GOOD FOR LA, GOOD FOR THE WORLD--Mayor Eric Garcetti Wednesday reaffirmed Los Angeles’ commitment to tackling the climate crisis by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making an unprecedented effort to boost the use of electric vehicles.(Photo above left: Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti at C40 Mayor’s Summit.)

In an address to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Mayor Garcetti committed LA to being among the first cities to explore and pursue every possible strategy for doing its part to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C — the scientifically accepted threshold for a dangerous level of planetary warming — as laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Mayor Garcetti has also instructed his Chief Sustainability Officer to analyze existing GHG reduction targets in the Los Angeles Sustainable City pLAn — including 80% GHG reductions by 2050 — and identify additional strategies to achieve a target that scientists view as critical to stemming climate change impacts that include sea level rise, extreme heat, and drought.

“Every city, every community, every individual has the power to fight climate change,” said Mayor Garcetti. “We do not need to wait for any one person or government to show us the way. Acting together as cities, we can set an example for our neighbors, spur clean energy innovation, clean up our air, and speed up the inevitable transition to a low-carbon, opportunity-rich future for us all.”

The Mayor also unveiled plans for Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle to leverage city vehicle fleets to demonstrate substantial demand for electric vehicle (EV) purchases from major auto manufacturers — potentially leading to orders for more than 30,000 EVs. Los Angeles is already home to the country’s largest municipal EV fleet, and has the most aggressive procurement policy of any city in the United States — requiring 50% of all annual sedan fleet purchases to be fully electric.

Mayor Garcetti and 39 other U.S. mayors in the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (MNCAA) have signed an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump to declare continued action and collaboration toward fully implementing the Paris Climate Agreement. 

“Simply put, we can all agree that fires, flooding, and financial losses are bad for our country, that we need to protect our communities’ most vulnerable residents who suffer the most from the impacts of climate change, and that we all need healthier air to breathe and a stronger economy —  rural and urban, Republican and Democrat  —  and in terms of our domestic quality of life and our standing abroad,” the MNCAA mayors wrote.

C40 is a network of the world’s largest cities committed to close collaboration and knowledge-sharing to drive meaningful, measurable action on climate change. At this year’s 2016 C40 Mayors Summit, city representatives and sustainability leaders are gathering in Mexico City to advance urban solutions to climate change.

(This article was provided CityWatch by the office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.)

-cw

WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?--On November 17, the Planning Department announced its latest proposal to change the City’s second dwelling unit (SDU) ordinance. Ostensibly proposing revisions merely to comply with recent state law mandates, the Department has failed to tell City decision-makers and the public that its proposed changes go far beyond what is needed to meet those mandates. The Department’s proposal would fundamentally alter Los Angeles’ existing ordinance, defying the City Council’s recent directive that the Department not propose further changes without first following a “comprehensive, open, transparent process.” 

The Department’s November 17 proposal once again reflects its drive to encourage more SDU development – and its insubordinate approach to the City Council. Apparently fixated on allowing oversized and poorly located second units (so-called “granny flats” or accessory dwelling units) in single family residentially zoned neighborhoods throughout the City, the Department again seeks to impose its policy objectives in defiance of a unanimous City Council. 

The Planning Department’s First Attempt: An Administrative Decree Rejected by the Superior Court. 

This short recap puts this latest Planning Department effort in perspective: In 2010, the Planning Department issued an administrative decree that the State’s “default” standards would apply citywide, rather than the City’s SDU ordinance. The State standards permitted large, family-sized (up to 1,200 square feet) units on virtually any residential lot in the city. By contrast, the City’s SDU ordinance established standards to protect neighborhoods from the negative impacts of inappropriate second unit development. These standards include a 640 square foot maximum for detached SDUs, prohibitions on SDUs in Hillside areas, on substandard streets and in equine-keeping districts, and a minimum lot size requirement to prevent overcrowding. 

In February of this year, the Superior Court ruled that the Department’s 2010 decree unlawfully ignored the City’s adopted SDU ordinance. 

During the five-year period before the Court’s ruling, nearly half of all issued SDU permits unlawfully exceeded the City’s 640 square foot maximum dimension allowed for “granny flats,” instead often reaching 1,200 square feet, the size of many primary residences. 

The Planning Department’s Second Attempt: The Repeal of the City’s SDU Ordinance Thwarted by the City Council. 

Following the Superior Court decision, the Department proposed in May that the City Council should fully repeal its protective second unit ordinance so the State’s lenient “default” standards would automatically apply. Notwithstanding that the Department clearly had other options available, the Department vigorously advocated repeal as the “only feasible” alternative and as legally necessary, and it placed the proposed repeal on a “fast track” allowing little public input. 

Fortunately, Neighborhood Councils and community groups learned about and strongly opposed the Planning Department’s ill-advised repeal proposal and showed that the repeal was not legally necessary. Most importantly, they showed that the influx of large second units would severely detract from the quality and character of many single-family neighborhoods. 

On August 31, 2016, after a long closed session, the City Council unanimously rejected the Department’s repeal proposal. Instead, it adopted a motion – known as Motion 19A – proposed by Councilmembers Ryu, Koretz, Martinez, Blumenfield and Krekorian and seconded by Council President Wesson and PLUM Chair Huizar. It ordered the Planning Department to initiate proposed revisions to the current SDU standards only after “conducting a comprehensive, open, transparent review.” The Council also directed the Department to provide decision-makers with customized options that “tak[e] into account the unique characteristics of each geographic area of the city.”   

The adoption of Motion 19A was a victory for the hundreds of Neighborhood Council members and community groups who stood up to oppose the Planning Department’s irresponsible attempt to repeal our SDU regulations and default to the State’s permissive standards. The opponents of the repeal effort breathed a great sigh of relief that Motion 19A clearly expressed the Council’s unanimous direction to the Planning Department to retain the existing SDU protections and to recommend any changes only after the Planning Department conducted “a comprehensive, open, transparent” process.   

Sadly, the activists’ sense of satisfaction with the adoption of Motion 19A did not last long. A month later, the Planning Department was presented with another opportunity to propose amendments to the City’s SDU ordinance. Rather than follow the Council’s clear direction to keep the existing standards in place, the Department could not resist the chance to amend the City’s ordinance to encourage more and bigger SDUs.   

The Planning Department’s Third Attempt: AB 2299 Opens the Door and the Department Pounces. 

On September 27, the Governor signed AB 2299, which has two main features. First, the bill requires any City whose SDU ordinance includes discretionary permit approval procedures (e.g., Los Angeles) to amend its ordinance to delete those provisions. Second, to further encourage SDUs, AB 2299 requires that all local SDU ordinances include certain mandatory provisions to remove barriers to SDU development involving requirements for second unit parking, setbacks and passageways. To ensure that these requirements are not ignored, AB 2299 penalizes cities that do not act diligently. If the ordinance is not amended by December 31, the city’s second unit ordinance will temporarily become “null and void” and the State’s “default” standards will apply until the city adopts a complying ordinance. The Legislature intended for cities to have sufficient time to make these straightforward changes by December 31 in order to avoid “null and void” status. 

Now, in light of the City Council’s unanimous rejection of the Department’s repeal proposal and its explicit directions in Motion 19A, you might expect the Department to do as instructed and respond with a simple amendment following AB 2299’s straightforward requirements. But the Department’s drive to promote more and bigger SDUs in our neighborhoods simply will not allow it to follow the City Council’s direction. 

To make matters worse, the Department waited until November 17 to unveil its profound changes, and it then scheduled a December 15 hearing for the Planning Commission to consider them. This schedule, of course, makes it effectively impossible for the Council to consider and act on the proposed ordinance by year end, thereby ensuring that the Department’s much favored “default” standards will again apply citywide until the City Council acts. 

The Department’s last minute draft ordinance does not simply include the minimal revisions mandated by AB 2299 revisions: it proposes major non-mandated changes in Los Angeles’ second unit standards with no transparency, no public outreach and involvement, no explanation or discussion of the rationale for the proposed changes, and no alternatives customized for the City’s diverse neighborhoods and Council Districts. As it did in May, the Department supports its latest proposed changes with highly misleading explanations. 

The Department’s Proposal Greatly Reduces the Protected “Hillside Area.” 

For example, the Department published a Background/FAQ with its proposed ordinance (available on its website) that asserts that the proposed ordinance would still continue LA’s current adopted standard that second unit construction will “not be allowed in Hillside areas.” Actually, the Department’s proposal would dramatically change the definition of “Hillside area” from the broad area designated by LAMC section 91.7003 in the existing ordinance to the far smaller area defined by the Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO), LAMC section 12.03. About one-third of the presently protected Hillside areas – over 50,000 lots – would now be made available for SDU development by the Department’s proposal. 

The Background/FAQ not only fails to disclose the dramatically smaller “Hillside area” in which the prohibition on second units would apply, it provides no rationale for doing so. Researching the BHO shows that the Council chose to apply is comprehensive development restrictions only to Hillside lots with “strong” to “extreme” slopes. But why should the very different neighborhood protections against the negative impacts of second unit development currently in effect in Hillside areas like Cheviot Hills be removed simply because that neighborhood’s slopes are somewhat less that “strong” to “extreme.” 

The Department’s Proposal Allows SDUs on Narrow Substandard Streets despite Limited On-Street Parking. 

From the time the City’s SDU standards were first adopted, they have precluded second unit development on lots fronting narrow substandard public streets – “where the width of the adjacent street is below current standards.” But again, without any discussion or explanation in the Report, the Department would eliminate this protection entirely. 

Eliminating the prohibition on substandard streets is even more egregious given the new AB 2299 mandate that off-street parking can no longer be required if a second unit would be located within half a mile of public transportation (e.g., a mere bus stop). Eliminating the substandard street prohibition becomes obviously much more important: parking for new second units near public transit must now be accommodated entirely on the adjacent public streets – including, under the Department’s unexplained new proposal, extremely narrow substandard streets. 

The Department’s Proposal Allows SDUs in Equine-keeping Districts. 

SDUs have also been prohibited in districts zoned to promote horse-keeping. Communities in the west San Fernando Valley and in Sun Valley have fought passionately for decades to protect their right to keep horses and to prevent overdevelopment that conflicts with their rural lifestyle. 

Inexplicably, the Department’s proposed ordinance eliminates the prohibition on SDUs in these specially zoned districts – thereby creating new opportunities for developers to replace stables with SDUs and threaten the ongoing viability of these horse-keeping communities. 

The Department’s Proposal Opens up SDU Development on Small Lots. 

Presently, the City’s adopted standards limit SDUs to lots that are at least 50% larger in area than the minimum required by the applicable zone, thereby precluding SDU development on lots less than 7,500 square feet. The Department’s proposed ordinance would now allow second units on lots as small as 5,000 square feet, enabling the small lots to be redeveloped effectively as duplexes with minimal parking. 

The Department’s Proposal Encourages Large SDUs. 

When the Department in May unsuccessfully proposed that the Council entirely repeal the existing second unit standards, one of the most controversial changes related to the difference in the maximum size of detached second units allowed by the very lenient “default” standards (1,200 SF) versus the much smaller size permitted by Los Angeles’ existing ordinance (640 SF). The difference, of course, is that the State’s 1,200 square foot standard encourages SDUs as large as many primary residences, while the City’s 640 square foot standard is intended to allow a studio-sized unit for a family member (i.e., the “granny flat” is for granny). 

Although not as radical as its repeal proposal, the Department again does away with the 640 SF maximum SDU size, now proposing that second units could be up to 50% of the area of the primary residence with at least 640 SF and at most 1,200 SF. The Department’s Background/FAQ report provides no data about how many primary residences of different sizes would now qualify for additional square footage in their second units. However, it is easy to see the potential for developers to add on to the primary house if necessary in order to allow for a 1,200 SF second unit. 

This type push for larger SDUs will also lead to more two-story SDUs, particularly on smaller lots. The Baseline Mansionization Ordinance would not stop a 1,000 SF second unit with a 2,000 SF primary residence if the lot were at least 6,000 square feet.  

The Department’s Proposal Permits Mobile Homes for SDUs. 

The Department’s proposal even goes so far to specify that “manufactured housing” (i.e., a mobile home) is included in the new definition of an SDU. Not only does the proposed ordinance create the opportunity for duplexes in single-family zoned neighborhoods, but the second dwelling can be a mobile home!           

The Department’s Proposal Encourages Renting SDUs. 

The Department’s proposal for the first time would guarantee that a lot owner can rent out a second unit. This, of course, makes explicit the potential for a developer to rent the primary residence and the second unit. It also fails to consider imposing important rental restrictions that many cities require -- such as not allowing second units to be rented at all unless the primary residence is occupied by the owner. The proposal also ignores the potential short-term rental impacts, even though homeowners can utilize second units much more conveniently for STRs than they can use space within their primary residence.           

The Planning Department Has Thrown Down the Gauntlet. 

The Planning Department’s November 17 proposal utterly disregards the Council’s clear direction that the Planning Department must “conduct a comprehensive, open, transparent review and process . . . while taking into account the unique characteristics of each geographic area of the city” before proposing any substantive changes to the City’s SDU standards.           

Far from the demanded “open, transparent review,” the Department has developed its latest proposed major changes without any public outreach or participation, without any meaningful explanation of the new policies and without putting up for discussion any customized alternatives for the City’s diverse neighborhoods and Council Districts. 

In so doing, the Planning Department has exploited AB 2299’s December 31 nullification provision in an attempt to force the City Council to accept its proposed ordinance with only limited public discussion or debate. By waiting until the last possible moment and making it extremely difficult for the City Council to act before its December 16 recess, the Planning Department would limit the City Council’s options –this time in direct contravention of the City Council’s directions in Motion 19A. 

In effect, the Planning Department is telling the City Council, “You have two choices: Either adopt our proposed ordinance with the many unnecessary substantive changes that we favor or the City’s SDU ordinance will be “null and void” and the State’s permissive default standards (e.g., 1,200 SF SDUs throughout the City) will control until we pass another ordinance.” 

Aside from the policy ramifications, the Planning Department’s maneuvering presents an institutional challenge to the Council members: Will they allow the Planning Department to dictate their options? Are they willing to let the Planning Department circumscribe how the Council will legislate on an issue of great importance to the quality of life in the City’s residential neighborhoods? Or will they once again reject the Department’s efforts and protect their role as legislators?     

Of course, the Planning Department’s actions are not only a direct challenge to the legislative authority of the City Council -- the elected body charged by the Charter to set policy and enact ordinances -- but as an affront to the seven Council members who proposed Motion 19A, Council President Wesson and Council members Huizar, Ryu, Martinez, Koretz, Krekorian and Blumenfield, as well as the other Council members who unanimously approved it. 

Of course, the Council members need not accept the Department’s proposed ordinance. They can easily keep the existing second unit standards in place, while making the minimal changes required by AB 2299. With some careful scheduling, the Council could adopt the proper ordinance at its last session on December 16 or, if necessary, on its first day back in session in January. The Department can then pursue -- in accordance with the Council’s Motion 19A -- the “comprehensive, open and transparent review” for any further changes it may propose. 

Next Stop: The City Planning Commission Hearing. 

The Planning Department’s proposed ordinance will be heard by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2016 at 8:30 am in the Council Chamber in Van Nuys City Hall, 14410 Sylvan Street. Written public comments may be submitted electronically to [email protected] no later than 48 hours before the Commission meeting. Written comments submitted at the Commission hearing must not exceed 2 pages and 20 hard copies must be filed. 

(Carlyle Hall is an environmental and land use lawyer in Los Angeles who founded the Center for Law in the Public Interest and litigated the well-known AB 283 litigation, in which the Superior Court ordered the City to rezone about one third of the properties within its territorial boundaries (an area the size of Chicago) to bring them into consistency with its 35 community plans. He also co-founded LA Neighbors in Action, which has recently been litigating with the City over its second dwelling unit policies and practices.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-By now we have all read news articles that President-elect Donald Trump is a climate change denier, and that his administration will turn back the meager progress made by the Obama Administration’s on climate issues. Meager. This story from the National Geographic is typical:

Trump has long questioned whether climate change is real, and he has dismissed claims that it poses a major threat. In public statements and in his campaign platform, the New York real estate developer and reality TV star has extolled a resurgent U.S. fossil fuel industry, at the expense of existing policies combating climate change. He has also said that he will cut U.S. payments to United Nations climate change programs. The President-elect’s stance on climate change runs counter to physical evidence, near-universal scientific consensus, and analyses by military experts and the U.S. Department of Defense. What’s more, Trump has hinted that he might cut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as roll back the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan and associated policies, including participation in the Paris Agreement. 

My point, though, is not to repeat this news, but to emphasize that much of the heavy lifting to mitigate and adapt to climate change – including in Los Angeles -- is the responsibility of local officials. Since the Federal Government has done so little on this issue and will do even less under Donald Trump, we must now turn to the vast array of local climate-related programs that can be pursued by households, non-profits, and most importantly by City Hall. 

Households: While changes in personal behavior amount to a small amount of the climate picture, we need to ramp them up to spur political change in local government. These personal actions include, but are hardly limited to planting drought tolerant gardens and trees in lie of grass, installing rooftop solar, insulating attics, operating fans instead of 24/7 air conditioning, walking and bicycling, joining a community garden, adopting a no or low meat diet, turning down thermostats, using clothes lines, unplugging appliances, getting rid of old fridges, and even taking shorter showers. 

Non-Profits: Because well-intentioned life style changes have minimal cumulative impacts in reducing Green House Gases, the next arena of political action is local non-profit organizations engaged in collective actions to mitigate climate change. Having taught a class on this topic, these are my top ten, but there are dozens of similar groups eager for your help: 

1. CicLAvia 
2. Heal the Bay 
3. LA Walks 
4. Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition ]
5. Los Angeles Guerilla Gardening 
6. Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance 
7. Move LA 
8. Northeast Trees 
9. Transit Coalition 
10. Tree People  

City Hall: While the contributions of individuals and non-profit organizations are always welcome, they cannot replace local governments’ responses to climate change. The good news is that local governments across the entire planet are stepping up to these tasks. The other good news is that we know, in exact deal, what local governments can do. More specifically, when LA’s current mayor, Eric Garcetti, was elected, UCLA’s Institute for the Environment and Sustainability issued an 82-page report, Vision 2021: A Model Environmental Sustainability Agenda for Los Angeles’s Next Mayor and City Council. This report precisely identified exactly what LA’s Mayor and City Council should undertake to mitigate and adapt to climate change in Los Angeles. 

The bad news is that in Los Angeles, despite devastating information about local climate change impacts in the 21^st Century, City Hall is only taking baby steps. To counteract this foot-dragging and expected hostile actions from the Trump administration, they must decisively and dramatically change. While I encourage everyone, including our officials, to carefully study the UCLA reports, these are a few of my take-aways from t11 broad policy and program categories. 

• Planning: Local government needs to systematically plan for climate change. At present, the Garcetti administration prepared its own Climate Action “pLAn” to unknowingly replace a similar shelf Climate Action “Plan” from the Villaraigosa Administration. But these are only executive documents, not plans in any formal sense because they have not been subject to public hearings, staff reports, debates, and legal adoption. They are not connected to the General Plan and have no connection to its policies, programs, and monitoring for land use, housing, transportation, open space, conservation, public safety, infrastructure, public services, and air quality. These are all General Plan elements, and City Planning intends to update them all. Furthermore, if/when Los Angeles voters adopt the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative in March 2017, the city’s laws, not just professional planning practice, will mandate the total update of the General Plan. 

• Priorities: Local government needs to get its priorities straight, and they should not include major public investments that promote automobile driving, whether through freeway expansion or the City Council’s discretionary approvals for auto-centric buildings. Perhaps the most striking example of poor priorities is CalTrans and Metro’s $1.6 billion investment to widen the I-405 Freeway between I-10 and the 101. Despite the additional lanes, just as critics predicted, this highway is still gridlocked. Furthermore, just think of what else could have been done with that enormous pile of money. It costs approximately $5 million per mile to re-pave streets, repair and widen sidewalks, plant trees, upgrade street lights, construct ADA curb cuts, install bicycle infrastructure, and build bus pads and lanes. These 300 plus miles of enhanced corridors could have fixed all LA’s major east-west corridors, such as Sherman Way, Burbank, Melrose, Olympic, Washington, and Slauson. If this had happened, the reductions in the generation of Green House Gases would have vastly exceeded the increased driving resulting from the over-priced 405 widening boondoggle. 

• CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act should be strictly followed since it forecasts increased Green House Gases levels to City officials. The Mayor and the City Council should not ignore these findings by consistently and unanimously approving the most environmentally damaging alternatives with their unverified claims of increased transit use. 

• Building Permits: The same environmental approach should apply to projects that the Department of Building and Safety ministerially approves. McMansions, for example, are massive energy hogs that should be stopped in their tracks. Nevertheless, on Tuesday of this week, the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUM) reinserted toxic loopholes into amendments that were supposed to finally cleanup the useless Baseline and Hillside Mansionization ordinances. 

• Urban Forest: Of all the infrastructure improvements that City government can make, the urban forest should be at the top of the list. Trees are nature’s own antidotes to high Green House Gas levels, and they also allow rain to percolate into the soil, while creating a tree canopy that shades pedestrian activity.  

The question facing Los Angeles’ elected and appointed officials is quite simple. Will they stick to business as usual, which means a few more climate baby steps, largely changes at the Department of Water and Power over electricity generation. Or will they quickly and dramatically move on the 11 climate categories recommended in the UCLA report? Putting in bluntly, will they finally kick their addiction to real estate speculation and devote themselves to the city’s, the region’s, and planet’s future?

(Dick Platkin is a former LA City Planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch. He also has taught classes on sustainable city planning at USC’s Price School of Social Policy. He welcomes questions and comments at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

STREETSBLOG LA-On November 30, 2016, the Los Angeles City Council approved the final touches to get its $1.4 billion sidewalk repair program going. This unprecedented LA city investment in sidewalk repair is due to the class action lawsuit Willits v. City of Los Angeles, concerning making the public right-of-way accessible to people with disabilities.  The $1.4 billion will be spent over ten years beginning this current fiscal year. 

The city program is essentially the fix-and-release model, outlined in 2015 and approved by joint committees last March. Under fix-and-release, the city will do extensive repair of broken sidewalks, then turn over sidewalk maintenance responsibility to property owners. LA’s fix-and-release program has drawbacks --including concerns over equity and street tree health -- but today’s approval nonetheless gets needed sidewalk repair construction underway. 

Wednesday’s council action included approving several interlocked items (more detailed summaries are available on the meeting agenda  

• Adopt ordinance to return sidewalk repair to property owners, and related programs (council file 14-0163-S10)  

• Set up Sidewalk Repair Incentive and Cost-Sharing Rebate Program (council file 14-0163-S3)  

• Designate specific departments to be responsible for various aspects of sidewalk repair (council file 14-0163-S11)  

• Direct Bureau of Street Services Urban Forestry Division to report on tree removal and replacement (council file 15-0467-S6)  

• Direct Bureau of Street Services to report on hiring additional tree pruning crews (council file 15-0467-S3)  

The city sidewalk repair program will go by the name Safe Sidewalks LA. The city has set up a new sidewalk program website, available starting tomorrow. Anyone can use the website to report LA sidewalks that need repairs. Anyone with a mobility disability can request free sidewalk repairs or new curb ramps. Property owners can also take part in a rebate program to incentivize early sidewalk repairs. Under the rebate program, owners can receive $2,000 for repairs at a residential lot or $4,000 at a commercial lot.

(Joe Linton is the editor of StreetsblogLA ... where this perspective was first posted. He founded the LA River Ride, co-founded the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, worked in key early leadership roles at CicLAvia and C.I.C.L.E., served on the board of directors of Friends of the LA River, Southern California Streets Initiative, and LA Eco-Village.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MY TURN-In this Rollercoaster world where we live, and each day brings a new revelation, it seems like an oxymoron to celebrate Thanksgiving let alone Tuesday, November 29 as the "International Day of Giving." But life goes on! 

Many Los Angeles organizations prepared Thanksgiving Dinner for those less fortunate. Some were sponsored, like the Midnight Mission servicing the Downtown location. One that particularly intrigued me was the annual Westside Community Dinner. 

They have over three decades of tradition serving the community a wonderful, free sit-down Thanksgiving dinner. They also provide free haircuts, blankets, clothing, hygiene kits, medical, optical, dental services, vaccination, a resource fair and a children's carnival. 

The Celebration was open to everyone -- no reservations necessary. They fed over 3000 people, both visitors and volunteers. Five hundred turkeys were cooked! It was an eclectic collection of groups and individuals -- students, singles, low-income families, seniors and homeless -- brought together to celebrate Thanksgiving. No one asked who they supported for President and although there may have been political discussions, nothing got out of hand. 

Each year the dinner has received more support. It was held on the grounds of the Westside Veterans Center, whose service personnel gave the attending Veterans information and referrals. The Mayor’s office also provided personnel to pass out information on services provided by the City. 

No videos or press are allowed and no one organization blows its own horn. Publicity for the dinner was handled by all of the Westside organizations and businesses. Everything was donated, mostly products and food, with some cash donations to purchase needed items. It truly is a community affair. 

Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) President Terrence Gomes has been volunteering at this event since he was a young student. He remarked that one of his teachers turned him on to the importance of volunteering. "Chief Chef and civic activist Jay Handel was pleased that so many chefs from throughout the City donated their time and talent to help cook. 

This is the America I know and love. I have no desire to secede from the United States. Those who are talking about the West Coast doing a "Westexit" are frankly not to be taken seriously. 

It is comforting to be able to write about Americans doing good things together for causes they believe in. 

Aside from Black Friday and Cyber Monday having strong sales, we will also be celebrating on the Tuesday following Thanksgiving (in the U.S.) International Day of Giving. #GivingTuesday kicks off the charitable season when many focus on their holiday and end-of-year giving. Since its inaugural year in 2012, #GivingTuesday has become a movement that celebrates and supports giving and philanthropy with events throughout the year and a growing catalog of resources. 

#GivingTuesday was founded by New York’s 92nd Street Y, in partnership with the United Nations Foundation. Together, with a team of influencers and founding partners, they launched a global movement that has engaged over 30,000 organizations worldwide. 

It was created by the team at the recently renamed Belfer Center for Innovation and Social Impact at the 92 Y -- a cultural center in New York City since 1894 that has brought people together around the values of service and giving back. #GivingTuesday connects diverse groups of individuals, communities and organizations around the world for one common purpose: to celebrate and encourage giving. A team of influencers and founding partners joined forces, collaborating across sectors, offering expertise and working tirelessly to launch #GivingTuesday and have continued to shape, grow and strengthen the movement. 

92Y is a world-class cultural and community center where people from all over the world connect through culture, arts, entertainment and conversation. For over 140 years, it has harnessed the power of arts and ideas to enrich, enlighten and change lives, and the power of community to repair the world. 

As a proudly Jewish organization, 92Y enthusiastically welcomes and reaches out to people of all ages, races, faiths and backgrounds while embracing Jewish values like learning and self-improvement, the importance of family, the joy of life, and giving back to our wonderfully diverse and growing community, both locally and around the world. 

These "giving" examples are from both coasts but I know, without a doubt, that similar types of activities are taking place in every other State. This is what makes me optimistic that as Americans we will do the right thing. There will always be people who need to feel superior; there will always be those who have the victim mentality and need someone to blame for their mistakes; there will always be people who think their God is the only one and their beliefs are the only true dictates of human behavior. Fortunately, they are a small minority! 

Do we have problems in this country? Certainly! Can we solve them? Of course! The very characteristic that fringe elements want to eradicate is what makes us great: our diversity, productivity and creativity. Each of us brings something to the table. 

Not everyone can donate money to a favorite cause, but each one of us can give something of ourselves to make the world a better place. So maybe "pay it forward" is a good idea for this Tuesday. As always, comments are welcome.

(Denyse Selesnick is a CityWatch columnist. She is a former publisher/journalist/international event organizer. Denyse can be reached at: [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THE ABRAMS REPORT-The nation is in a transitional muddle. Green Party Candidate Jill Stein believes that it is appropriate to count the votes. Putative President-elect Trump tweets that, “The people have spoken,” but apparently he is too impatient to take the time to find out what the people actually said. One drawback of tweeting in haste is that, “Yes, the People have spoken and by two million votes, they said that Hillary should be President.” Had Trump been more judicious, he might have issued a statement saying that the “Electoral College has spoken” -- but then, that too is not true since the time for them to cast their votes has not come. 

Assuming putative President-elect Trump ends up being the President, we are still in a muddle. In contrast to his campaign rhetoric, Trump’s policies, since he’s been briefed, appear to be in a quandary. We are no longer going to throw out 11 or 12 million illegals. The sanctuary cities object creating ethnic hostilities, having their economies destroyed and hamstringing their police departments by making them check everyone’s passport or green card. And the Wall? What Wall? Hillary thrown in prison? Oh, she’s too nice a lady. Who will be Secretary of the Treasury? Trump’s secret to defeat ISIS appears to be to ask the Generals who, a few weeks ago, “knew nothing.” 

While the “answers” are in disarray, we Americans are clueless about the government’s role in the one thing that upsets us more than anything else: the economy. 

The economy is particularly vital to people who are starting a family. As long as one is single, renting a loft or sharing an overly expensive apartment can be exciting. But when one wants to settle down, priorities change. Does the government bear any responsibility to plan for the future and for an economy that can support family life? 

Rather than answer that philosophical question, let’s look at the practical situation in which a city government ignores the desires of its new middle class and instead allows its policies to be dictated by an ever smaller clique of billionaires. 

Government at all levels impacts the economy. This has been true since the dawn of civilization. In 1776, Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations for this very purpose; and in 1936, John Maynard Keynes wrote his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money [General Theory] for the same purpose. Both addressed the role of the government in setting the parameters of the economy so as to benefit the nation and its citizens. Yet the average voter never holds the feet of politicians to the fire when the government’s policies devastate the economy. 

On a local level, Los Angeles’ feudal city council which has divided the city into 15 fiefdoms ruled by overlords with absolute power, has turned LA from a destination city into an exodus city from which Family Millennials are fleeing. 

A major force driving Family Millennials away from Los Angeles has been the City’s anti-home ownership policy which has made owning a home in Los Angeles prohibitively expensive. 

On November 26, 2016, Wendell Cox wrote in NewGeography.com, “Progressive politicians, dominant in California, talk incessantly about housing affordability, but blindly pursue policies that will make things even worse. It should not be surprising that the housing-cost adjusted poverty rate in California is the worst in union, underperforming even Mississippi. It should also not be surprising that Californians of every age group, including Millennials, are leaving state in larger numbers than they are being attracted.” 

Under both former Mayor Villaraigosa and current Mayor Garcetti, over 21,000 rent-controlled units have been demolished, something that not only increases the number of homeless but increases the cost of the average apartment. The increased demand for housing in the category of “just above the rent-control level” from those who do not become homeless ends up increasing the housing prices. Also, increasing the minimum wage, while generally a good idea, can cause inflation when there is a shortage of a major commodity such as rental units. 

Particularly harmful to Los Angeles are the increasing number of mixed-use projects in what we call TODs (Transit Oriented Districts). TODs are areas near subways, light rail and bus lines where developers are allowed to aggrandize population density on the patently false belief that people who live in TODs do not need to own cars. 

A host of ills follow in the wake of TODs: 

(1) TODs make land values higher which increases the costs of units built there; 

(2) TODs’ construction costs are significantly higher as building standards are stricter as buildings are taller; 

(3) The City allows developers not to construct off-street parking; 

(4) Residents in TODs then overflow into surrounding neighborhoods seeking places to park; 

(5) Because few people who live in TODs use the mass transit, traffic congestion near the TODs becomes much worse; 

(6) As the city adds more offices to DTLA, Hollywood and elsewhere in The Basin, the commute times from the Valley are becoming unacceptable; 

(7) While population density in TODs increases, the occupancy rate is often too low to make developers happy, so the city gives them infusions of cash; 

(8) The billions of tax dollars which have gone to the developers since 2001 starved all the other infrastructure needs so that LA’s infrastructure has crumbled; 

Garcetti’s mania to pursue “Smart Growth,” despite proof that it is driving away Los Angeles’ new middle class, shows no let-up. Billions more dollars are flowing into TODs, augmented by the $1.2 billion from Measure HHH. 

The feudal nature of Los Angeles’ government deprives the citizens of any forum for challenging the City’s demise. Councilmembers who represent the Valley may not object to the excessive concentration of office towers in the Basin even though the added traffic congestion “over the hill” will make life much worse for their constituents. 

As detached single family homes become rarer, they become much more expensive. The threat from Granny Flats deters potential home buyers everywhere. No one wants to make the largest investment of their entire lives in a family home when in five to ten years, the R-1 streets will possibly be transformed into rental alleys. Granny Flats potentially turn every R-1 neighborhood into areas where each lot can have two houses with no backyard – just rental units. 

The potential for a developer to buy an R-1 home and then construct a second house on the lot in order to rent out both the houses forces up the sale price of the home beyond what a family can afford. The commercial value of lots where Granny Flats can be built is much greater than the value of a living space with a back yard, fruit trees and gardens. 

No one has pointed to any social, economic, or political force which will reverse the exodus of Family Millennials from Los Angeles. As the cost of housing escalates due to the Garcetti Administration’s catering to the pocketbooks of the developers, more employers will leave Los Angeles. Employers know that they ultimately bear the costs that the Garcetti Administration is forcing upon the average citizen. Employers foresee that their employees will not pay three times the price for a home in a deteriorating Los Angeles over what it would cost them a home in Austin, Texas, where all the measures of the good life are far better. 

People forget that it was not only the great weather that attracted people to Los Angeles starting in the 1890's, but it was also the vast expanse of single family homes. The war on the detached home mandated by “Smart Planning” has killed the American Dream for LA. A more descriptive word than “killed” would be “murdered.” The American Dream of owning a single family home with a yard in a decent school district has been deliberately murdered in cold blood – and the slaughter continues. 

Government policy affects people’s lives. In a feudal society where the serfs have been locked out of governance and have no power to influence policy, a mass exodus is the wisest choice. The same forces that existed in all the lands from which our forefathers fled are now operating in Los Angeles. 

When a tiny cadre of the ultra-wealthy seize control of the government, people look for a better life elsewhere.

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