EASTSIDER--The good news is that after a lot of external pushback (thank you, LA Times and Naked Capitalism,) the appointed Board members have evidently backed off of trying to get JJ Jelincic bounced off of the CalPERS Board. 

The not so good news is that the leaders of that attempt are being elected to run major committees of the Board. The critical Investment Committee now has Bill Slaton (the ringleader of the group) as Vice-Chair, with the Chair being former LAUSD business manager Henry Jones, who just got re-elected as Vice-President of the Board and openly covets President Rob Feckner’s job. 

The Pension & Health Benefits Committee is now Chaired by Priya Mathur, another of the group who wanted to dump JJ Jelincic, and who has proved her very own self to be ethically challenged in the past. See the article here. 

The Risk & Audit Committee is now headed by yet another appointee, Dana Hollinger, along with fellow appointee Ron Lind. 

Dangling out there are the elections for Chair and Vice-Chair of the all-important Board Governance Committee. They will be elected in March. Those elections will round out the re-election of Rob Feckner as President and Henry Jones as Vice-President back in January. 

Of note, the President and Vice-President are elected by the full Board to one year terms, while the Committee elections are for four year terms. 

If these elections are indicative of what is to come in March, there is a serious realignment of the Board power structure taking place. And these are the key committees who determine how the fund’s money is invested, as well as being responsible for oversight. 

The CalPERS announcements of these February elections can be found here.  

The Creation of a Cabal? 

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary a cabal is “the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot.” The current restructuring of the Board, together with the increasing secrecy of their work, should give the actual beneficiaries and the public pause. At the risk of being alarmist, I’m starting to think that the not-so-open tenure of Ann Stausboll was a model of transparency compared to the current emerging structure of CalPERS. 

Of course every good conspiracy needs a leader, and my vote is for General Counsel Matthew Jacobs. Readers may recall an article I wrote a while ago about him orchestrating the hiding of the internal workings of the Board behind the attorney-client privilege. You may also recall that this kind of stuff is what got Aetna Insurance Co. in trouble when they faked their reasons for pulling out of Obamacare behind attorney-client privilege and got caught by a judge. 

Let me give you two examples of how this secrecy stuff works. First, we still don’t know who the permanent outside fiduciary counsel is to the Board of Directors, despite my public records requests. Odds are that Ashley Dunning already has the job in all but name, since she and her firm are playing patty-cakes with Matthew Jacobs. But there has still been no public announcement, no public Board discussion that I am aware of, and no methodology given for how or when this will happen. 

What we do know is that she was billing the relatively tiny Marin County Pension Board some $10,000/week, at a $580/hour fee, and she was front and center at the CalPERS retreat in Monterey, providing fiduciary training. Anyone want to take a bet that she already has the job? I wonder how much a huge agency like CalPERS will put in her pockets? 

My second example, has to do with the question of how on earth the Board would approve a $135,000 bonus for their Chief Investment Officer, Ted Eliopoulos, even as the fund made the underwhelming return on investment of 0.6%. That’s right, less than a 1% return on investment. Even as the stock market soared. And even as the Board has had to lower their key anticipated rate of return from 7.5% to 7%, which will result in increased contributions to keep the plan afloat. 

It’s not like Mr. Eliopoulos is some big time investment maven. No, he’s a well-connected political insider. You can read about it here from the well-respected Pensions & Investments website.  

For a detailed analysis of what’s in store for the Fund, take a look at a recent article by Calpension’s own Ed Mendel. 

Since there is no rational explanation for this kind of raise based on performance, you have to wonder why the Board approved it. My suspicion is that Mr. Jacobs is quietly providing both the shield and incentives, and is rewarding staff and Board members for toeing the party line according to Mr. Jacobs. 

Anyhow, the result is that Mr. Eliopoulos now makes a cool $700,000 a year or so! Lest you think I jest, check out this article explaining how the bonus was inconsistent with CalPERS policy, in addition to being unwarranted from a performance standpoint. 

This is a big deal. If CalPERS was publicly embarrassed by hiring that sleazebag Florida lawyer Robert Klausner (and they were), why stonewall any public input or openness in the hiring process of his successor? If CalPERS had a terrible year with its investments, why, oh, why would they give their Chief Investment Officer a large and questionably legal bonus? 

With a modicum of openness, transparency and public input, yeah, even public comment at Board meetings, we would know the answers to these questions. 

Their current lineup does not inspire confidence. President Feckner has never failed to sign any press release put in front of him by staff. A prime example would be his remark about Fred Buenstroso’s “retirement,” in 2008, that “he was talking to us for a while about retiring and seeing about doing something else.” Yeah, like going to jail. 

Vice-President Jones is going to play with the General Counsel as he awaits his opportunity to become President. Maybe he can bring us some of that great fiscal wisdom he practiced at the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

The Takeaway 

You don’t have to be a conspiracy buff to see that something is seriously amiss at CalPERS. While it is objectively true that they are under siege over the cost of the pensions and the paltry return on investment that they are achieving, the way to go about addressing these concerns is not to run and hide behind their Attorney. 

And the Board committees are stacked with political appointees. Those same appointees who recently went after the only open and transparent elected Board member, JJ Jelincic. With the whole gang shielded by attorney-client privilege as orchestrated by one Matthew Jacobs. 

Clearly missing is leadership by the newly appointed CEO, Marcie Frost. One can only imagine her trying to get up to speed even as the staff go their own way, the agency is under attack, and her attorney has an agenda of his own. I feel sorry for her. 

At the same time, Marcie Frost is the only hope on the horizon. Coming from the outside (the state of Washington), she does not have the institutional harness of the good ‘ol boy go-along-to-get-along so exemplified by the staff and the Board. 

I hope she knows that the way through tough times is to be open, transparent, admit failures and plan for success. I just hope that she gets the message and is able to do something about what she inherited before something really, really bad happens -- as this is usually the outcome of cabals.

(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THE CITY--Nearly three years after Councilmember Paul Koretz sponsored a Motion to reform the city’s fatally-flawed citywide mansionization ordinances, the City Council has voted to adopt amendments that go a long way to cutting McMansions down to size.

Despite the passage of the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (BMO) and Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) in 2008 and 2011 respectively, out-of-scale homes have proliferated in Los Angeles, and the problem has worsened steadily over the last decade.

Mansionization is a citywide problem, and not just because it violates the scale and character of neighborhoods across the city. It also impacts affordable housing citywide. When McMansions replace modest homes, folks get priced out, and the spillover demand drives up prices in less expensive neighborhoods. And so on down the line. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

The amendments passed on Wednesday make major improvements. The basic tool for setting size limits for any structure – residential or commercial – is the ratio of building size to lot size. The ratios vary according to the size and type of lot – urban, suburban, rural, etc.

Small city lots – the so-called R-1 zones that make up about 70 percent of single-family properties in Los Angeles -- have been hardest hit. On these properties, the old ordinance would allow a ratio well above 70 percent, when you factor in bonuses and exemptions. As folks in those neighborhoods can tell you, a 4,350 square foot house on a 6,000 square foot lot deprives its nearest neighbors of air, light, and privacy and blows up the character of the neighborhood.   With a far more sensible ratio and the elimination of bonuses, the limit on that same R-1 lot is now closer to 3,000 square feet – enough for a spacious, modern home that plays nicely with others.

In every category, the amendments reduce the ratios from ridiculous to reasonable. They do away with most bonuses and exemptions, increase setbacks, and curtail grading and hauling allowances in hillside areas. Regrettably, the ordinances still exempt up to 200 square feet of front-facing attached garages from floor space and fall short of a really rigorous standard and transparent process for granting variances to institutions located in residential neighborhoods.

Though imperfect, these ordinances set a firm foundation for a selection of “variation zones” that will allow neighborhoods to tailor regulations to their individual scale and character.   And they provide benefits far beyond the specific neighborhoods where they apply. This kind of meaningful reform sets a strong precedent for many issues that follow, including limiting development in multi-family zones and coming to terms with “small-lot development.”

Success is said to have many fathers. In this case, the Big Daddy is unquestionably Councilmember Paul Koretz. He put the mansionization issue on the table, kept a firm grip on it for almost three years, and engineered a crucial course correction just last December. Councilmember Ryu has also been steadfast in his support, and Council President Wesson stepped up exactly when we needed him most. Through a long, tough slog, city planners kept their wits about them, and hundreds of Angelenos spoke up to promote livable, sustainable neighborhoods.

Mayor Garcetti is expected to sign the measure promptly, and it should take effect some time before March 24. If you’re keeping track, Wednesday, March 1 was a good day in the City of Angels.

(Shelley Wagers is a homeowner, community activist, an expert on Los Angeles’ mansionization crisis and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.

-cw

COMPARE SILICON BEACH, SPACE X VS. 45,000 HOMELESS, 37% ‘CAN’T MAKE ENDS MEET’---With two football teams moving to Los Angeles, a host of towers rising in a resurgent downtown and an upcoming IPO for LA's signature start-up, Snapchat parent Snap Inc., one can make a credible case that the city that defined growth for a half century is back. According to Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Rams, Chargers and the new mega-stadium that will house them in neighboring Inglewood, show that “that this is a town that nobody can afford to pass up.”

And to be sure, Los Angeles has become a more compelling place for advocates of dense urbanism. Media accounts praise the city’s vibrant art scene, its increasingly definitive food scene and urbanist sub-culture. Some analysts credit millennials for boosting the population of the region and reviving the city’s appeal. Long disdained by eastern sophisticates, there’s an invasion from places like New York. GQ magazine called downtown LA “America’s next great city” last year.

Downtown has transformed itself into something of an entertainment district, with museums, art galleries, restaurants, and sports and concert venues. Yet it has not become, like San Francisco or New York, a business center of note. In fact, jobs in the region have continued to move out to the periphery; downtown accounts for less than 5% of the region’s employment, one-third to half the share common in older large cities.

Downtown’s residential growth needs to be placed in perspective. Since 2000 the population of the central core has increased by only 9,500; add the  entire inner ring and the population is up a mere 23,000. Meanwhile over the same span, the L.A. suburbs have added 600,000 residents. Jobs? Between 2000 and 2014, the core and inner ring, as well as older suburbs, lost jobs, U.S. Census data show, while newer suburbs and exurbs added jobs.

In our most recent ranking of the metro areas creating the most jobs, Los Angeles ranked a mediocre 42nd out of the 70 largest metro areas; San Francisco ranked first. That’s well behind places like Dallas, Seattle, Denver, Orlando, and even New York and Boston, cities that we once assumed would be left in the dust by LA.

A New Tech Hub?

The emergence of Snap has led some enthusiasts to predict LA’s emergence as a hotbed of the new economy. And to be sure, there is a growing tech corridor in the Santa Monica-Marina area that may gradually gain critical mass (see graphic above). Talk of a growing confluence between tech and entertainment content -- the signature LA product -- and the proliferation of new entertainment venues, could position the area for future growth. At the same time, the presence of Elon Musk’s Space X in suburban Hawthorne, near LAX, has excited local boosters.

Yet despite these bright spots, Los Angeles’ current tech scene is almost piteously small. One consistent problem is venture capital. Despite the massive size of its economy, and huge population, Los Angeles garners barely 5% of the nation’s venture capital, compared to 40% for the Bay Area, 10% for New York and Boston. Companies that were born in LA often end up moving elsewhere, like virtual reality pioneer Oculus, which was frog marched to the Bay Area after being acquired by Facebook.

Indeed, despite bright spots like Snap, since 2001 STEM employment in the LA metro area has been flat, in sharp contrast to high rates of job growth in the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, Houston and Dallas, and the 10% national increase. Tech employment per capita in the LA area hovers slightly below the national average, according to a recent study I conducted at Chapman University. Los Angeles County, once the prodigious center of American high-tech, is also now slightly below the national average of engineers per capita.

The Poverty Economy

The regional economy, notes a recent Los Angeles Development Corporation report, continues to produce largely numbers of low-wage jobs, mostly in fields like health, hospitality and services. Sixty percent of all new jobs in the area over the next five years will require a high school education or less, the report projects.

At the same time in the year ending last September, employment dropped in three key high-wage blue collar sectors: manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade notes the EDC The largest gains were in lower-wage industries like health care and social assistance, hospitality and food service.  Since 2007 Los Angeles County has 89,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, which pay an average of $54,000, but 89,000 more in food service that pay about $20,000. No surprise more than one out every three LA households have an income under $45,000 a year.

All this works well for the people who are increasingly coming to enjoy LA’s great restaurants, hipster enclaves and art venues. The football teams will add to this mixture, offering employment selling peanuts, popcorn and hot dogs to generally affluent fans in the stands.

Yet low wages could prove catastrophic in a region that lags only the Bay Area in housing costs. Some 45,000 are homeless throughout the metro area, concentrated downtown but spreading throughout the region all the way to Santa Ana, in the south. Housing prices have risen to five times median household income, highest in the nation and more than twice the multiple in New York, Chicago, Houston or Dallas-Ft. Worth. LA leads the nation’s big metro areas in a host of other negative indicators, including the percentage of income spent on housing, overcrowding and homelessness. A city which once epitomized middle class upward mobility is increasingly bifurcated between a wealthy elite, mostly Anglo and Asian, and a largely poor Latino and African-American community.

A recent United Way study, for example, found that 37% of LA families can barely make ends meet, well above the 31% average for the state; the core city’s south and east sides have among the largest concentrations of extreme poverty in the state. Once a beacon for migrants from all over America, LA now has a similarly high rate of mass out-migration as New York. But unlike New York, where immigrants continue to pour in, newcomers to the U.S. are increasingly avoiding Los Angeles – it had the lowest growth in its immigrant population of any major metropolitan area over the past decade. Perhaps even more revealing, the Los Angeles area has endured among the largest drops in the number of children since 2000, notes demographer Wendell Cox,  more than New York, Chicago and San Francisco.

Altered DNA

The writer Scott Timberg notes that LA’s middle class, was once “the envy of the world.” L.A. used to be a place where firemen, cops and machinists could own houses in the midst of a great city. Dynamic, large aerospace firms, big banks and giant oil companies sustained the middle class.

But the city has lost numerous major employers over the years, most recently longtime powerhouse Occidental Petroleum, and the U.S. headquarters of both Toyota and Nestle. The regional aerospace industry, which provided nearly 300,000 generally high-wage jobs in 1990, is now barely a third that size. High housing cost have devastated millennials, whose home ownership rate has dropped 30% since 1990, twice the national average.

Many urbanists hail the emergence of a transit-oriented, dense city. Since 1990, Los Angeles County has added seven new urban rail lines and two exclusive busways at the cost of some $16 billion. Yet ridership on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority rail and bus services is now less than its predecessor Southern California Rapid Transit District bus services in 1985, before any rail services were opened. The share of work trips on transit in the entire five-county Los Angeles metropolitan region, has also dropped, from 5.1% in 1980 and 4.5% in 1990 to 4.2% in 2015. Meanwhile the city endures the nation’s worst traffic.

Some longtime Angelenos are mounting a fierce ballot challenge -- known as Measure S – to slow down ever more rapid densification. The ballot measure would bar new high-density construction projects for the next two years. “The Coalition to Preserve LA,” which is funding the measure, claims to be leading in the polls for the March 7 vote, but faces well-financed opposition from politically connected large developers, Mayor Garcetti, both political parties, virtually the entire city council, and much of the academic establishment. The LA Times denounced Proposition S as a “childish middle finger to City Hall” and its architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne, has urged the citizenry “to move past the building blocks of post-war Los Angeles, including the private car, the freeway, the single-family house and the lawn.”

Proposition S proponents include many neighborhood and environmental groups, as well progressives and conservatives, including former Mayor Richard Riordan. The people controlling Los Angeles may dream of being the “next” New York but many residents, notes longtime activist Joel Fox, “are tired of the congestion and development and feel that more building will only add to congestion.”

Renewing La La Land

Of course, slowing or banning development by popular proposition is probably not the ideal  way to get control over the deteriorating situation. Yet it is clear that the current trajectory towards more dense housing is not addressing the city’s basic problems. Los Angeles, as the movie “La La Land” so poetically portrays, remains a “city of dreams” but that mythology is clearly being eroded by a delusional desire to be something else.

In my old middle-class neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, heavily populated by people from the creative industry, the worsening congestion, the upsurge of ever taller buildings and ever more present homeless did not reflect the giddiness of “La La Land.”

Yet despite all these problems, Los Angeles has the potential to make a great comeback. It has a dispersed urban form that allows for innovation and diversity, and an unparalleled physical location on the Pacific Rim. Its ethnic diversity can be an asset, if somehow it can generate higher wage employment to stop the race to the bottom. The basics are all there for a real resurgence, if the city fathers ever could recognize that the City of Angels needs less a new genome but should build on its own inimitable DNA.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of New Geography … where this analysis was first posted. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. He lives in Orange County, CA.)

-cw

THE CHAPMAN REPORT--She watched him for five minutes, the man with his dog sitting outside on a Starbucks patio, on a bitter cold day in Napa. No one else was there.   

‘He wasn’t bothering anybody,’ she said. He didn’t ask for money. He didn’t stand in front of retail doors. He was just sitting quietly and she was fairly sure he was homeless, cold and hungry. In a snap decision, she bought him a bowl of sweet and sour chicken with noodles from the next door Panda King to brighten the man’s day. 

It was meant to be a cup of kindness, but for her, it wound up more like a slap in the face. The man accepted the food, blessed her and said how very grateful he was that someone recognized his plight. 

The trouble came afterward, when Jen – whose much more like my daughter than my friend – walked into the Starbucks to order a cup of java so she could study for school. Jen, 33, had recently moved up from Bakersfield where she worked at a popular bakery and had since successfully broken into the Napa food industry. Originally, she was from Los Angeles and quite familiar with the fact that the county has nearly 47,000 homeless and in her mind such folks deserved at the very least food. It appears voters in the city of Los Angeles—where the homeless population has surged and poured onto our streets and sidewalks and neighborhoods – agreed something must done. In November, voters approved a $1.2 billion measure to build homeless housing … way over the margin of votes that were necessary.  

So, she didn’t really expect what happened next when she decided to get a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s. 

As she came forward to order, the Starbuck’s employee at the register announced she really hated when people fed the homeless. Jen’s face burned. It didn’t stop there however. When the employee came out to wash down the tables, the slap continued. When people feed the homeless, the employee muttered, “then they never go away.” Jen nearly gasped with disbelief. It became quiet in the Starbucks and other customers appeared nervous and uncomfortable. No other employees advised the worker to stop and it seemed an odd attitude for a Starbuck’s since the socially conscious company headquartered in Seattle has gone out of its way to embrace the homeless.  

Jen’s face turned red with anger. If you knew the fabric of this woman you’d understand why. Kindness seems threaded in her very heart and then some.  “I knew she was talking about me,” Jen said. “I was offended. It’s not like I was giving him drugs and alcohol. All I was giving him was food. It was so rude.”  

She fed him, she said, because: “I just felt deep inside I needed to help him.”  

It’s not the story Reggie Borges, a Starbuck’s spokesman in Seattle, wanted to hear after he had just returned from Austin, Texas where his company launched an expansion of its “food share” program this month to Houston and San Antonio.   

The program, suggested by its very own partners (employees), donates Starbuck’s surplus food to local agencies that feed the homeless and the company has set a goal to donate all its extra food to local non-profit agencies from its 7,000 U.S. stores. Surplus ready-meals are already served up to the impoverished Starbuck’s style in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, Denver, Las Vegas and Colorado Springs with a goal of reaching 50 million such meals a year. 

When Borgess called the Soscol Avenue store in Napa, no employees could remember such an incident. But if it happened, he added, it’s not the way Starbuck’s would want any customer treated, even a homeless customer. 

“We strive to create a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.,” he emailed. “We want everyone who visits our store in enjoy their visit,” and that includes homeless.  

He added that he hopes to work with the customer to discuss her concerns.  

I know some of you out there are howling that Jen should never have fed that man. He doesn’t deserve it. He’s not working. Others of you are probably saying it really hurts businesses and customers don’t want homeless outside stores. I get that. I get that it can hurt small, local business, especially a mom and pop. Because I’ve had a fair amount of dealings with those living on the streets, I’ve decided not to give money any more but I will buy food and a cup of coffee. 

If it’s a small local business, I will typically ask first if it’s alright because those are the retailers that suffer the most. A place like Starbuck’s and most chain retail stores don’t lose much business if the homeless are standing outside. Hundreds of people pour into the Napa Starbucks on Soscol Avenue every day. I’ve seen it. It would take a lot more than feeding a homeless person to divert them.  

“You can’t blame Starbucks for one bad person,” my cousin warned. I agree, but you can give better training and perhaps explain it’s not wise not to reprimand a customer for doing what many would consider a good deed.  

Personally, I’m glad Jen went with her gut. Perhaps that particular day that man was so troubled he didn’t know what to do next. There’s no doubt our streets have become a torrent of homeless infiltrating our sidewalks and our roadways, setting up tents, begging for money and accosting customers looking for a hand out. But can you really blame them? It’s what I’d do if I found myself on the streets. What do you think you would do? If we keep closing our eyes, they’ll still be there when we wake up. Doing nothing won’t work. 

The National Bureau of Economic Research, reported that unemployment rose from 4.7 percent to ten and over eight million jobs were lost from Nov. 2007 to Oct. 2009, “the most dramatic since the Great Depression.”  

We still see the ugly residue of this more-than-belt-tightening time. Many are still without work. 

One day, another friend and I left a small diner in San Pedro where an older woman, shriveled and weathered, bustled up to us in search of money or food. We didn’t have change, but as were walking away my friend turned and said: “I have this half sandwich I haven’t even touched. Would you like it?”
 
The women quickly shunted up to us and took the sandwich. We turned back to look at her gobbling it down with a look of such satisfaction. She glowed as though she has just finished a six-course dinner.   

So, I applaud what my friend did. It’s time for all of us to wake up and offer a cup of kindness. It seems sometimes there’s so little left.

.
(Diana Chapman is a writer/journalist and an occasional CityWatch contributor. She has written for magazines, newspapers and the best-seller series, “Chicken Soup for the Soul.” You can reach her at: [email protected].)

-cw

@TheGussReport -- On Monday night, CityWatch published my article based on public records that suggest Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren D. Price was simultaneously married to two different women. The next day, the Los Angeles Sentinel newspaper published a statement attempting to refute my story, but misled its readers in numerous ways.  

The Sentinel article wrongfully or misleadingly alleges:

1. “Mr. Price’s opponents apparently tried to muddy the waters in a last minute smear campaign.”

The article is the result of my own research and writing, and it was seen by nobody other than me prior to submitting it to my publisher. I have never met Mr. Price’s opponent, Jorge Nuño (who the LA Times endorsed over Price), nor anyone else from his campaign or family at any time. In fact, a few weeks earlier, I publicly pressured Mr. Nuño to identify his stances on various ballot issues in next week’s primary, until his campaign manager publicly requested that I cease, which I did.

2. “As of Sentinelpress time no factual data has been produced to show that the councilmember has done anything wrong.”

That’s because at no time prior to publishing its statement did anyone from the Sentinel contact me in any way, shape or form to ask for proof, or anything else for that matter. Subsequent to its publishing, I sent Sentinel Publisher Danny Bakewell and its Managing Editor Brandon Brooks two emails letting them know that nobody from their publication contacted me, and that the documentation is free and readily available online. I also posted two comments on their website below the text of their statement. The Sentinel responded to none of them.

3. The Sentinel quotes Albert Robles, the attorney who handled Mr. Price’s divorce efforts, “Curren Price is divorced, end of story.  I was Curren Price’s attorney, my office filed the paperwork.  As far as Curren Price is concerned, his divorce was settled years ago and that’s what was communicated to Mr. Price at the time.  I am no longer Curren Price’s attorney…”

According to Los Angeles court records, Mr. Price’s divorce is “pending,” (i.e. not finalized) and has been in that status since it was taken off-calendar on April 17, 2012.   On May 1, 2012, Mr. Robles was sent, and the court record contains, a notice by the court that the divorce dissolution was rejected. As of yesterday, the case is still pending and there has been no further activity in that file since May 1, 2012. The court records also show no new divorce filings from Mr. Price. Moreover, the record contains no withdrawal from Mr. Robles of his representation of Mr. Price, so while he says he is no longer his attorney, the record reflects otherwise.

Note: According to the California Bar Association, Mr. Robles was ineligible to practice law in California in 2014 for not complying with attorney continuing education requirements, and again less than a year later in 2015 for not paying his Bar Association dues.   He is presently licensed to practice, and bills himself as “The Best Eviction Attorney in California.”

I made numerous efforts to reach Messrs. Bakewell, Brooks and Robles to see if any of them could furnish proof that Mr. Price was, in fact, divorced, and received no reply from any of them. The Sentinel story remains on its website, with no updates to its content.

So let’s cut to the chase.

This is a 2013 article in which Del Richardson Price, Mr. Price’s second wife, discusses her chronic health condition. In it, she refers to a 2009 incident and references her husband….Curren Price.   But if Mr. Price was married to Del Richardson as of 2009, and he was still trying to divorce his first wife, Lynn, as late as 2012, it not only means he was married to two women simultaneously, it means he knew he was still married to Lynn, his first wife, when he married Del Richardson. It would also mean that Mr. Price (according to public records) is still married to both women.

Based on that information, this is bigamy, and it was committed by Mr. Price with knowledge aforethought. And if Del Richardson Price knew that she was marrying an already married man (there is no evidence to show that that is the case) it would mean that she, too, committed bigamy.

Finally, on Mr. Price’s Los Angeles City Ethics forms, which he has signed under penalty of perjury each year since 2012, he was required to identify any financial holdings of his or his spouse’s. In 2012, he identified no spouse. In each subsequent year, he identified only Del Richardson as his spouse. Since Mr. Price knew that he was still married to first wife Lynn, as evidenced by his unsuccessful divorce filings as late as 2012 (i.e. the same year he signed his first Ethics Form 700) it means that he perjured himself on each Ethics form he submitted by not including his first wife and her financial interests on each them.

It’s bigamy. It’s perjury. So say the records. Why is all of this so important? Because, these days more than ever, with our elected officials, what could be more important than trust?

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatch, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.)

-cw

RANTZ & RAVEZ-It has been a practice in some parts of the country and here in Los Angeles to “shakedown” developers when residents or homeowner groups oppose specific residential or commercial projects adjacent to their neighborhoods. This happened in the San Fernando Valley when a commercial project was proposed and a lawsuit filed demanding modifications to the project. 

In this case, the developer made a number of modifications to the development and paid “fees” to move forward with the project that is in full operation at this time. A development project on the Westside that became a recent news story culminated with a large amount of money given to an adjacent condo building as well as modifications to the proposed project. 

The cost of doing business as a developer in Los Angeles is getting more and more complex and expensive due to associated city fees and related expenses. In addition to the community groups and homeowner associations voicing their concerns, there is the threat of litigation. All this does is drive up the expense of building residential construction resulting in higher rents, forcing more and more families to turn to the streets to live. Truly a sad situation in the City of the Angels. 

Los Angeles River as the Flood Control protection. 

With all the talk about turning the Los Angeles Flood Control System into the Los Angeles River Development we must consider the heavy rains that happen in our city. While the rains are infrequent, I can remember years ago when it rained for numerous days and the Flood Control System did the job of protecting Los Angeles from flooding. Being a new member of the LAPD at that time, I remember the damage caused by the heavy rains. There were landslides in various areas of the city and caskets that were unearthed in the foothill community. With this in mind, we need to remember what the Los Angeles River was initially designed for. Before we spend millions or billions of dollars building developments along the river, we need to remember the intended purpose of the Flood Control System that has been effective in protecting Los Angeles and surrounding communities for many years. 

LA…one of two cities still in the running for the Olympics. 

As the days pass, Los Angeles remains in the running along with Paris for the 2024 Olympics. If LA is selected to host the games, there will be plenty of activities for residents to enjoy. The estimated $5.3 billion dollar budget will push prime ticket event prices to $1,700 while the less popular activities are expected to run in the range of $30 to $50. If you are interested in being an observer, there will be plenty of security and other positions available. The LA 2024 Summer Olympics organizers are currently accepting applications from those interested in volunteering for the games. 

LAPD to the rescue. 

The Metro Board of Directors has approved a transfer of police powers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to the LAPD for transit security within the City of Los Angeles. The Sheriff’s Department had the responsibility for all Metro Transit operations throughout the county prior to the transfer. The Long Beach Police Department will assume responsibility for Metro operations in the city of Long Beach. The Sheriff’s Department will patrol all other Metro lines in the region.    

You may wonder where the LAPD Officers will be coming from. Since the LAPD still cannot reach its authorized strength of 10,000 officers to patrol our communities and fight crime, the answer is very simple. Deploy the officers on overtime. Yes, overtime. With most LAPD Officers working either 12- or 10-hour shifts, in addition to appearing in court and the drive to work, when will they rest? I know that many officers will enjoy the extra money that will come along with these overtime details. With their salary and living expenses, overtime money comes in handy for them and their families. I am just concerned that they don’t burn out with all the hours they will be working. When you see an LAPD officer on the Metro Lines, stop and thank them for the protection they are providing you, Metro operators and your families.         

Measure S. 

The March 7 local primary election will be lucky to draw 20% of the voters. People are burned out from the recent Presidential election. The Democrats are not happy with the victory of President Donald Trump as evidenced by the demonstrations that have been taking place. With this in mind, the low Republican registration in Los Angeles does not drive many to the election booth. I encourage you to take the time and vote on the other matters on the ballot. There are measures with will cost you more money and you should be concerned with that.

I am supporting Measure S and opposing Measure H. 

If you are happy with the traffic gridlock in Los Angeles and streets that are not being paved and the water pipes that are bursting causing sinkholes, then vote against S. On the other hand, if you are like me, you are sick of the 7-day a week gridlock throughout this region and tired of having streets that are falling apart, vote Yes on S. With little if any senior or affordable housing being built, it is time for us to voice our concern for the neglect that has been taking place in Los Angeles. Don’t believe that all construction will come to a stop if measure S is passed. There are hundreds of projects that have already been approved for construction in Los Angeles and will be built in the next two years. 

While the homeless situation has not improved with the $1.2 billion bond measure, Measure H will only add more taxes to your purchases in Los Angeles County. The homeless situation will not be improved by passing more and more tax measures. It is not always about taking money out of your pocket to fix the problems that have been neglected for years.

(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.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.