PLATKIN ON PLANNING--In response to a recent email for my take on Los Angeles Initiative JJJ, I explained why I continue to oppose it. (For those overwhelmed by this election’s ballot, JJJ calls for a small percentage affordable units in market projects, which would be constructed through local and union labor.) 

My reply: 

Dear T., the JJJ Initiative for inclusionary housing appears to be a remarkable advance in a backward city like Los Angeles. But first impressions can be highly misleading. This is because JJJ is so tainted by loopholes that it will only result in a tiny fraction of the affordable housing units it supporters envisage. In fact, I fully expect that if LA voters adopt JJJ, some new apartment buildings will not contain any affordable units or employ more than a token number of unionized or local construction workers. 

These are JJJ’s unfortunate loopholes, as Jill Stewart previously exposed in City Watch: 

1) The “We don't think this developer is making enough profit” loophole.

Under JJJ, developers’ projects can be spot-zoned and spot-planned as long as they include some affordable housing. But, the City Council can declare the developer is not making “a reasonable return on investment” and then undo the affordable housing requirement. (JJJ Section 5, A, g) 

2) The “Forget about building affordable housing; just pay City Hall an in-lieu 'fee'” loophole.   Under JJJ, no affordable units need to be built inside these new towers, as long as the developer pays an “in lieu” fee. This in-lieu amount is unknown to voters since it will be determined after the election — by the developer-friendly City Council. (JJJ Section 5, A, b3.) 

3) The “Forget the affordable housing, forget the fee, just pay a 'surcharge'” loophole. Under JJJ, developers can refuse to pay the in-lieu fee, and opt for a Deferral Surcharge whose price will also to be later set by the City. This Deferral fee amount, unknown to voters, does not have to be spent on affordable housing. The City Council could divert this revenue to pay city employees for running any housing-linked program. (JJJ Section 5, A, c2) 

4) The “L.A.'s Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a piggy bank” loophole. Under JJJ, the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund does not have to be spent on affordable housing. The fund could be diverted into: “such other housing activities as that term shall be defined.” (JJJ Section 5, B, c) 

5) The “We say we'll create local jobs, but not a single local hire is required” loophole. Under JJJ, contractors need only “make a good-faith effort” to hire people living within five miles of a proposed massive luxury complex, a toothless and meaningless standard that will never be met. (JJJ Section 5, A, g). 

What then can be done? 

As you might know, I am an active supporter of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (NII), which has a totally different take on planning issues than JJJ.  If LA’s voters adopt the NII on March 2017, unlike JJJ it would bar the City Council from spot-zoning and spot-planning individual parcels unless they contained 100 percent affordable units. This would, therefore, stop all plush housing ventures in Los Angeles because they would remain illegal high-rise luxury proposals until the City Council legalized them through parcel-specific spot-zones and occasional General Plan Amendments. Even if these high-rise luxury projects contained a small percentage of affordable units as a deal sweetener, the City Council could no longer wave its magic wand to permit them. 

In contrast to JJJ, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative also forces the City of Los Angeles to expeditiously update its entire General Plan, including the 35 Community Plans that comprise its Land Use Element. This Update process would then be based on mandatory evening and weekend meetings held in every part of Los Angeles.  This consultative approach will ensure that the new General Plan answers three parts of the affordable housing quandary: 

• Which Los Angeles neighborhoods have the greatest need for affordable housing?
• Where in Los Angeles is the greatest amount of parcels that could support by-right or density bonus affordable and low-income apartment projects?
• Where is the existing network of public infrastructure and services sufficient to support greater population density? 

Once this General Plan update process takes off, I then expect the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative team to become a permanent watchdog body. Through careful monitoring of this voter-approved ordinance – and legal action when necessary -- the watchdogs will ensure to that the new General Plan’s elements are properly updated, implemented, monitored, and fine-tuned. 

But, some housing activists support JJJ
This is what I also replied to someone else who wrote me about JJJ. She pushed back hard against my critique and argued that since many affordable housing corporations and activists support JJJ, it deserves our votes. 

These supporters are, in my view, extremely well intentioned people. But, I nevertheless think they are mistaken. They have reached a point of total desperation because the government programs they once relied upon to build affordable housing ended up on the public policy scrap heap. So, without any other obvious alternatives, they are hoping against hope that JJJ, despite its crippling loopholes, will miraculously work. It will overcome the odds to build a modicum of affordable units by piggy-backing them on spot-zoned luxury projects, or it will recharge LA’s empty Affordable Housing Trust Fund through in-lieu payments. 

In effect, they have thrown in the towel on the public sector housing programs that once sustained affordable housing and that are the only real solution to the housing crisis now gripping every county in the entire United States.

As I have repeatedly written in CityWatch, the affordable housing crisis hammering Los Angeles since the Bradley Administration stems from the gutting of Federal housing programs. These cutbacks began during the second Nixon administration and culminated in the 1980s. Since then, one administration after another has never wavered. When faced with massive problems of homelessness, overcrowding, and affordable housing, from the White House to City Hall, they have resorted to the same old unsuccessful market-based housing programs. Their marketing campaigns succeeded, even though their products consistently failed. 

Unfortunately, these market incentive approaches, such as JJJ, are urban myths. As much as we might wish upon a star that they would work, they have not, cannot, and will not ever provide more than a small fraction of the affordable housing needed in this country. The reason is simple; the private market is governed by profit maximization, and the profits exist in market housing, especially luxury housing, not in affordable housing.

My conclusion: if the government does not build or heavily subsidize affordable housing, it does not get built. This point needs to be made again and again, especially when our developer-friendly elected officials foist real estate speculation as the secret sauce of affordable housing. 

Luckily, in this election there is an interim solution, Initiative HHH. It would directly involve the City of Los Angeles in the construction of supportive housing for the homeless, until the only real solution emerges, the restoration of publicly funded and operated affordable housing programs.

(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch LA. He welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected] ) 

-cw

EASTSIDER-This weekend, I finally took a look at the General Election Voter Information Guide (222 pages), and the Special Municipal Election Voter Information Pamphlet (96 pages). It immediately occurred to me that unless you are a very heavy political junkie, the odds of any voter actually reading the combined 318 pages of information before making a decision as to how to vote is about as likely as Jose Huizar voluntarily resigning his job as Chair of the PLUM Committee. 

So I decided to take on the task and report my findings prior to the actual November 8 physical election date. I will give you my analysis of each measure, what it really says, and how I am personally voting and why. Hopefully this will help some voters who go to the polls on Election Day make up their minds as to how they will choose to vote. 

Feel free to check this article against your sample ballot, or print and take to the polls. A lot of these issues are literally life and death. Of course, some are horse puckey. 

Without further ado, here goes. 

LA MUNICIPAL MEASURES 

1) HHH - Homelessness Reduction and Prevention, Housing, and Facilities Bond 

This one is what it says, sort of. Buried in the seven pages of fine print, the $1.2 billion in bonds are to be funded by an increase in property tax on residents of the City. The funds are to build housing for the homeless. 

I have Neighborhood Council friends on both sides of this issue, and it is a passionate debate indeed. My personal take is that, first, the City let the developers throw people out of affordable housing, and now that many of them are on the street, they want us to pay the same developers to build housing for the homeless. Seems nuts, so I’m voting NO. 

On the other side, there is no question that homelessness is a serious and growing problem. Whether these bonds would actually have a significant impact on it seems to depend on who you talk to. Your call. This one requires a 2/3 vote to pass. 

2) JJJ - Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Related to City Planning, Initiative Ordinance JJJ 

This is an Initiative matter, which means that it was put on the ballot by getting enough signatures and bypassing the legislative system. It consists of some 24 pages of very dense language dealing with the building of projects with 10 or more units, and guaranteeing General Plan amendments/zoning changes for projects that meet the detailed criteria of the initiative. 

Although its name does not appear on the FOR argument, the initiative was largely sponsored by the LA County Federation of Labor and the Building Trades. You will not be surprised that the Chamber of Commerce is on the NO side. 

The good news is that the initiative would restrict the City’s ability to sell us out on General Plan amendments and zoning changes. The flip side is that the cost of building these projects would go up, as they would have to pay “prevailing wage.” It also creates an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” and has a lot of details in the text too complicated for my summary. 

Again, I have friends on both sides of the issue. Personally, I am going to wait until March of next year for Jill Stewart’s Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which is a comprehensive and cleaner fix for the City’s planning process. I also find the City CAO’s representation on Fiscal Impact that “this initiative is not expected to result in any additional cost to the City or taxpayers” to be disingenuous puffery. 

This measure requires a simple majority vote. 

3) Charter Amendment RRR – DWP 

This amendment to the LA City Charter would modify the composition and authority of the Department of Water and Power in relationship to the City Council and the Mayor in a whole variety of ways. While the language of the amendment is “only” 11 pages in length, the references and list of ordinances which are mentioned in the ballot language are so indeterminate and unforeseeable as to make a rational judgment impossible. 

It is also the one municipal ballot measure that I unhesitatingly recommend a NO vote on. In a recent post to CityWatch indicating “Don’t Even Bother To Read The Ballot Arguments,”  the basis for my claim is that I can’t find a single compelling goodie for us the ratepayers in the entire proposal. It does require monthly billing instead of the current bi-monthly system, but that doesn’t change what we pay at all. And I’m a “when in doubt, vote no” kind of guy. This measure requires a simple majority vote. 

4) SSS - City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions, Airport Peace Officers 

This one is relatively simple. Currently, the Airport police are in the same City pension plan as are most City employees. They want to get into the very sweet (and expensive) Safety Retirement System that the City has for police (LAPD) and Firefighters. 

The proposal is that all new hires would automatically go into the LA City Fire and Police Pension fund, and also allows all current LA Airport police to “buy into” the fund. Finally, it would allow “new Airport Police Chiefs who are not already members” to enroll in the LAPD/Firefighter pension plan. 

Unlike tax measures, this one can pass by a simple majority vote. However, the fiscal impact to the City is estimated at 14% to 19% more than if the employees were to stay in their current retirement system. 

While your mileage may vary, I’m voting NO on SSS. The basis for my vote is that if we the voters want “real” LAPD cops at the Airport, then we should hire LAPD police officers, not allow a pension goodie to folks who, as far as I know, never were, or are, people who have gone through the LAPD’s rigorous hiring and training process. 

STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSITIONS 

Wow! Seventeen Propositions in a staggering 222 pages. Are you going to read all of this stuff? I thought not. So here’s my quick and dirty analysis, together with how I’m voting and why. 

A lot of these issues are very fundamental and contentious, and the TV ads and printed materials clogging our mailboxes are so deliberately misleading as to give a normal person a migraine -- unless you’ve simply tuned out and thrown the stuff into the wastebasket. 

For those who want to ignore my thoughts on these measures, at least be sure to read pages 8 through 16 of the Official Voter Information Guide, which contains simple summaries of each proposition and what a YES or NO vote means. 

Proposition 51 - School Bonds 

This would authorize the State to issue some $9 billion in bonds for construction and “modernization” of K-12 schools and Community Colleges, including charter schools and vacation education facilities. The total cost over the life of the bonds would be about $17.6 billion dollars. 

For me, this one’s simple, at least in Los Angeles. The last time we did this in LA, the LAUSD ran around and built schools that they couldn’t even staff after they were built, because they didn’t have the ongoing budget to staff them. Witness the Sotamayor Learning Academies in Northeast LA. The only thing I know that it did do was launch the career of one Jose Huizar, who was in charge of the building programs for the LAUSD expending the money. Launched his City Council career, it did. 

As for the Community College District, don’t get me started. The LACCD Board promised a satellite campus at the Van de Kamps location on Fletcher and San Fernando, and then double-crossed the taxpayers by constructing the facility and then basically giving it away to a Charter school. I think they’re still in litigation on the misappropriation of public funds. I wouldn’t trust them with a dime. 

Depending on where you live and what schools your children attend, you mileage may vary. 

Proposition 52 - MediCal Hospital Fee Program 

This one’s technical. Since 2009, California has imposed a special charge on most private hospitals to (1) cover the state share of increased Medi-Cal payments for hospitals and grants for public hospitals, and (2) generate some state general fund savings. In turn these fees generate a federal Medi-Cal funding match. 

Those fees periodically expire, and are set to do so again in January 2018. This measure makes the fees permanent, and has an unknown impact since the federal government must approve any extension of the existing fees. The ringer in this measure is that it excludes hospital fee money from calculating the K-12 education funding level, and puts this exclusion in an amendment to the State Constitution. 

My take is that I get nervous when virtually everyone seems to support a proposition, taking into consideration the fact that the legislature has never failed to support these extensions since 2009. And I am simply leery of anything that permanently amends the State Constitution. 

While most of my friends are voting in favor of the proposition, I’m voting NO for that reason. 

Proposition 53 - Revenue Bonds, Statewide Voter Approval 

This proposition is a measure with a specific target -- the Delta Tunnel Project called “WaterFix,” and the High Speed Rail Project. It gets there from here by requiring statewide voter approval before the selling of revenue bonds for any project where (1) the bonds are sold by the state, (2) the bonds are sold for a project that is owned, operated or managed by the state where the bonds exceed more than $2 billion, adjusted annually for inflation. 

Of course no one can really say what the impact would be if passed, since no one knows if there will be other projects in the future which would meet these criteria. 

The lines are sharply drawn on this one. It’s really an initiative by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The opponents are the California League of Water Agencies, the California League of Cities, the Chamber of Commerce, the California Hospital Association and, interestingly, the California Office of Emergency Services. 

The main thrust of the opponents is that there is no exemption for emergencies or natural disasters in the measure. They also note that groups of public agencies in different parts of the state often group together into a joint powers entity to fund projects that no one of them could afford alone, and that this proposition would give veto power to voters in different regions to block needed projects for other regions. I’m reading between the lines here that this really means that the rest of the state could veto big joint powers projects for Southern California, for example. 

I’m wobbling on this one. I would do almost anything to drive a stake through the heart of the bullet train boondoggle, and the Delta Tunnel project which is designed to bring water to us in Southern California has a lot of legitimate critics. At the same time, it is a historic fact that folks from Northern California have no fondness for Southern California, and I don’t think folks in the San Joaquin valley are exactly fans either.

Proposition 54 - Legislature, Legislation and Proceedings 

At last, a simple one. This would expand open meeting requirements to add a requirement that all state bills be posted online and distributed 72 hours before they can be voted on, require audiovisual recordings of all public legislative meetings (to be retained for 20 years,) allow any member of the public to record and distribute recordings of meetings, and make the legislature itself pay for any costs. 

The only real argument against the proposition is that it would give special interests more time to lobby. C’mon. Special interests already own Sacramento. I just love this one because it should make the tiny little hearts of our City Council tremble at what might overtake them in the future. I’m voting YES. 

Proposition 55 - Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare 

This is the extension on what’s commonly referred to as the special tax on high income people, for a period of 12 more years. High income earners are defined as $250,000 for single, $500,000 for joint, $340,000 for heads of household. 

Normally this would be a no brainer for most of us, in the spirit of getting back at the 1%, and I’m leaning towards a YES vote. The drawback is this: Governor Brown promised that this was going to be a one-time deal back in 2012 and would expire in 2018. Just a temporary fix. 

Such an extension has a significant downside in that state revenues are already very robust – it’s starting to look like a permanent tax increase. The danger is that the state will become addicted to these additional revenues, and the second that there is a downturn in the economy, all the happy feel-good projects that this funds will come to a crashing halt. It is not good budgetary practice to construct budgets on temporary revenues, period. Your mileage may vary. 

Proposition 56 -Cigarette Tax to Fund Tobacco User Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement 

This measure would increase the tax on cigarettes by $2 a pack, the tax on other tobacco products by $2 per pack equivalent, and add a new tax on e-cigarettes of $3.37 per pack equivalent. The proposition also amends the State Constitution to exempt these taxes from the state’s constitutional spending limits, and further exempts these revenues from school funding requirements. 

The devil, as it were, is in the details of who gets the money. From the Legislative Analyst, here are the entities: the State Board of Equalization, various state agencies for enforcement, University of California (physician training), Department of Public Health (State Dental Program), California State Auditor, Medi-Cal, Tobacco Control Program, University of California (tobacco related disease program), and school programs. The slicing and dicing is built into the legislation. 

For me, what tips the scales is the new inclusion of e-cigarettes being taxed as a tobacco product. I’m voting YES, although I can understand the opposition’s argument that little of the money goes to actually stopping people from smoking. 

Proposition 57 - Criminal Sentences, Parole, Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing 

This is another contentious proposition. Clearly the proposal is designed to amend the State Constitution to decrease our prison population by increasing the number of inmates eligible for parole and adding a set of sentencing credits. It also would require that juvenile offenders first have a juvenile court hearing before their case can be transferred to adult court. 

The crux of the dispute is in what qualifies as a “nonviolent felony” offense. Readers will remember the aftershocks of 2014’s Proposition 47 which made changes to allow “nonviolent, non-serious property and drug crime” offenders to have their felonies reduced to misdemeanor, and get released from prison. That proposition, and its fallout, are still the subject of a very divisive debate among Angelenos, who saw a significant increase in released offenders in our neighborhoods. 

The law enforcement community is unanimous in their opposition to Proposition 57, as they were to Proposition 47. My friend Caroline Aguirre in Northeast LA, a retired state parole officer, is relentless in discussing her exposure to the atrocities committed by a number of people released under Prop 47. She has a point, and her articles are always factually accurate as to crimes committed by Prop 47 released offenders. 

The flip side of the question has to do with too many people in jail and increasing judicial intervention because of prison overcrowding. The short answer is that we can’t have it both ways with huge prison populations that are not adequately housed and cared for (read big bucks), versus crimes that may be committed by those who are released. 

Most of my friends will vote NO on this proposition. I’m voting YES because the increased number of people released into our communities will hopefully force us as a society to bite the bullet and either pay a bunch more money to fund the criminal justice and prison system, or deal with the aftermath of people released who have a snowball’s chance of ever getting a job with their record and skills. 

Proposition 58 - English Proficiency, Multilingual Education 

We used to call this one bilingual education and it seemed to work okay until proposition 227 (1998) came along and said that education had to be done in English. This measure would basically allow schools to go back to the old system. Schools would also have to talk with their communities about developing “language acquisition” programs and preserve the right of parents to have their children learn English by being taught in nearly all English. 

I could be wrong, but my educator friends seemed to like the old system and thought it worked well for Los Angeles. Don’t know about the rest of the world. Having said that, I do remember that this was a serious hot button issue for the body politic and the rhetoric was hot and heavy. Particularly outside of Los Angeles. We’ll see if 18 years has made a difference in attitudes. I’m voting YES. 

Proposition 59 - Corporations, Political Spending, Federal Constitutional Protections 

This proposition is specifically designed to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United by way of a constitutional amendment. That decision said that “independent expenditures” of money in politics was “free speech.” I call it the “one dollar one vote” decision. 

The measure urges congress to initiate an amendment to the US Constitution clearly stating that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings. 

The measure is essentially “snow in the wintertime,” since it doesn’t here, and California cannot pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution or force Congress to do so. It’s a feel good free vote, so whatever floats your boat. 

Proposition 60 - Adult Films, Condoms, Health Requirements 

This is a weird one. CAL/OSHA already regulates condom use in the adult film industry, and in Los Angeles County, we have Measure B (2012) that requires condom use in the adult film industry. This measure would set up an entire regulatory and enforcement bureaucracy to license, regulate, and enforce use of condoms in the industry. 

Since I don’t know anyone in the industry, I’m not sure to what extent there’s a pressing necessity for the proposition, and I am extremely leery of setting up any additional state bureaucracies. Even though the proponents finesse the issue, the Legislative Analysts’ Office estimates it would result in lost revenues and costs of around $1 million a year to implement. I’m voting NO, but without enthusiasm. 

Proposition 61 - State Prescription Drug Purchases, Pricing Standards 

Prohibits state agencies from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at any price over the lowest price paid for the same drug by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Medi-Cal managed care programs are exempted. 

That’s it. And the measure has generated zillions of dollars in print and TV ads, to the point where I got a headache from just watching the ads. Underneath, however, the stakes are clear. If you look at the fine print in all the TV ads by some veterans groups and others, the fine print says, “major funding by Merck & Pfizer.” That should tell you everything -- and they are spending millions of dollars. Big Pharma does not do that unless they have something to fear. 

Between this fact and Bernie Sanders’ ad publically endorsing the proposition, for me it’s a no-brainer. YES on 61. We won’t know how much money we can save unless we give it a whirl, and the VA in general keeps pretty tight controls on drug costs. 

Proposition 62 - Death Penalty 

The title says it all. The proposition does three things: (1) repeals the death penalty in California in favor of life without parole, (2) applies retroactively to everyone already sentenced to death, and (3) states that murderers sentenced to life without parole must work while in prison, with a portion of their wages going to victim restitution. 

I should state that I’m a cost/benefit kind of guy, and the issue to me seems one of cost and chances of actually killing these folks vs. the “benefit” of executing them. There are about 750 death sentence prisoners in California at the moment with their legal appeals somewhere in the labyrinth appeals process. Further, since 2006, no one has been executed because of legal issues over our state’s lethal injection procedures. 

The most vocal proponents of keeping the death penalty are prosecutors, law enforcement, and corrections officers. Honestly, as ghoulish as it may sound, I think that for them it’s about jobs and budget. At least, I am unaware of any validated study that demonstrates that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent. 

If vengeance and retribution are more important than money, and I know that this is true for a lot of people, vote YES. I think we have better uses for our economic resources within the criminal justice system and am therefore voting NO. 

Proposition 63 - Firearms, Ammunition Sales 

This measure has some common sense stuff in it like prohibiting certain individuals from possessing firearms. 

Most of Prop 63, however, was already addressed by the legislature this year. For example, folks who sell ammo will have to obtain a license from the Department of Justice, and anyone who messes up three times will have their license permanently revoked. Also, ammo dealers already have to check with the Department of Justice and give personal information on the individual wanting to purchase ammunition. That information goes into a DOJ database, and there is a fine to the individual and/or imprisonment for failure to comply with the regulations. 

The proposition would add to these existing laws by requiring you and I to undergo a background check to even buy ammunition and pass a DOJ authorization in advance. 

You also would not be able to bring any ammunition in from out of state. Further, you and I would have to pay $50 to the DOJ to even get a 4-year permit to buy ammunition at all. 

At some point, this government intervention in our lives gets scary. I’m fine with ensuring that people who should not be able to buy weapons can’t do so. Ditto for background checks. But when you start going so far to hobble citizens from even being able to buy ammunition for their firearms, I’m out. All these regulations that you and I will have to go through to even buy a .22 caliber bullet are over the top. All these licenses, all these permits, all these checks, are going directly into databases that will be linked to all law enforcement, homeland security, the NSA, and big brother in the sky. I’m doubling up on my contributions to the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation). 

This is just bogus. I’m voting no, and if you value your privacy, you should too. 

Proposition 64 - Marijuana Legalization 

Pretty much as the title indicates, Prop 64 legalizes the use of marijuana by adults over 21 years of age, and provides for licensing, sale and taxation thereof. 

Most of the pushback against the measure comes, unsurprisingly, from the vested interests who have a stake in keeping pot illegal -- law enforcement, and the federal government. For them, it’s about jobs and budget, just like the death penalty. 

Last I checked, people are going to buy and imbibe pot whether or not it’s legal, and if I remember right, marijuana is the largest chunk of the economy of Humboldt County and a host of other places in California. 

I personally believe that limited law enforcement resources are better deployed dealing with their core functions. I’m voting YES, even though I do not personally drink or use at all. 

Proposition 65 - Carryout Bags, Charges

Proposition 67 - Ban on Single Use Plastic Bags 

Prop 65 ties directly in with Prop 67, so I will treat them together, even though they are out of order. Prop 67 flatly bans the use of single use plastic or paper bags. Those are the ones that are only sturdy enough to be used once, unlike the thick SuperA bags and sturdy paper bags with handles. 

As near as I can figure, the idea is that if both measures pass, we will have to pay for the thicker bags and the money will for “environmental programs.” What happens is, if Prop 65 passes, and so does Prop 67 (with more votes than Prop 65,) the stores get to keep the revenue. Otherwise the money goes to the state for environmental programs. 

There’s an alternate scenario for what happens if Prop 65 fails, but my eyes glazed over. Only lawyers could write this stuff. I’m voting NO on all of it. 

Proposition 66 - Death Penalty, Procedures 

Finally, we come to the second death penalty proposition. It is relatively straightforward in that it is specifically designed to “fast-track” death penalty cases. The less straightforward part has to do with dancing around what method of execution the state can use, and it indemnifies health care professionals from participating in an execution. 

Even the law enforcement community is split on this one. My take is that lovers of the show Law and Order will like it as a great threat to use in interrogation. For the rest of us, your mileage will vary. There are enough innocent people who have been executed under our current legal system that I am loath to do anything that will speed up the appeals process and produce more innocent inmates who get executed. We can’t fix it when someone is dead. Voting NO. 

(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.)

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Regardless where you stand on the WikiLeaks issue, perhaps we can be proud that our own mayor got a mention. Carla Marinucci hooked us up with a link in Politico’s California Playback column on October 27, 2016. 

Apparently, some players in the Clinton camp believe that “He (Garcetti) has this reputation. Wants to be really courted. By the candidate. No one else. When you get him on the phone, he is nice, but then his staff comes back with this…” 

A June 2015 email thread details the mayor’s holdout for a longer meeting with the Democratic presidential candidate. When the mayor’s “Executive Vice-Mayor”/Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Jacobs called to say Garcetti “really doesn’t want to do this brief meeting at a fundraiser,” Podesta detailed his reply: “I was pretty cold and said we would consider a meeting sometime in the future. Maybe he can hold out to be MOM’s (Martin O’Malley’s) VP.” Even Huma Abedin weighed in. “He’s a tough one for us. Never really had a relationship.” 

For a bit of backstory, last November, Garcetti had endorsed Clinton in a written statement sent from the mayor’s office, a distinct no-no in election law. Thou shalt not use government resources to send campaign-related announcements or to electioneer. A second email fired off an hour later stated, “Today’s statement on Hillary Clinton was sent in error,” and a spokesperson for the mayor explained the statement should not have been sent from the mayor’s office. 

Back in June, the Wall Street Journal  had reported Garcetti was being floated as a possible HRC running mate but he told WKNX News Radio that he was staying where he is. “I’m not looking for a new job. I have a great one right now, and that’s being mayor of the city.” It’s hard to say whether the mayor’s prima donna reputation might have precluded that possibility. Garcetti is planning a re-election bid next year and word on the street is he may be considering a gubernatorial bid in 2018. 

Garcetti’s cozy relationship with developers has earned him detractors, especially among neighborhood integrity activists, as detailed in Patrick Range McDonald’s CityWatch column earlier this week.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THE WAR AT HOME--In two weeks, on November 16, the Los Angeles VA will hold a public hearing to present a proposal for the "contemplated" first Enhanced Use Leases (EUL) that would consist of approximately 150 units of newly constructed permanent supportive housing on undeveloped open space located north of Buildings 336 and 339.  

The reason for these EUL's with non-profits is that the VA bureaucrats and politicians claim the federal government does not have any money to build housing for a few thousand war-injured and homeless U.S. Military Veterans. However, there seems to be plenty of money available to house and care for hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.    

A written promise to settle the Federal Judgment against the VA's illegal use of Veterans’ legally deeded land included Secretary of the VA Robert A. McDonald, a defendant, as well as attorneys Ron Olson and Bobby Shriver (neither are veterans) who represent the plaintiff, homeless Veterans. In fact, it was guaranteed in writing by McDonald and Olson that they would end Veteran homelessness in Los Angeles by December 31, 2015.  

It's now nearly a year after the promised deadline and Los Angeles is still the nation's capital of homeless veterans, a city where thousands upon thousands of war-injured and impoverished U.S. Military Vets are forced to live in deplorable and inhumane conditions at skid row and in back-alley squalor.  

On June 5, 2015, less than six months after he "promised" to end Veteran homelessness in Los Angeles, Ron Olson received ACLU's Humanitarian Award "for his work on behalf of homeless Veterans."  

Did I mention Los Angeles is still our nation's capital for homeless Veterans? 

And the ACLU also awarded Bobby Shriver a Humanitarian Award "for his work on behalf of homeless Veterans," even though the City of Santa Monica was sued in 2009 for abusing and mistreating the homeless when Mr. Shriver was Mayor and a City Councilman. 

Nearly two years after the infamous written promise, the VA is now "contemplating" leasing land for the building of 150 beds by "non-profit developers," which is an oxymoron if ever there was one.  

Did I mention Los Angeles is still our nation's capital for homeless Veterans with thousands upon thousands of needy disabled Veterans exiled from this land exclusively deeded on their behalf? 

Moreover, the current illegal occupants adjudicated in the Federal Judgment were to vacate Veterans’ land via an "exit strategy" as promised by McDonald and Olson. That promise and the ending of Veteran homelessness promise, have as much credibility and validity as Richard Nixon not being a crook and Bill Clinton not having sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. 

While Veteran housing was reprehensibly and shamefully neglected, the illegal occupants never exited but are well-entrenched with long-term sweetheart deals that will now make their illegal real estate agreements "legal," thanks to Humanitarians Olson and Shriver. 

Compare this article ... 

L.A. County Supervisors move ahead with a $2-billion new jail plan.

Recently, the LA County Supervisors moved ahead with a $2 billion new jail plan. Why doesn't the County follow the federal government’s lead and lease property for non-profits to build the jail for criminal prisoners -- or does LA County actually have more money than our Federal Government, which prints it endlessly?  

Think about this: LA County will spend $2 billion for 3,885 beds for convicted criminals while the federal government spends $0 for housing our war-injured homeless Military, yet still has billions to spend on Syrian refugees.    

Instead, the VA will lease this sacred land to non-profits to take care of only 150 of the tens of thousands of homeless Veterans in LA. 

Consider that Humanitarian Ron Olson and his law firm represent some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world, including mega-billionaires on the “Forbes 400” list (Warren Buffet: $65 billion) as well as wealthy CEOs from “Fortune 500” companies. Any one of these people could personally build seriously needed housing on VA property without an EUL, and it wouldn't make a dent in his or her individual wealth. 

Incredulously, Mr. Olson was entrusted to represent the plaintiffs – destitute and disabled homeless Veterans -- in the settlement that pitted poor homeless U.S. Military Veterans against the very rich and powerful non-Veteran elite. 

Ron Olson and Robert A. McDonald may have co-signed a promise to end Veteran homelessness in Los Angeles by December 31, 2015, but LA is still our nation’s capital for homeless Veterans. And the unlawful squatters – Mr. Olson’s wealthy and powerful non-Veteran cronies -- remain on Veterans’ VA property without providing one bed or even a blanket.

This is not being a humanitarian. This is a crime against humanity -- against disabled, destitute and disadvantaged homeless Veterans. 

How can the ACLU present Humanitarian Awards to individuals who have done absolutely nothing to help end Veteran homelessness in Los Angeles as promised? 

Bobby Shriver has children attending the wealthy, private Brentwood School, which is one of the illegal occupants on Veterans land. And as mentioned before, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the City of Santa Monica for neglecting and mistreating the homeless while Mr. Shriver was a prominent politician of this wealthy sea-side resort. 

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama during a private luncheon in 2014 at the ritzy Hyatt Regency in fashionable Century City and publicly promised to end Veteran homelessness in Los Angeles by December 31, 2015. Later, he confirmed four months before the end of 2015, that this “wasn't going to happen this year.”  

All of this neglect and abuse by entrusted officials is illegal and immoral.  

On behalf of all disabled and homeless Veterans in Los Angeles, this is a demand notice to Robert A. McDonald that he must declare a "state of emergency" and immediately establish crisis humanitarian housing and care on the grounds of the Los Angeles VA. He must then begin the immediate construction and permanent maintenance of a new and modern National Veterans Home.

God Bless America and the Veterans Revolution!

(Robert Rosebrock is Director of The Veterans Revolution, Captain of the Old Veterans Guard, and Director of We the Veterans…and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CORRUPTION WATCH-In the wake of the Los Angeles Times article concerning the corruption surrounding the Sea Breeze project in Council District 15, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey has announced her whitewash investigation to cover-up it up. The advanced draft of the final report allegedly concludes that poor beleaguered Mayor Eric Garcetti has been the victim of a plot by undocumented day laborers from Zacatecas, Jalisco and Chiapas. It seems that these day laborers have conspired to have their relatives unknowingly donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to Los Angeles City councilmembers and Mayor Eric Garcetti. (Photo above: Buddies. District Attorney Lacey and Mayor Garcetti.) 

Like any other Angeleno, when our trustworthy mayor discovered an extra $60,000 sitting on his front porch upon returning home one evening from a heavy schedule of TV appearances, he never bothered to ask: “From whence cometh all this money?” I mean, after all, whenever I find an extra $60K in my bank account, I never ask, “Hey, where did I get all this extra loot?” 

This scenario begs the question: What good would it do the philanthropic Mr. Leung to give Mayor Garcetti $60,000 in bribes if the Honorable Mayor had no idea who was lavishing gifts upon him? 

The LA Times article fails to explain how The Most Honorable Mayor would know that he was to reduce the number of votes on Mr. Leung’s Sea Breeze Project from 12 to 10 if he had no idea of the origin of the money? Maybe he thought it was just a periodic payment from the mayor’s favorite developer, CIM Group. 

But at this juncture, we have to spill the beans. Mr. Leung is not a villain. He is a patsy. Perhaps without realizing it, the LA Times Sea Breeze article paints the picture of Mr. Leung as the victim of City Hall extortion. Everyone else who has had any dealings with Los Angeles City Hall and the approval of development projects knows that every single project is unanimously approved. In fact, for a decade, the LA City Council has unanimously approved every project over 99.9% of the time. What would Mr. Leung benefit by Garcetti’s lowering the threshold from 12 to 10 votes if he was going to get unanimous approval anyway? 

Jackie Lacey, however, has a powerful ally in her whitewash – the public. Angelenos will believe anything. The chances are less than one in infinity that the LA City Council’s practice of giving unanimous approval to everything is not the product of a voting pact. For those educated by LAUSD, “one in infinity” is a small number. Since Angelenos apparently are not so good at math or logic, it must seem to them that 10,000 consecutive unanimous Yes votes in City Council is normal. Perhaps they do not know what “unanimous” means. Apparently, DA Lacey doesn’t either. 

Angelenos never notice that it is virtually impossible to flip a coin 100 times in a row and have it turn up heads 99 times. Go ahead. Try it. I’ll wait. Yet, they think that it is normal that 15 councilmembers simultaneously flipping coins 1,000 times in a row will end up getting “heads” 14,985 times. 

Let’s look at DA Jackie Lacey’s soon to be announced “deference” finding. She is going to find, based on no evidence whatsoever and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, that the one in infinity voting pattern at Los Angeles City Council is due to “deference.” 

The argument goes that each councilmember has so much respect for every other councilmember that he or she always -- over 99.9% of the time -- defers to another councilmember’s desires. 

But then we have Garcetti’s 2012 Hollywood Community Plan which received unanimous approval on June 19, 2012. This came after the City Attorney told councilmembers in March 2012 that the Hollywood Community Plan was based on fatally flawed data and the courts would reject it. In fact, the PLUM committee went into closed session with the City Attorney’s Office while considering Garcetti’s Hollywood Community Plan and the same information was conveyed to the PLUM Committee members. But after the closed door session, PLUM passed the Community Plan on to the City Council without any recommendation for approval. That’s right. Yet at the June 19 council session, each PLUM member voted YES for Garcetti’s Hollywood Community Plan. Why would the councilmembers who did not vote approval in PLUM then vote approval in council? This is not deference. This a criminal vote trading agreement in which all councilmembers must vote Yes. 

At the June 19, 2012 LA City Council hearing on Garcetti’s Hollywood Plan, Councilmember Richard Alarcon mentioned that the data was flawed and wanted to know whether City Planning could correct it in Garcetti’s Community Plan. In response, City Planner Kevin Keller, who had primary responsibility for the Plan, gave a long somewhat convoluted answer which boiled down to, “Yes, the Planning Department could re-do Plan with accurate data.” 

Thereupon, Councilmember Eric Garcetti insisted that his Hollywood Community Plan be approved, and within two seconds, it was unanimously approved. 

How does one pretend with a straight face that unanimous approval of Garcetti’s Hollywood Community Plan was based on a good faith deference when everyone knew that it was fatally flawed and would be rejected by the Court? 

In January 2014, Judge Allan Goodman rejected Garcetti’s Hollywood Community plan as based on fatally flawed data and wishful thinking. 

So let’s return to the plight of Mr. Leung and Extortion vs Bribes. 

Often one finds extortion and bribes as two sides of the same coin. A city councilmember lets a developer know that there is a serious problem with his project. After a few thousand dollars show up in the councilmember’s campaign war chest, the problem magically disappears. Whether we have extortion or whether we have bribery is often a Tweedledee Tweedledum situation. Let’s look at a quote from the Sea Breeze article: “At one crucial point, Garcetti invoked a mayoral prerogative – which he has used only twice – to make the number of council votes required to approve the project.” 

In a city council where each and every project receives unanimous approval, why would any developer pay $60,000 to reduce the number of votes needed for approval? This money has all the earmarks of extortion. Leung was buying something which was completely worthless – unless he was facing a threat that, unless the mayor got $60,000, his project was dead. When one is guaranteed unanimous approval, one does not pay $60,000 to have the number of votes for approval reduced by two. 

Let’s look at another absurd aspect of Jackie Lacey’s upcoming report. The councilmembers had no idea anything was amiss. Really? What person bribes a councilmember to the tune of $94,700 and then neglects to tell him who made the contributions?   

If $20K mysteriously appears in my bank account, I’m going to ask, “Where did this come from?” Apparently, Janice Hahn can get $203,000, Garcetti can get $60,000, Joe Buscaino can get $94,700 and then none of them asks the origin of all this loot? 

Let’s remember that each campaign check identifies the donor. Are we so naive as to think that in this day and age when compiling donor lists is a huge business, Garcetti never bothered to find out who just gave him $60K? 

The prime earmark of extortion is to let the “mark” know that there is a serious problem with his project and then after an appropriate amount of money appears in the mayor’s fund, that problem goes away. This is the pattern which the LA Times’ Sea Breeze article describes. (1) Problem (2) Payments (3) Problem disappears. 

Extortion is not rocket science. All it requires is complicit law enforcement and a very gullible public.

(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.

DEEGAN ON LA- On Tuesday, November 1, the City Council approved Frank Gehry’s revised project at 8150 Sunset Boulevard. Gehry did not get what he wanted and David Ryu got more than may have been expected in a showdown over the project that the councilmember and many others objected to. Unresolved, just as it was when the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee met last week, is the status of the Lytton Savings Bank, a Modernist building that has been nominated for Historic-Cultural Monument status by the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission, pending an approval by PLUM and the full City Council. It sits within the footprint of Gehry’s project. 

The PLUM committee sidetracked a decision about what to do with Lytton in their rush to approve the bigger – i.e. Gehry -- piece of the project. Now that the deal has been approved by City Council, demolition is probably what can be expected for the Lytton Savings Bank building, Kurt Meyer’s architectural gem. 

Councilmember Jose Huizar’s PLUM committee will consider approving Historic-Cultural Monument status for Lytton on November 22, in what may be one of the most mocking, irrelevant and posthumous hearings they have ever held. Short of Frank Gehry changing his mind about not wanting the bank to be part of his collection of buildings at 8150 Sunset, or David Ryu doubling down to what he has already done for the community on this this project, preservation of the Lytton Savings bank building looks doomed -- even if PLUM votes for historic-cultural monument status. 

There’s a nuance between saying you are supporting or you are preserving. It’s the latter that has gotten caught in the throats of those who will only go so far in their expression of support for Lytton. Everybody seems to like the bank building and want to give it cultural monument status, but very few want to save it. 

Keith Nakata, Co-founder of the Friends Lytton Savings, stated that “it’s disappointing that the city did not handle the items in a way that would be appropriate to come to an intelligent decision about the project.” 

What benefits have come out of this controversy? Councilmember David Ryu (CD4), who was at the center of the negotiations to change the scope of the project, explains, “When I took office, this project stood at 234 feet. Today, it will be reduced by nearly a quarter, capping the height of this project at 178 feet. Additionally, the density will be reduced, community benefits will be provided to the adjacent neighborhoods, parking and pedestrian access will be increased, traffic improvements will be implemented, and additional workforce housing units will be provided with increased affordability overall.”                                                                       

Ryu’s recap set the stage for his immediate pivot to what may be his next land use and development objective: “This project serves as a clear reminder that the city must revise its rules on how the State’s Density Bonus law (SB 1818) is applied. I strongly believe that we are disproportionately incentivizing developers and that this exchange is not equitable for our residents. We must approach future projects that include affordable housing units with more common sense solutions to achieve better results for our city.” 

Gehry had the last word, referring to the future of the seemingly-doomed Lytton Savings Bank, and he kept it simple, telling a reporter that “somehow, I’m going to figure out how to recognize Kurt Meyer as part of our project.”

(Tim Deegan is a long-time resident and community leader in the Miracle Mile, who has served as board chair at the Mid City West Community Council and on the board of the Miracle Mile Civic Coalition. Tim can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.