Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz’ website includes photos of the councilmember celebrating the Expo Line’s opening. The site touts Koretz’ time on the Expo Construction Authority Board: “Councilmember Koretz served first as an alternate board member and then as a full board member of this body until 2015. He served on this body through the completion of Phase 1 of this project and through most of the construction for Phase 2, much of which travels through Council District 5.” 

But what Paul Koretz has delivered is the worst section of the Expo Line.

Koretz’ section has a mile-long gap in the bike path. Koretz’ section has kids walking in the street because of a missing sidewalk between the Palms Station and Lycée Français High School. Koretz’ section has an at-grade crossing at Overland Avenue that is worsening gridlock and leading to crashes that prompted neighbors to create a “Stop the Wrecks on Overland” Facebook page.

Koretz takes no responsibility for Expo’s flaws – flaws that were clear when he was a member of the Expo Board. At last night’s Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association meeting, he said “we kind of knew this would be a disaster.” For that, Kortez blames his predecessor. “Unfortunately, my election was kind of being too late to the party. The previous councilmember really was there when all of the negotiations were happening. And … at least regarding the Expo, I don’t think he did enough to protect the community.”

But Councilmember Koretz shouldn’t get off the hook so easily: he could have resisted widening Overland and he could have pushed for grade separation. Indeed, before he took office, the city of Los Angeles Department of Transportation wrote to Expo opposing the misguided widening – which was designed to dodge Metro’s grade crossing policy that required grade separation based on the per-lane traffic count without widening. Councilmember Koretz could have tried to stop it. He didn’t.

Now, Councilmember Koretz is claiming credit ($300,000 of taxpayer money credit) for reducing wheel squeal noise as the train passes Cheviot Hills. At last night’s meeting, Koretz spoke on Expo line “problems” including “an unanticipated screech of the wheels” stating: “We’ve been trying to figure out different ways to address that.…. So, we’ve actually gotten the Expo Board to approve a $300,000 expenditure to bring a huge wheel-grinding machine.”

But the wheel screech/squeal was not “unanticipated.” Indeed, the staff report [PDF] on the wheel-grinding motion says, “The FEIR indicated that wheel squeal was possible in specific curves along the alignment based on the curvature of the rail alignment. …. Rail grinding has been identified as a method to correct these track gauge variations in order to mitigate the wheel squeal.”

Expo’s Council District 5 flaws will cost millions to fix. If Paul Koretz wants credit for the good, he must take responsibility for the bad.

(Jonathan Weiss practices law, lives in Cheviot Hills, and served as an appointed representative to the L.A. City Bicycle Advisory Committee between 2009 and 2016. He is also a boardmember of Streetsblog L.A.’s parent nonprofit, the California Streets Initiative.) Photo Credit (top): Jonathan Weiss; (bottom) LA.Streets.blog

-cw

TRANSIT TALK-We can, without any hesitation, claim that Los Angeles County has "given its all" with respect to spending on its own transportation and infrastructure.  In addition to a host of water/sewage tax and bond proposals, LA County has over the years raised its sales tax FOUR times to pay for projects that should have been done decades ago. 

To its credit, Metro (or the MTA, if you wish to call it that) has worked with elected officials to focus on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and operational soundness in its operations.  As much as many have raised a concern with Measure M (the most recent sales tax just passed) not going far enough, or being too expensive, it DID devote a lot of money towards ensuring operational costs. 

In other words, the risks of "build, build, build" without wondering how we were going to keep our roads and rails in good working order has been addressed--if not entirely, then at least a solid step forward.  And for those complaining about not having enough rail cars ... well, Metro and the manufacturers are going the fastest they can. 

And for those of you STILL reporting that no one will use these rail lines, perhaps you should ride the Expo Line to a Rams game or on a Sunday evening. 

But there are immediate and long-term gaps for us to fill in--in our cities, and in our counties, and in our state: 

1) Pass the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative! 

Isn't it only reasonable and pragmatic to consider Transportation Funding to be the equivalent of "income" and Planning/Development to be the equivalent of "spending"? 

Infrastructure, be it roads/rail, or electrical grid, or cell phone grid, or sewage pipes, etc. is the component on which we can all live in our city, county, and/or state.  Infrastructure is the critical lifeblood of our Economy, our Environment, and our Quality of Life.   

And Planning is the spending aspect of its Transportation counterpart. 

The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which we will vote on this spring, allows us to "live within our means" with respect to honoring legal Community Plans, prevents big developers from using their pet consultants to shimmy and lie their way through the Planning process, and focuses on what makes new housing both affordable and livable. 

Here's a hint, for all those who want Affordable Housing, Urban Infill, Smart Development, Mixed-Use Development, etc.:  unless they're luxury apartments/condos, a 2-3 story project creates homes, but a 5-20+ story project is just that...a "project" where people will live only if they've nowhere else cheaper to go to. 

2) Fix the Damned Sidewalks! 

Even with the passage of Measure M, we STILL don't have the funds to fix the City of LA's sidewalks in a timely fashion.  If anyone reading this is okey-dokey with a 20-30 year timeframe, then they must be as pleased as punch. 

But for the rest of us, a 5-7 year timeframe is more appropriate, and why developers, City budget planners and the rest of us all don't work together to expedite the resolution of this nightmare defies belief.   

Here's a hint, though, for all those who want to fix our sidewalks just like we did the 405 HOV Lanes and other major freeway projects:  our pension nightmare is eating up 20%--and going higher--of our City's budget.  Fix and confront that painful problem, and we can better assure that our sidewalks will be built and fixed in our lifetime. 

And don't elect anyone this spring to the City Council unless they promise to fix our sidewalks in a 5-7 year timeframe.  This problem is NOT resolved! 

3) Fill the gaps in our freeways! 

Like it or not, our freeways will be a critical part of our mobility for decades to come.  Part of Measure M includes widening the I-5 to the I-710 freeway, and a host of other freeway fixes from the ports to the borders of our county. 

And that's a good thing, as well as the need to enhance and improve our freeway intersections. 

But the big fixes are yet to come--and they involve getting out of the cult of "rail only". 

One big fix includes the establishment of a freeway along the La Cienega corridor from LAX to the 10 freeway--this would enhance north-south mobility and traffic in the Westside. 

The other big fix:  L.A. own Big Dig.  An upgrade of the east-west chokepoint of the I-10 between the I-110 and East Los Angeles.  Some of it might be underground, and some of it might be on the surface or elevated.   

But mark my words:  someday, somehow, and some time in the future, the freeway infrastructure of Downtown LA will need an upgrade from the 1950's...particularly because Downtown LA is no longer an economic sinkhole but an increasingly vibrant part of the economic powerhouse of LA City and County. 

4) Fill the gaps in our rail systems! 

Considering how much rail planning and building and spending we're doing, this may seem pretty strange to bring up.  But there ARE going to be glaring gaps in our rail systems, and we can either confront them now or face a lot of angry voters in the future. 

a) The Harbor Subdivision Rail Right of Way should be more than a cute bikeway.  It should be extended from the Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Line from Inglewood to the Blue Line to the Eastside Gold Line and Union Station.  It will be the critical LAX-to-Downtown that will relieve both freeway pressure and rail congestion on the Blue, Crenshaw and Expo Lines, and will be one of the most heavily-ridden lines in LA County. 

b) Connect the Norwalk Metrolink station to MetroRail via an eastern extension of the Green Line. And consider having Orange and Riverside Counties help share the costs, because commuters from those counties will almost certainly benefit. 

c) Coordinate the Metrolink and Eastside Gold Line Extension projects.  What the heck is Metrolink and Metro Rail doing not ensuring easy and convenient access from one system to the other? 

d) Build the Anaheim to Las Vegas rail line.  This might be a fix that is done directly, or via the High Speed Rail Line and Desert XPress projects that connect at Victorville, but it's needed. 

e) Build the doggone South Bay Green Line Extension and connect it to the Blue Line--must commuters have to use the 405 South Bay curve for everything? 

f) Work with Orange County to create 2-3 commuter line alternatives to allow access from LA to/from Orange County--again...must we use the 405 freeway for everything? 

So here we are--we're spending, and we're building, and we're planning. 

And now that we've put our money where our collective mouth is, we have every right to demand that our Sacramento and Washington representatives come through for us.  Or they're gone, to be replaced with those who WILL come through for us. 

We've got to control our planning and development, and we've got to raise our expectations of what our state and nation can do for us with our trusted taxpayer dollars/investments. 

To do no less makes no sense.  Certainly, no Common Sense.

(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.)

PUBLIC RIGHT TO KNOW-Accountability and transparency in government starts with streaming your public meetings in real time and having them posted online within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. 

In 2016 -- soon to be 2017 -- the Los Angeles Police Commission is still not live streaming or posting their meetings within 24 hours. Yet, by their comments, the commissioners themselves would have you believe that both accountability and transparency are their top priorities. But it can’t be when they can’t even manage to use any of their power or the millions of dollars raised from the public via taxes to do one very simple task. 

There is no reason at all why Angelenos should not be able to turn on LA Channel 35 and watch the police commission meetings or go online and watch them live from a computer or from their mobile phones. I would much rather see their meetings than another propaganda episode of “Inside the LAPD.” The fact you can call in and listen to the meetings via phone (when they bother to turn on the audio) seems to be a secret and isn’t even promoted to the public by the commission. At the end of the day, it shouldn’t take complaining publicly via social media for over 72 hours for them to be posted online. It just shouldn’t. 

We know that the City, Los Angeles Police Department and commission are not quite as technically challenged as they would have the public believe because, even though they haven’t uttered a word about it publicly, they commissioned and paid for a mobile app to allegedly aide them in their accountability and transparency efforts. It’s just that they’re keeping it a secret for now. 

Unlike the LAPD’s iWatch app, which was announced with much fanfare when asking the public to “say something if you saw something,” the Inspector General’s app is said to be the first of its kind in this country by allowing the public to file complaints or compliments about Los Angeles police officers that go directly to the police commission’s Office of the Inspector General. This might seem particularly useful in light of the LAPD’s repeated failure to find any evidence of “biased policing” or racial profiling among the thousands of allegations made against its officers. Yes, that part. 

The police commission has the money and the means but apparently not the will (or the needed push from Mayor Eric Garcetti) to open their meetings up to a wider audience of Angelenos who may be interested in what is happening with their police department but find it impossible to attend their Tuesday 9:30 a.m. meetings in downtown Los Angeles. 

If the Los Angeles Police Commission can’t manage to make their meetings reasonably accessible to everyone and in a timely manner, what faith should the public really have in their capabilities to do anything else as it relates to transparency or accountability with Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and the LAPD? 

The Los Angeles Police Commission talks a big game on transparency and accountability when it comes to the LAPD but fails miserably at its own. And that needs to change.

(Jasmyne A. Cannick lives in Los Angeles and is a frequent commentator on local and national politics, social and race issues. Cannick is an occasional contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

A City Council and mayoral plan to address LA’s homeless emergency with fast-built homeless housing on 12 parcels of city land has turned into a farce, with developers this week proposing everything from “affordable” to luxury housing — but not much homeless housing.

In a report quietly released Wednesday by the LA City Administrative Officer — the same day that a federal study found LA leads the U.S. in chronically homeless — developers proposed only 500 units of housing, total. And only a modest portion of it is earmarked for the homeless. 

City leaders, faced with opposition from residential and business areas where the “homeless housing” was envisioned, have been quietly backing away from their own homeless housing concept for weeks.

City Hall had identified public land in West LA, Westchester, Lincoln Heights, Venice, South LA, Sylmar and San Pedro, often near schools, churches, parks and homes.

The Los Angeles Times reported in October that elected leaders and city officials “spent months developing plans for converting as many as 12 city-owned sites into housing for the city’s homeless residents.”

No longer, it seems.

Behind the scenes, city officials quietly turned their emergency homeless housing initiative into the vaguely worded “Affordable Housing Opportunities Sites” plan. The proposal released yesterday even suggests “market rate housing” — luxury housing — on some city land.

The famously slow-moving City Council might be able to house more homeless, and do it faster, by tapping the empty Parker Center police headquarters not far from their own offices at City Hall.

City Hall’s much watered-down new concept is set to be discussed at a hearing today. According to the  recommendations, two of the 12 city parcels — closed-down fire stations in San Pedro and Westchester — should be sold and the money placed in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

It was only weeks ago that the LA Times reported City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana was overseeing “the homeless housing initiative,” which was “aimed at building permanent supportive housing — the kind that includes substance abuse counseling or other services.”

But the widely awaited report suggests that elected officials are enthused about erecting homeless housing only at one locale — a city-owned traffic island in South Los Angeles adjacent to the 110 and 105 freeways.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, LA is home to nearly 13,000 chronically homeless — and 95 percent of them live outdoors in cars, tents and encampments.

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for 2PreserveLA.  Check it out. See if you don’t agree it will help end buying favors at City Hall.)

-cw

IMMIGRATION ECONOMICS-During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously promised to deport all of America’s approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants. While Trump has since dialed back his rhetoric, the president-elect promised in a recent interview to immediately deport the two to three million immigrants with criminal records before he would “make a determination” about everyone else. Trump has also, of course, promised to dramatically improve the American economy. But can that latter promise can be made by still keeping the first? 

Probably not, according to a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which serves as a reminder that those two oaths might be at odds with each other. In the research, economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega break down the economic contributions of unauthorized workers across different industries, while also exploring how mass deportations would affect those industries and looking at the effects of legalization. Undocumented immigrants constitute 4.9 percent of the American workforce. Some industries rely more heavily on these workers. In agriculture, for example, illegal immigrants represent 18 percent of the workforce. In construction, they constitute 13 percent; 10 percent in leisure and hospitality. 

If all those workers were to disappear, gross domestic product (GDP) would go down by about 3 percent (that’s $5 trillion) over a 10-year period. “Once capital has adjusted, value-added in Agriculture, Construction and Leisure and hospitality would fall by 8–9%,” Edwards and Ortega write. “However, the largest losses in dollars would take place in Manufacturing, Wholesale and retail trade, Finance and Leisure and hospitality.” 

Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy Is Already Here.  And as for the opposite counterfactual, the one in which the country’s undocumented workforce was suddenly legalized? The authors find that legalization would increase private-sector GDP by about 0.5 percent, with larger gains (anywhere from 1.1 percent to 1.9 percent) in leisure and hospitality, construction, and agriculture. 

Edwards and Ortega’s conclusions are consistent with past research, which overwhelmingly concludes that immigration is good for the economy at large, and that legalizing undocumented workers is beneficial to both the economy and native workers. 

Of course, it’s likely immigration has also harmed some American employees, in particular low-skilled workers in direct competition with immigrants. While this has emerged as a bit of a hot-button issue in the economics field recently, the best research on the topic suggests that, at least in the short run, an influx of immigrants does reduce the wages of low-skilled (defined as those without a high school degree) native workers. Low-skill black men are particularly vulnerable to these effects. In other words, immigration is a lot like free trade: It’s good for most people, but not every single person. 

There are approximately 11 million unauthorized workers in the United States today, eight million of whom are in the U.S. labor force, making meaningful contributions to the country’s economy. This latest research is a timely reminder that mass deportation, in addition to being an expensive proposition, could be harmful to the economy.

(Dwyer Gunn is a journalist who is a contributing writer at Pacific Standard  … where this piece originated.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID, PART III-Corruptionism destroys the economy. Speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, November 20, 2016, political analyst David Frum warned that the greatest present danger to the economy comes from corruptionism. Basically, no one cared. 

My response to Mr. Frum is, “Welcome to LA, citadel of corruptionism.” I am marking my calendar for eighteen months from now to see if Mr. Frum’s prediction comes true: that in early 2018, the media will be aghast at the rampant corruptionism flowing from the Trump Administration. While Mr. Frum may be absolutely accurate about the corruption soon to be unleashed in the nation’s capital, it is not clear that anyone will care. 

In Washington, the only thing which is truly bipartisan is corruption. Some of us remember when Senator Leahy complained about the war profiteering in Iraq. Vice President Cheney told him to “go f–k yourself.” Did anyone step forward to stop the vast corruptionism back then or did all of Washington fall in line behind Cheney? When speaking about it years later on the Dennis Miller radio show, Cheney remarked, “You'd be surprised how many people liked that,” then added, “It’s sort of the best thing I ever did.” 

Why is Corruptionism Bad for the Citizenry? 

For a candidate who ran on “It’s the Economy, Stupid” against a candidate who felt that the “Status Quo is OK,” corruptionism is a gigantic threat. Let there be no mistake: Trump’s “Make America Great Again” theme pandered to the racists and the bigots and the xenophobes, but his core promise was to fix the economy. He proclaimed there would be a 4% growth -- nay 6% growth -- rather than the 2% current growth rate. The reason to throw out all the illegal Mexicans wasn’t just because he thought that, with but a few exceptions, they were rapists and criminals, but that they were taking American jobs. Trump’s xenophobic attack on NAFTA was to make America great again by bringing jobs back to our shores. 

Corruption by definition is the diversion of resources away from the honest people in order to line the pockets of those who have the power to loot. The ways of corruptionism are as vast as human ingenuity itself, but one principle holds true: Corruption always steals billions of dollars from the productive segment of society in order to enrich the criminal element. 

If Mr. Frum is correct, over the next several months, President Trump will form a government in which businessmen, foreign and domestic, will know the “point men” in the Trump Administration who will dole out favors from the Administration. This modus operandus is not new to Washington as we have seen with the no bid contracts given to Halliburton during the era of Iraq War Profiteering.

Like Politics, Corruptionism is Local 

Just as all politics is said to be local, corruptionism is also local. Just as the Trump Administration has an affirmative duty to employ sound macro-economics to protect the nation’s economy from destructive forces, our local government has a similar duty. But the City of Los Angeles has failed miserably. 

There is a reason Family Millennials are fleeing Los Angeles and that Los Angeles has lost more employers than any other urban area. There is a reason that Los Angeles has the worst traffic congestion in both the United States and Europe, despite spending billions of dollars on subways and light rail. There is a reason that the rest of Los Angeles’ infrastructure is crumbling and our water mains are constantly bursting. There is a reason that people are needlessly dying because we have a truncated paramedic force and why the Police Protective League has started assailing the mayor for under-funding the LAPD. 

Mediaeval Feudalism is Alive in Well in Los Angeles 

For over a decade, Los Angeles has been run like a 13^th Century feudal enclave where the Prince rules by divine right and all his vassals are allowed to be absolute lords and masters of their fiefdoms (council districts) -- provided they maintain their fealty to Prince Garcetti. 

Under the Garcetti System, each Lord is guaranteed absolute and unanimous support by all the other Lords for whatever deal he makes with a real estate developer. Without the guarantee of unanimous support, the councilmembers could not be making any deal they wished with any developer. 

Let’s look at Garcetti’s gift of $17.4 Million to his favorite developer, CIM Group, for its project at 5929 Sunset Boulevard. As this CW article pointed out, LA Weekly had termed CIM Group as Los Angeles’s richest slum lord, yet that did not stop millions of dollars from flowing to CIM Group without any opposition from the LA City Council. The 23-story tower was constructed in violation of a court order without any council opposition.   

Are we to believe that no other councilmember thought that there were better uses of city revenue than to give tens of millions of dollars to LA’s richest slum lord? It did not matter what any other councilman thought since they were all obligated to approve the project with all its corrupt strings because that is what the Lord of Fiefdom CD 13 wanted. 

When the Lady of Fiefdom CD 9, Jan Perry, wanted hundreds of millions of tax dollars for the downtown hotels, all the councilmembers approved. According to the LA Times, in May 2011, the projected cost to the City was $640 million. 

Play Ostrich and Sick Your Head in the Sand 

No one wants to hear how the feudal organization called the Los Angeles City Council throws the doors wide open to corruptionism. Apparently, no one in LA has ever heard of Lord Acton’s maxim that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No one, least of all the District Attorney, wants to look at a system whereby all councilmembers have to support all projects in another fiefdom -- including the gifts totaling billions of public funds -- because the Lord or Lady of each fiefdom is the absolute ruler within his or her realm. 

With the LA Times’ expose of the bribery in connection with the Sea Breeze Project in fiefdom CD 15, however, the peasants may become unruly. They just might maybe able to begin to discern a connection between City Council’s unanimous voting and corruption. What would Los Angeles be like if a councilmember could not guarantee approval of each and every behind-the-scenes deal that he or she made with developers? 

The City is Above the Law 

With the Sea Breeze revelations and the advent of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (which is aimed to stop Spot Zoning,) a major form of developer corruption at City Hall is being revealed. Thus the Prince and his vassals are in a panic. But, not to worry. The courts are riding to the rescue – ready to provide the glue that holds together the Los Angeles City council’s Vote Trading Agreement which requires each councilmember to approve every project in another’s fiefdom. 

This vote trading arrangement is why Councilmember Paul Krekorian can guarantee developers that they can trash Valley Village with impunity. Not a single councilmember had the courage to register even a protest vote against the wanton and unnecessary destruction of Marilyn Monroe’s Valley Village home.  

Since rational people know that a group of 15 human beings cannot unanimously agree on thousands of consecutive votes without the “I’ll Scratch Your Back if You Scratch My Back” vote trading agreement, Judge Fruin has initially ruled that the Los Angeles City Council’s voting procedures are above the law. According to Judge Fruin’s Tuesday, August 23, 2016 tentative decision in the SaveValleyVillage Case (#BS 160608), the courts, or at least his courtroom, will no longer question the City Council’s actions. Why? Because its behavior is “Non-Justiciable.” And, like the City has asserted, “In short, the judicial branch of government is not the overseer of the other two.” 

Since the probability that the 99.9% unanimous voting we see at LA City Council could only occur by pure chance is less than once-in-infinity, one can see the need for the courts to hold that City Council’s conduct is non-justiciable. After all, how else can all these prerogatives of the Lords and Ladies and the Prince Himself be protected from the serfs’ complaints? 

For Angelenos, the idea of perpetual and eternal unanimity seems to be the natural order of things, kind of like King James I of England and his Divine Right of Kings theory. Now, it seems that the courts are set to support this James I approach to government. Another politician who attempted this type of absolute rule was Richard Nixon when he declared during Watergate, “If the President does it, it is legal.” 

Almost 45 years after Watergate, we have a California judge echoing that same doctrine – the government’s behavior is non-justiciable.

(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 those of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.