of the dirty tricks just described. And not in ways that are subtle or open to “gee that’s paranoid” dismissals.  

Recent examples include a “black hat SEO [Search Engine Optimization] technique called cloaking. ‘Black hat’ SEO is defined as the use of unethical methods to manipulate search engine results. The technique, called ‘cloaking,’ refers to any of several means to serve a page to the search-engine spider that is different from that seen by human users. It can be an attempt to mislead search engines regarding the content on a particular website.”  

Watchdogs’ computers have been hacked, some through a specific technique called “rootkit,” which is a malicious software that takes full control over a system, while overriding anti-virus software.

And then, outside of computers, there’s a recent example of “this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the United States, does it?” dirty business. And it involves an author of this piece, LA City Council critic Eric Preven who, seated quietly at a meeting, caught on audio a police officer threatening to arrest him if he was “ruled out of order” by the Council President. Arrest was not a sane option given the situation. 

During the recent Presidential election, it was rumored that Juan José Rendón had been working for Donald Trump (Rendón denies the rumor.) What’s not a rumor is Andrés Sepúlveda’s view of whether the recent Presidential election was rigged: 100% yes. He should know.

(Eric Preven and Joshua Preven are public advocates for better transparency in local government. Eric is a Studio City based writer-producer and a candidate for Los Angeles mayor. Joshua is a teacher.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-LA’s March 7 election appeared to be decisive. Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, was soundly defeated. As a result there is no legal mandate to stop the steady flow of pay-to-play mega-projects that the City Council approves through spot-zoning and spot-General Plan Amendments. Likewise, there are no clarifications to the City Charter’s prohibition on these legislative actions. Likewise, there is no mandate to quickly update the General Plan or to produce a finding that every ministerial (by-right) land use decision is consistent with the General Plan. 

Nevertheless, such prominent opponents of Measure S as Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Los Angeles Times immediately sounded like they made an about-face. Within a day they repeated many Yes on S’s campaign points. They cautioned that the election results should not be over-interpreted. They both stated that the defeat of Measure S should not justify City Hall maintaining the status quo of pay-to-play spot-zoning substituting for a legally required professional planning process. 

More specifically, on March 9 Mayor Garcetti issued Directive 19. It is a comprehensive executive order that, if actually followed, could make a significant difference in the way Los Angeles is planned. Its 18 specific sub-directives almost sound like the points I have repeatedly offered in many CityWatch columns. For example, the Mayor wrote, “The Director of Planning shall develop a schedule for the immediate systematic public review and update of all elements of the General Plan, with a periodic review process to occur every five years thereafter. This program should include the review and possible updating of the thirty-five Community Plans.” 

But, let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. This is what I read between the lines, and why I fully expect that little will change at City Hall. Appearance should never be confused with substance, especially when it comes to our esteemed elected officials. The City Hall leopard is not about to permanently change its spots. 

Why the appearance of reconciliation by the Mayor and the LA Times? 

The no on S campaign had a strong victory on paper, but it was only a superficial ballot box victory. In the words of the LA Times, “Measure S tapped into the angst that many Angelenos feel about how growth and development are changing their communities, and in some cases displacing their inhabitants. The concerns over density, traffic and gentrification are not going away because the forces behind them are not abating.” 

To paraphrase the LA Times in straightforward English, about six percent of the voting public was persuaded by duplicitous arguments. The no on S victory depended on farfetched claims that Los Angeles could address its housing crisis through new luxury housing and trickle down deals from real estate speculators. Meanwhile, as the public waits for these miracles, they do not like what endless real estate speculation produces in Los Angeles: unplanned density, with its predictable consequences of displacement, gentrification, and traffic congestion. The LA Times and the Mayor recognize this will be the real outcome of the no on S victory. They also know that goose laying its wonderful golden eggs could be sent to the slaughterhouse in the next voter initiative. 

And they also know their victory came with another serious cost. It was based on explicit promises to the Democratic Party’s liberal base in Los Angeles, and there is little chance that City Hall can deliver significant housing for the homeless, even through Measure HHH and inclusionary housing via linkage fees and Measure JJJ. 

The bottom line is that Angelenos will not see continued arbitrary loosey-goosey land use decisions decrease rents, reduce economic and racial inequality, improve LA’s public infrastructure and services, facilitate bicycling and walking, generate alternative energy, plant one million trees, and combat climate change. 

What other flies are in the no on S ointment? 

This following list is only a beginning: 

1) The urban growth machine’s tactic of turning to the California State legislature to override local land use planning will run its course. In fact, many activists already are targeting the errand boys of the real estate industry, like Santa Monica Democrat Richard Bloom. A few defeats of these surrogates will quickly realign local planning politics. 

2) Many major projects are in the pipeline. Measure S might have stopped them, but its defeat means they will soon appear in many Los Angeles neighborhoods. They will generate displacement, traffic snarls, and demolitions. They will also result in many more project-specific movements and lawsuits. In fact, the defeat of Measure S is a full employment act for land use attorneys and the experts they hire to pursue their cases. 

3) Real estate investors will still engage in soft-corruption at City Hall by making a variety of payments to elected officials. 

4) Without Measure S cleaning up the City Charter, many new real estate projects will apply for and obtain spot-zones, spot-Height District changes, and spot-General Plan Amendments. The Charter’s unclear findings for General Plan Amendments will continue, despite a lack of evidence of good zoning practices and public benefits. 

5) Even though the City Charter bars individuals from initiating General Plan Amendments, the Department of City Planning will still do this on behalf of large real estate investors, in conflict with spirit of the City Charter. 

6) Real estate investors will continue to select their EIR consultants, and all EIR findings of significant environmental impacts will be cast aside through the City Council’s Statements of Overriding Considerations. Boilerplate about mega-projects generating jobs and transit ridership will be approved with perpetual 15-0 City Council votes. Once adopted, these claims will never be monitored or verified. 

7) The updates of the General Plan’s citywide elements and its Community Plans will continue to rely on chronically inflated demographic data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 

8) Once updated, the General Plan will not be regularly and reliably monitored to determine if its demographic assumptions are correct. Likewise, City Hall decision makers will never know if the updated plans’ implementation programs appeared and if they meet the General Plan’s goals. 

9) The General Plan will still be prepared and adopted in reverse order, beginning with re:codeLA, then Community Plan updates, and finally the citywide General Plan elements, such as the General Plan Framework element. 

10) Code enforcement will continue to be the weakest part of the land use process. Zoning and building code violations will still be rampant, with contractors regularly gaming the system since they know that Building and Safety cannot or will not stop their dirty tricks. 

11) Finally, it is unimaginable that the Mayor will fire any General Managers who slow walk his 18-point planning-related directive. Mayoral precedents of showing three recent Directors of Planning the door for not processing zoning applications quickly enough will not repeat with Directive 19. 

Can the City Hall Leopard Change its Spots? 

CityWatch readers, please join me in a City Hall Watch, to see what unfolds at City Hall after the March 7 election. Will it be the pieties of the Mayor and the Los Angeles Times? Or will pay-to-play return to City Hall after a short vacation? Will the leopard’s spots quickly return?

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on local planning issues in Los Angeles for CityWatch LA. Please send your comments and corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.