PRIMARY POSTSCRIPT--It is no surprise that Assembly Member Patty Lopez advanced to the finals in the 39th AD. More on that later in the article.

Henry Stern’s path to the general election in the 27th Senate District was less certain.

There was no doubt that Republican Steve Fazio would make it, but most figured a Democrat would come in second due to the large field of Democratic candidates carving up the vote. Instead, he surprised by finishing first with 31.2% of the ballots cast, almost a full point ahead of Fazio and well ahead of his chief Democratic challenger, Janice Kamenir-Reznik. **

Reznik held an advantage over Stern early in the evening when absentee ballots weighed heavily.

Two key endorsements abandoned Stern for Kamenir-Reznik: former County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and current Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. Despite those two big name defections, Stern prevailed and appears to have a lock on winning the general. Fazio’s support is unlikely to grow significantly to where he can give Stern a run for his money. Supporters of the other candidates are likely to line up behind Stern, who is a senior staff member of Fran Pavley, the termed-out, current office holder.

The race makes you wonder about the value of endorsements from individuals

I had the pleasure of discussing a number of issues with Stern a few weeks ago. He is someone who appears to be receptive, especially on issues with a direct impact locally. 

Patty Lopez (photo above left), the Rocky of local politicians, appears to face a similar challenge to the one which confronted her back in 2014. Her opponent, Raul Bocanegra, a favorite of the establishment, with the backing of the State Democratic Party, and who outspent Lopez 10 to 1, finished the night with 45% of the vote. Lopez garnered 27%.

With that kind of spending and structural advantage, earning measurably less than a majority is unimpressive and points to vulnerability in the general for Bocanegra. He had almost 63% of the vote in the 2014 primary before falling to the Lopez’ indomitable grassroots push in the general, when he ran as the incumbent. He starts off in a weaker position this time around.

If Lopez can attract support from the pool of voters who supported other fine candidates in the primary, then Bocanegra could be in for a long night on November 8. A loss would all but destroy his aspirations to regain a seat anywhere. It is hard to raise money from deep pockets when you have burned through a small fortune in back-to-back losing efforts.

**Note: The percentage of votes received by Stern as reported above reflect only LA County. The District includes a portion of Ventura County. Fazio finished with 37.5% and Stern with 26.5%. Both will still advance to the general election where Stern is likely to win, as many of those who voted for other Democratic candidates in the primary will tend to support him.

(Paul Hatfield is a CPA and serves as President of the Valley Village Homeowners Association. He blogs at Village to Village and contributes to CityWatch. The views presented are those of Mr. Hatfield and his alone and do not represent the opinions of Valley Village Homeowners Association or CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected].)

-cw

APOLOGIZING FOR THE MILITARIZATION OF THE LA’S SCHOOL POLICE--Come on, they aren’t tanks, they’re armored rescue vehicles. And the, uh, grenade launchers would only be used to launch teargas canisters. When necessary. And the M-16s? Standard police issue.

What a journey these Los Angeles teenagers, and the civil rights group Fight for the Soul of the Cities, had, to get from there — the ho-hum justification by (good Lord) the city’s school district police force, for the accumulation of surplus Defense Department weaponry — to here:

“Our recent meeting and dialogue has led me to review my actions as Board President during this difficult period. Upon reflection, I failed to understand the amount of pain and frustration our participation in the 1033 program could cause in the community and especially with our partners from the Dignity in Schools Campaign and the Fight for the Soul of the Cities...”

These are the words of Los Angeles School Board President Steve Zimmer, speaking in genuine anguish as he acknowledges that militarizing school district police has, to put it mildly, a serious downside. He continues, in his letter last month to the Labor/Community Strategy Center, parent organization of Fight for the Soul of the Cities:

“I now understand that especially in the context of the many conflicts between law enforcement and communities of color across the nation, our participation in this program may have created perceptions about the role of our district and our school police that my silence exacerbated. . . . I now understand that even the possession of such weapons in the context of this moment damaged trust that we now must all work to rebuild. Please accept my apology...”

This is an extraordinary victory — possibly the first of its kind in the nation.

It’s a victory for civil rights. It’s a victory for kids. But primarily, it’s a victory for absolutely basic common sense. The Los Angeles School Police Department — a police force whose sole responsibility is to maintain order in the public schools — has returned all the weapons, including grenade launchers, a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (i.e., a tank) and 61 M-16 automatic rifles, which it had obtained under the controversial 1033 program, to the U.S. Department of Defense.

It provided proof that it did so. And it apologized — to the children and teenagers in the Los Angeles Public Schools. The apology was an acknowledgement — oh, so painfully rare in 21st century America — that real order isn’t a matter of armed domination. It was an acknowledgment that education requires trust and trust is annihilated by the appearance of a military dictatorship.

The struggle with the School Board over this began in 2014, shortly after members of the civil rights group had gone to Ferguson, Mo., to show solidarity with the protests over the police shooting of Michael Brown.

“We come back from Ferguson and find out they have a tank, grenade launchers — it was a declaration of war,” Manuel Criollo, director of organizing at Fight for the Soul of the Cities, told me.

And thus began almost two years of sit-ins and protests. Hundreds of students participated. They refused to compromise or accept half-measures from the school board. “First they got rid of the grenade launchers,” Criollo said. “In the winter of 2014, they got rid of the MRAP tank. By early 2015, they argued that the M-16 was a standard police weapon. They said, ‘We no longer have military weapons’ — even though the M-16 is considered a cruel weapon by the Red Cross.”

But the students didn’t give up. When the School Board finally said it got rid of all its Defense Department armaments, they still weren’t satisfied. They demanded proof, and an apology. At a board meeting last February, “the activists spoke over the Pledge of Allegiance and demanded to be heard before other business could proceed,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The meeting was canceled. 

And proof eventually came, and so did Steve Zimmer’s remarkable acknowledgment that militarizing the school police force had been a mistake, wrecking that invisible and crucial quality called trust — wrecking the school system’s relationship with the communities it served.

As I read his letter of apology, I honor its painful honesty — “I failed to understand the amount of pain and frustration our participation in the 1033 program could cause in the community” — but at the same time I feel a stunned despair that such a decision was made in the first place. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more it rips my heart to shreds. Yes, yes, I understand that maintaining order in a big-city school system is an enormously difficult, complex undertaking. But, to reach out for tanks and grenade launchers?

Apparently the only assistance coming from the national government is military. There is zero peace consciousness at this level, zero guidance except to prepare for war.

As Criollo pointed out, the Los Angeles Police Department (which is separate from the Los Angeles School Police Department) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have thousands of M-16s and other equipment — MRAPs, a helicopter — from the 1033 Program.

“From our point of view, they’re on tactical alert to go to war with their own people,” he said. “We’re living in a country that’s not guaranteeing us a job, not investing in education. But trillions are invested in the military. This shows where their priority is. I think they’ve given up helping communities uplift out of poverty.”

I don’t think the nation has lost its way, but I think the government has.

(Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. Contact him at [email protected] or visit his website at commonwonders.com.)

-cw

BILLBOARD WATCH--The political debate over allowing new digital billboards in L.A. has little to do with issues like traffic safety, light pollution and energy use. In fact, it’s not even a debate in the classic sense but can be characterized as an interplay of two powerful desires. Clear Channel and other big billboard companies badly want to put up the electronic signs on city streets and freeways and the City Council desperately wants to find new sources of revenue. (Photo above: This Clear Channel digital billboard was shut off by court order in 2013.)

The stakes for the billboard companies are high. Digital billboards are big moneymakers, which means the companies are pulling out all the stops to sway the City Council in their favor. They’ve tacitly admitted that some of their existing billboards are blight by offering to remove them. They’ve promised free space both to city agencies and private organizations for public service messages. And most significantly, they’ve dangled the sweet-smelling carrot of revenue sharing in front of councilmembers’ noses.

The council, needing money to fix the city’s crumbling infrastructure and address it’s dire homelessness problem, is all ears. Or to be precise, those councilmembers who have never had angry calls from constituents about brightly-lit, constantly changing ads for fast food, movies, TV shows, and other commercial products and services hanging in the sky outside their windows 24 hours a day.

For those unfamiliar with the sometimes dreary history of billboard regulation in the city, Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor—now Outfront Media—converted 100 of their conventional billboards to digital before the City Council took heed of citizen complaints and called a halt in 2008 to further conversions. Four years later, the courts found that the city’s 2006 action allowing the conversions was blatantly illegal and ordered the signs shut off.

Faced with the loss of millions in revenue, Clear Channel cranked up a public relations and lobbying onslaught aimed at convincing city councilmembers to change course and allow the company to turn many of the digital billboards back on as well as put up new ones. Outfront joined that effort, along with the city’s third major billboard industry player, Lamar Advertising, which recently sued the city in an unsuccessful attempt for permits for 45 new digital billboards in West LA, Silver Lake, Eagle Rock, and the San Fernando Valley, among other areas.

The premises of this campaign were amply visible at a May 24 meeting of the City Council’s PLUM committee. Taking up citywide sign ordinance revisions that have been on the table in one form or another for seven years, the committee heard from a parade of billboard industry lobbyists and representatives of business, labor, and non-profit organizations all reading, sometimes literally, from the same script.

Digital billboards stimulate business activity, produce jobs, protect public safety, promote good causes, and offer a source of revenue for city programs and services. The five councilmen on the committee are educated and intelligent, and undoubtedly know that the first four claims are questionable at best, but the vision of money flowing into their districts without a dreaded debate over fee or tax increases is compelling. Furthermore, those aforementioned 100 digital billboards were clustered in only five of the 15 council districts, and guess what? None of the current members of the committee represented those districts, which means that their office phones never rung with constituent complaints about a billboard pouring out an endless loop of bright, eye-catching ads on their neighborhood streets.

But just how much money are we talking about? Tens of millions? Hundreds? Enough to fix the streets and sidewalks, build housing for the homeless, hire more police officers and firefighters?

To date, there hasn’t been any public discussion about the number of digital billboards that might be allowed, or what percentage of revenue from those billboards Clear Channel and others would be willing to share with the city. According to the city’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the gross receipts, or business tax paid by billboard companies over the past three years ranged from $580,000 to $700,000. That works out to a gross annual revenue of $164 to $196 million per year.

Billboard companies are typically secretive about the amount of money they make from individual billboards, but figures from rate schedules available online as well as statements from company executives indicate that a digital billboard could generate at least six times the revenue of a conventional billboard of comparative size and location. A lot of money, in other words, but just how much the city might expect to get its hands on remains unknown, at least to the public.

Another question awaiting answer is how the city intends to permit new digital billboards or conversions of existing billboards, given that these are now prohibited. The City Planning Commission last year approved sign ordinance revisions allowing such billboards in a limited number of sign districts in high-intensity commercial areas such as downtown, Universal City, Warner Center and LAX, but PLUM committee members reacted to that restriction as if a dead skunk had landed on their desks, holding their collective noses, figuratively speaking.

One proposal floating about City Hall would allow companies to apply for conditional use permits to put up new digital billboards. For anyone new to City Hall nomenclature, that process is essentially as it sounds, where a proposed use is permitted by the city with conditions, on a one-by-one basis. In the case of a digital billboard, those conditions would ostensibly regulate location, size, height, brightness, rate of message change, and hours of operation.

Another possibility, repeatedly mentioned by Clear Channel lobbyists at public meetings, is for the city and billboard companies to enter into relocation agreements, as allowed by state law. How this would work in practice isn’t totally clear, although the ultimate objective would be to get a bunch of those digital billboards now dark or displaying static ad copy back into operation at new locations.

A third way has been proposed by City Councilman Paul Krekorian, who isn’t a PLUM committee member. His idea is to allow new digital billboards in exchange for revenue sharing and the takedown of existing billboards, but only on selected city-owned properties. The idea has generated some interest, although the billboard industry clearly doesn’t like the restriction, because lobbyists and their cohort of supporters in business and labor always speak in public meetings of the need to allow digital billboards on both public and private property.

At the May 24 PLUM committee meeting, there was also a brief discussion of the possibility of raising the gross receipts tax on billboard companies, and whether or not such a tax increase would have to be approved by voters. It wasn’t clear if that tax increase would be an alternative to allowing new digital billboards, or just another revenue source.

There is an elephant in the PLUM committee’s meeting room that members have been doing their best to ignore, although one did allude to it at the May 24 meeting. That is the legal jeopardy the city could be flirting with if it allows a significant number of new digital billboards outside those limited sign districts.

In 2002, the city approved a ban on new off-site signs, with exceptions for sign districts, specific plans and development agreements. The ink was hardly dry on the ordinance before legal challenges were filed in both state and federal court, and at one point the city was defending itself against more than a dozen lawsuits claiming that these exceptions rendered the ban unconstitutional.

After untold hours of labor by the City Attorney’s office, stacks of motions, and drawn-out hearings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the final word, ruling that the exceptions didn’t render the sign ban unconstitutional as long as they could be shown to further the city’s interest in promoting traffic safety and improving aesthetics. But that ruling which struck joy in the hearts of those working to protect the visual environment from saturation by commercial advertising came with a caveat.

In a 2013 report to the PLUM committee, City Attorney Mike Feuer referred to a warning from that court that too many exceptions could render the off-site sign ban vulnerable to legal attack. Those exceptions, he wrote, could mean that the ban “would no longer adequately improve aesthetics and traffic safety and would thus be invalid under the First Amendment.”

Feuer pointed out that the sign ordinance revisions then being considered by the committee addressed this issue by limiting the number of sign districts and their locations to high-intensity commercial areas zoned regional center or regional commercial. That’s what the City Planning Commission affirmed last year, and what the PLUM committee summarily rejected when it took up the matter earlier this year.

The issue of allowing exceptions to the sign ban for the purpose of raising revenue was directly addressed in an earlier ruling by the appeals court in a case called Metrolights vs. City of Los Angeles.  That lawsuit claimed that the city’s billboard ban was rendered invalid by the fact the city allowed thousands of exceptions in the form of ads in bus shelters, kiosks, and other items of street furniture.

The court ruled in favor of the city, saying that having a uniformly designed street furniture system could be shown to enhance traffic safety and aesthetics. However, the court warned that other purposes could undermine the off-site ban, specifically mentioning the raising of revenue, which “by itself perfectly legitimate state action, does not allow a state selectively to prohibit constitutionally protected conduct.”

Deputy City Attorney Michael Bostom also addressed the subject of getting revenue from digital billboards at a City Planning Commission meeting last year. Referring specifically to the proposed conditional use permit process, he said that while people tend to think of billboards as “a panacea for solving revenue problems in the city” the actual issue of generating revenue from signs is “highly complex.” He likened allowing new digital billboards in exchange for revenue to giving a developer permission to put up a building on private property only if the city was given one of the units in the building.

And at the last PLUM committee meeting on May 24, Councilman Felipe Fuentes alluded to a “privileged” communication to the committee from the city attorney’s office on May 16 about the “perilous ground” the city could be on through discretionary actions allowing new digital billboards. The four other members were presumably aware of this communication, although none commented on it.

Rewriting the sign ordinance was initiated by the PLUM committee in 2008. Of the current members, only Chairman Jose Huizar was on that committee, but he ought to remember that the major rationale was stopping the onslaught of legal challenges that were threatening to make the city wide open to new billboards, supergraphic signs, and other forms of outdoor advertising.

But that was obviously before the discussion was taken over by those who don’t see this advertising as something to be strictly limited and contained, but as a cash cow for the city.

Coming soon: LA’s Digital Billboard Debate, Part II: Sham Democracy

(Dennis Hathaway is the president of the Ban Billboard Blight Coalition and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected].) 

-cw

GUEST WORDS--The word fascism has been widely bandied about during the current US presidential campaign, especially in negative campaigning against Donald Trump, the likely Republic candidate. Trump has been compared to Juan Peron and Benito Mussolini because of his flamboyant personal style and his racist comments. Those labeling him a fascist or neo-fascist point to his rampant bigotry against immigrants in general, and Muslims and Mexicans in particular, through proposed entry bans, wholesale roundups, mass expulsions, border walls, and labeling Federal judges as biased because of their ancestry. 

This is certainly part of what has constituted fascism in the past, and they also have precedents in American history, such as the Palmer Raids in the early 1920s, the incarceration of Japanese Americans at the beginning of WWII, and mass expulsions of Bracero program workers in the late 1940s and 1950s. 

But, we need to remember that history is definitely much better at helping us understand the present than accurately predicting the future. So what do our history books tell us about Mr. Trump, other Presidential candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, and the prospects for fascism in the United States? 

In the past, fascism, as it appeared in Italy, Spain, and Germany, was far more than anti-immigrant nativism and bigotry against religious minorities emanating from street thugs. In the 1930s it was a top down answer to deep political and economic crises at the national and global levels. It strengthened the executive function of government at the expense of its legislative and judicial functions. It also included intense patriotism, glorification of an idyllic past and intense state and street opposition to organized labor, liberals, socialists, and communists. Its program has also always included preparation for and pursuit of aggressive foreign wars, which is why some analysts surprisingly focus on Hillary Clinton’s militarism as another fascist danger in the United States. 

In terms of actual American precedents for fascism, we need look no further than the World War I administration of President Woodrow Wilson, the former Democratic governor of New Jersey. After his 1916 election as an anti-war candidate, he not only led the United States into “the war to end all wars,” but also successfully promoted three draconian bills through Congress: the Espionage Act, Sabotage Act, and Alien Act. These laws banned open opposition to US participation in WWI and to military conscription. As a result, many critics of the war were sent to jail and not released until the 1920s. Some of these provisions remain on the books, and the Obama Administration has frequently used the Espionage Act to prosecute government whistle blowers. 

President Wilson also promoted anti-Black racism by barring Blacks from entering the front door of the White House. He then hosted a White House screening of D.W. Griffith’s pro-KKK movie, The Birth of a Nation, a key step in the nationwide revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the late teens and early 1920s.   Wilson also used the Justice Department’s affiliate, the American Protective League, to set up a massive domestic spying operation, as well as to bombard the American public with pro-war, pro-conscription propaganda through his Committee for Public Information.  

Since the US has already had one serious brush with fascism, several renowned novelists have imagined what a fascist United States would look. This is why Sinclair Lewis wrote his book about US fascism, It Can’t Happen Here, in 1936, when memories of WWI were still fresh. Later Phillip Dick wrote The Man in the High Castle (1958), which imagined the U.S. occupied by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Most recently, in 2005, Phillip Roth wrote The Plot Against America. He carefully researched fascistic trends of the 1930s and devised a plot in which Charles Lindberg was elected President in 1942 and then signed anti-intervention peace treaties with both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. While Roth’s fascist U.S. did not have a domestic Holocaust, it did have anti-Jewish pogroms. 

So, this brings us the second decade of the 21^st Century and the obvious question asked by Sinclair Lewis 80 years ago: Could it happen here? My answer is yes, and it could happen if either candidate becomes the next US president, a thesis that might surprise many readers. 

Pre-Conditions of Fascism already underway 

Based on historical patterns, many pre-conditions for fascism are already present. 

• War: Our troubled planet already is reeling with military conflicts, and they are drawing in the current super-powers, China, Russia, Europe, and the USA. Other countries, like Japan, are re-arming, and many countries, like Germany and France, have growing nativist and anti-refugees movements. In this climate, it is easy to imagine many scenarios of extreme racism and military escalation drawing in many more countries, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia into Syria.
• Economic Crisis: While we do not yet have a global depression, many key countries are economically stumbling. China, Russia, Japan, most of Europe, South Africa, and Brazil are all suffering from economic stagnation or recession, including rising unemployment. In all of these countries, and many more, much deeper economic and political crises are either already present or knocking at the door.
• Weak Recovery: In the US, the “recovery” is the weakest since WWII.  Since the Great Recession of 2008-9, it has failed to take off even through the Federal Reserve Bank has kept interest rates at historically low levels and pumped over $4 trillion into the economy through Quantitative Easing.
• Security State: In the US the trappings of a strong and increasingly authoritarian executive function of government are already in place. It is called the Security State. The NSA collects details on all telecommunications, and the US Post Office scans all mail. Furthermore, in the name of fighting terrorism, the Bush and Obama administrations have whittled away at many civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
• Nativism: As anti-immigrant and anti-refugee nativist movements and policies grow in Europe, they also have their counterpart in the United States. It is not only Trump’s rants about Mexicans and Muslims, but also the government’s creation of enormous barriers to political asylum seekers from Syria and Iraq, as well as the Obama Administration’s record levels of incarcerating and deporting immigrants and refugees fleeing to the United States.
• Police Surveillance: These trends are also visible at the local level through police department SWAT teams, police intelligence divisions, and fusion centers whose purpose is to monitor potential terrorism. It includes the LAPD’s Suspicious Activities Reports, whose vague terrorism indicators include people taking photos of public buildings and overheard conversations about public officials.
• Corporatism: Another historical feature is extensive collusion between corporations, finance, and government. This was not only obvious in “too big to fail,” a Federal government program that pumped $13 trillion in public bailout money into the banking system according to Bloomberg News, but also the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute the Wall Street executives who played a leading role in the financial collapse of 2008-9.
• Militarism: A final component that intertwines with the security state is the warfare state. The total US military and security budget has exceeded $1 trillion per year for the entire decade, when all military-related categories are included. Part of this warfare state is active participation in many military conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia), but also local training and US military bases in nearly 200 countries. 

With so much already in place, and with so many pre-conditions emerging, based on historical models, what should we expect? As the cliché goes, the answer is complicated, but it clearly depends on how rapidly the Federal government moves on foreign wars, economic austerity, surveillance, and mass deportations. If they get little push back, trends might proceed slowly. But, grassroots movements, like Black Lives Matter, already exist, and opposition to economic austerity, militarism, racism, nativism, police violence, and spying and surveillance, is likely to grow. 

The larger and more successful these movements, the greater the chance of authoritarian responses, such as those during WWI and the Cold War. We also know that fascist regimes have used street thugs, like those attacking counter-demonstrators and minorities at Trump rallies, and when they could not find or rouse them, they simply turned to Plan B, using cops as agent provocateurs and vigilantes. 

One scholar of potential fascism in the United States, Bertam Gross, in Friendly Fascism, argued that American fascism would have traits not found in Germany and Italy. For example, elections could be retained, such as in Iran. In this case, a Council of Experts vets all candidates for the Iranian Parliament and Presidency. While Iran does have political diversity and a high-level of voting, the approved candidates range from the far right to the center right. How different would this be from the upcoming Presidential election in the United States, featuring a closeted white nationalist, Republican candidate, Donald Trump facing off against a center-right military hawk, Democrat Hillary Clinton? 

Bracing for the Presidential election 

If there is a take-way from the discussion, it is that the term fascism needs to be grounded in historical analysis, and that it should not be restricted to one Presidential candidate, Donald Trump. At this point deepening global military and economic crisis could easily converge and draw in the United States with responses that would include some or all features of fascism. 

This is why the November election is, of course, important, but why it is incorrect to claim that a Trump victory ushers in fascism, while a Clinton victory blocks it. Independent of either candidate, the basic trends and the basic government institutions are already in place. After all, fascism cannot be reduced to a blowhard or military hawk winning a presidential election or a group of street thugs rushing the podium, grabbing the microphone, and then using the trappings of power to plunder the economy, attack the public, and scapegoat minority groups. Fascism utilizes all the institutions of the public and private sectors, including the military, the police, the spy agencies, the courts, and the media, to resolve a deep economic and political crisis. 

But, we also know from the historical record that fascist regimes do not exist in a political vacuum. Their freedom of action is limited because of foreign and domestic opposition. The Third Reich collapsed after 13 years when the Allied armies converged on Berlin in the summer of 1945. Mussolini might have been victorious in the 1920s, but the Italian partisans executed him and then hung him by his heals 20 years later at a gas station in Milan. 

So, if you are following this Presidential election closely and harbor legitimate concerns about fascist trends in the United States going into high gear after January 2017, then you need to pay close attention to and support the many types of opposition movements. These include organizations addressing civil rights, civil liberties, privacy and surveillance, climate change, economic inequality, health access, education access, police violence, military spending, foreign wars, and much more. They might be drowned out by election news until November, but they are here to stay, and their political role can become extremely important. 

They, just as much as any regime in Washington, will determine the long-term historical outcome of this election.

(Victor Rothman lives in Los Angeles. He can be reached at [email protected].)

-cw

DEEGAN ON LA-Is LA having a “Robin Hood Helps the Homeless” moment in the face of an ever growing more-expensive-than-anticipated crisis involving people suffering from homelessness? Will we support the taxing of millionnaires to pay for homeless services? 

Taking from the rich and giving it to the poor is a well known concept popularized in the 15th century legend of Robin Hood. He was a folkloric hero that saw the 1% not caring for the needs of the 99% and did something about it by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Legend may repeat itself if the proposed “millionaires’ tax” makes it to the November ballot. 

The proposal is for a Local High Income Tax (aka “millionaires’ tax”) that will be equivalent to 1/2 % of personal income above $1 million per year. The projected revenue from this tax is $243 million, but will this make a dent in the problem? While much more is needed, this is a great start. The challenging part is getting it approved by the state legislature next week on June 16, and then getting the Governor to sign the bill that would allow the County Supervisors to put it on the November 8 ballot, where it must get a 2/3 majority vote to become effective. 

The legislative process is underway and urgently needs voter support through phone calls, letters, faxes and email to the legislative leadership in Sacramento. The deadline is June 16, but supporters are being asked to take immediate action -- today. 

What the County of Los Angeles is seeking is “the enactment of trailer bill language to grant counties the authority to seek voter approval to impose a special tax on personal annual income above $1 million to combat homelessness.” 

In August 2015, in response to the homelessness crisis which pervades Los Angeles

County, the County launched the Homeless Initiative, a countywide effort to develop a comprehensive set of county strategies to combat homelessness. 

On February 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a comprehensive set of 47 strategies which resulted from an inclusive planning process in which community organizations, cities and county departments all played key roles. 

The Board approved $100 million in one-time funding to launch the implementation of these strategies, but more is needed, on a continuing annual bass, to sustain the plan. 

This is where the millionaires’ tax come in -- to help fill the “housing gap” of 25,550 units that has been identified by LAHSA. This includes permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and emergency shelters. The County needs $450 million per year (not counting construction costs) to fill the gap. The $243 million annual Robin Hood tax revenues would fund about half of that need. It is a significant step in the right direction. 

The urgent call to action -- made even more urgent because the legislature will consider the trailer bill request next Wednesday, June 16 -- is for anyone that supports this legislation to enact a millionaires’ tax benefitting the homeless, should say so immediately. 

Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas stressed, “The people of Los Angeles County have made it known that the time to act on homelessness is now. Public support for a millionaires’ tax is overwhelmingly positive. We need to continue with this forward momentum, and so we are urging everyone to contact the Assembly Speaker, the Senate pro Tem and the Governor to allow the County the option to seek this vital source of ongoing revenue in the battle to end homelessness.”

Here’s what to say and who to say it to: 

“The (your name or the name of your organization) urges your support for trailer bill language (TBL) that would provide counties with the authority to seek voter approval to impose a special tax on personal annual incomes over $1 million dollars for purposes of providing housing and services for homeless individuals/families.” 

Who to contact: 

You can email and/or fax, or call in your advocacy letter no later than Monday, June 13th to the following elected officials that are decision makers for this legislation, and send copies of your email, for or letter to: [email protected] 

Governor Jerry Brown

Email - https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php or https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Telephone: (916) 445-4341

Fax: (916) 558-3160

Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León

Email: [email protected]

Fax: (916) 651-4924

Senator Mark Leno, Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee

Email: [email protected]

Fax: (916) 651-4911

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon

Email: [email protected]

Fax: (916) 319-2163

Assembly Member Philip Ting, Chair, Assembly Budget Committee

Email: [email protected]

Fax: (916) 319-2119

When you go to sleep tonight, think about how and where the homeless are sleeping tonight. Before you go to bed, go to your computer and send a message to the Governor and legislative leaders stressing your support for the Trailer Bill Language (TBL) - the Robin Hood Tax.

(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.

MY TURN-Today's article was inspired by a letter I was writing my daughters, daughter in-law and granddaughters. My daughter, Hillary Hunn, added a post on Facebook Wednesday which literally brought tears to my eyes. It said, in part, "I give credit to my mom, Denyse C. Selesnick, and all the pioneering working women like her who blazed the trail to make a historic moment like this a reality. Thanks, Mom. #ImwithHer" 

I have gotten to know so many of you over the last three years so I hope you will forgive my taking the liberty of writing a very personal article on the significance to me of Hillary Clinton's nomination and speech on Tuesday night. For all you “Hillary Haters" -- why not use her as a place mark in our long march to equality? 

As a woman of "a certain age," I entered adulthood and a career at the time of the real "Mad Men." I watched the show only once, but it was for me a "reality" show in all aspects. I lived it...so I couldn't watch it! I know that many of you younger women, including my own daughters, never faced the situations that we "feminists" did in the sixties, seventies and eighties. You take for granted that you can be anything you want. Fortunately, my granddaughters will have an even more expanded universe to make their mark. 

You do not realize what women went through in those years. "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" were the programs on TV when I grew up. In my day, going to college was more about getting an MRS. Degree than an education. I have shared with you that my decision to be a journalist covering international news was made at the age of fourteen. When I divulged that to my mother, she scoffed and said, "Women don't have those type of careers." Girls from middle class families became teachers and social workers until they met "the one" and then they became housewives. This was the rule…not the exception. 

My parents were born and grew up in the UK, so not only did they have to embrace the entire Southern California ambience and culture...they had a daughter that wouldn't fit the mold. This was traumatic stuff. I'm sure they pondered the wisdom of their decision to immigrate here more than once. 

I met a guy and fell in love but warned him that I had no intention of being a housewife! I wanted to pursue a career and had already gotten a job on a small trade magazine. I also wanted a big family. I don't know if he really believed me but he said OK. I was twenty at the time and thought I could have it all. Even though we have now been long divorced, I know that I never could have done that climb up the ladder without his support. He was a terrific participatory Dad and I will be forever grateful. 

The husbands in our circle of friends used to make a lot of caustic comments, asking, “How could he let me engage in work-related travel and be in such a male dominated business world?” Once, I heard him reply, "She is not chattel mortgage. She does what she has to, as do I.” Being the only "working mother” both on my street and in my four children's elementary school, my kids were often asked by the neighbors if they hated me working. 

My best friend used to refer to herself as Mrs. James Smith. It took me a few years to convince her that she was Rita Smith...not Mrs. James Smith!     

Work wise, the magazine was involved in the manufacturing part of the apparel industry...not fashion. I can't remember how many times I was invited to lunch by a man I was interviewing and noticed between the time we had the interview and went to lunch that his wedding ring seemed to have vanished. 

One time, I was invited to a conference and was the only woman among 500 men. The featured speaker looked at me and said over the microphone, "Well gentlemen, there go the dirty jokes."

Looking back on some of the experiences and comments, I don't know why I didn't get mad. But this was accepted behavior and I felt lucky to be included in this male-dominated industry. I went to many events and probably 75% of the time I was asked when my boss was going to show. They confused “Denyse” with “Dennis.” No, I was not the “secretary.” 

When I became Publisher/Owner of the same apparel industry magazine, I was the only female publisher in the apparel/textile industry world-wide. When I sold them twenty years later, I was still the only female publisher in the industry world-wide. I know, this is too much information...but I wanted to set the foundation for my thoughts, not from books or articles...but from personal experience. 

Is Hillary Clinton a flawed candidate? Of course she is. One can't reach almost seven decades without making mistakes along the way. Don't your children complain about things they didn't like about their upbringing? If they haven't, they will. If it's any comfort, tell your kids that after they are 40 they can't blame their character defects on their parents…or so it says in the “parenting book” on page 89. 

Yes, Bill Clinton has been judged for his sexual peccadilloes and I'm sure that more than one of the gentlemen reading this have done the same. Monogamy is and always will be a controversial subject.   President Clinton's predecessors were not choir boys either, but no one seemed to care. Wasn’t he an intelligent, thoughtful man who left office with a surplus in the treasury, full employment and no wars? Didn’t he represent us well on the world stage instead of retiring? Doesn’t he have a 66% favorable rating? He must have done something right. The Clinton Foundation has done wonderful things around the world. I'm sure there are one or more journalists out there now researching this very topic. 

Hillary Clinton has also had some great achievements and some really debatable policies. But character assassination has no place in this election. You may not agree with her policies or where she sees the country going, but you can't deny the historical significance of her nomination. 

Even if she wins the Presidency and has a Congress like President Obama has endured, at least she is the most experienced candidate running. She’s built up tremendous good will around the world. It may be sexist to say, but women are much more collaborative than men. All that testosterone can sometimes get in the way. 

The first woman to run for President in the Republican Party was Margaret Chase Smith. She spent twenty-four years in the Senate and House of Representatives. But Barry Goldwater won that nomination and we know how that turned out. Shirley Chisolm ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. Can you imagine the effrontery back then of an African American woman having the nerve to run for President? 

Donald Trump implies that Hillary is physically weak and doesn't have the stamina needed. Perhaps he might have said the same thing about Indira Gandhi (India) Golda Meir (Israel) and Margaret Thatcher (UK). In fact, the 20th century saw 47 female heads of state who served as either Presidents or Prime Ministers. We Americans are late to the party. 

Frankly, after 2008 I thought I wouldn't live long enough to see a woman become President of the United States. I sat there on Tuesday night watching the election results -- thinking about my path and feeling fortunate that I have lived to see all these changes. We haven't yet elected a “lady mayor” in Los Angeles but we will still have two lady Senators from California. Every girl – no matter what age -- knows that she can aspire to be President, Fire Chief, astronaut, doctor, plumber and, as I like to describe stay-at-home moms, Domestic Goddesses. For that, we of the female persuasion owe Hillary Clinton and all those who came before her our gratitude. 

To quote Vice President Joe Biden, "It is indeed a big f@#$% deal!"

(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.