ALPERN AT LARGE-In the past few CityWatch articles, I focused mainly on the money measures/propositions, and to summarize my $.02: 

1) Vote YES on County Measure M (transportation funding), and NO on every other city, county, and state funding measure/proposition on school construction, parks, homeless initiatives, LAX police pensions, health initiatives, etc. unless you:   

a) Believe our current spending for these otherwise-excellent priorities is being performed efficiently, effectively, and transparently. 

b) Believe that businesses, homeowners, and all taxpayers are doing just swimmingly well, and can afford more taxes because our taxes are relatively low. 

2) That means to Vote NO on Measure A, LA Community College District Measure CC, LA City Measure HHH and LA City Measure SSS, as well as State Propositions 51, 52, 55, and 56) 

3) Vote YES on governmental reform and transparency (LA City Measure RRR, State Propositions 53 and 54) but NO on governmental overreach in hiring, building and contracting in the City of LA (Measure JJJ) 

And now it's on to "law and order" initiatives.  Do we: 

1) Want another surge of crime from "early release" parolees who were let out early because they "only" had nonviolent crimes on their records (but which were done to be compromising/kind in the hopes they would have enough time in prison to reform their lives)? 

2) Do we trust those who've fought and made a joke of every death penalty case to defend us from some of the most violent felons imaginable?  Do we reward the naive individuals who defend those who are blatantly guilty (not just hearsay, but undeniably guilty) of murder and prolong their capital punishment appeals for years and decades on end? 

3) Do we believe that the marijuana out today is the same relatively weak-potency material present in the 1950's, or recognize that some purified marijuana is about as dangerous as LSD? 

4) Do we want marijuana and other controlled substances promoted all over the place, so that our children, even as young adults believe it's more acceptable?  Do you want YOUR kids, even as young adults, to start using marijuana? 

I'm a physician by trade, and during my training I actually VOLUNTEERED to take every prison patient/rotation I could because I wanted to learn more about the realities of prison life and those who reside within the prison system. 

There is room for kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and reform throughout the law enforcement and prison systems.  More and more police officers and prison guards are learning that the best forms of law enforcement include the encouragement of personal and professional reform in prisoners' lives...even felons.  Recidivism is awful, and a reformed life is beautiful. 

Furthermore, medical marijuana--while requiring reform such as proper dosing and evidence-based medical literature that is non-anecdotal--has a proper role in our society, but a "go for it!" message to our youth in the same manner we see with alcohol is a BIG problem that requires attention in a sober (pun intended) fashion. 

Is marijuana as big a problem as heroin, crack, bath salts, etc.?  Of course not--many people use it recreationally, or even just to relax, and they are high-functioning.  But saying it's wonderful and OK for a larger percentage of society?   

No, no, and no again to all who think that marijuana plays no deleterious role in the lives of those who become addicted (and it is addictive, particularly with the more potent forms we see today). 

1) NO on PROP 57 

We should avoid the early release of criminals who will have rap sheets that include rape by intoxication or of an unconscious person, human trafficking, drive-by shooting, hostage taking, arson, failing to register as a sex offender, and a host of other major offenses (LINK: http://www.stop57.com/ballot-argument/)  

2) Vote NO on PROP 62, and YES on PROP 66 

The death penalty consideration already can be swayed by the families of the victims who had everything (their lives) taken from them.  Prison for life without parole is already a consideration for those under special circumstances. 

But to reward the crazies and the naive do-gooders who've warped the intent of the appeal system, and who knowingly defend those truly guilty of unforgiveable crimes (particularly when the family of the victims believes that their loved ones' lives merit the death penalty to their loved ones' murderers) is itself a crime. 

All efforts should be made to make sure that absolutely NO death penalty is administered on an innocent defendant.  DNA testing and investigations should be funded without limitation.  Yet when the murderer is truly, honestly guilty, then the death penalty: 

a) Establishes that the life of the victim, who is NOT present to represent what they went through when they had their lives ripped away from them, means something. 

b) Provides closure to society that wants justice served, and the message promoted that murder is horrible, unforgiveable, and will have BIG consequences.  

c) Still exists to let all of society know that murder is never acceptable, and to persist as a deterrent to some, but not all of our criminal population (which does exist, whether we want to acknowledge that or not). 

3) Vote NO on PROP 64 

When law enforcement officers state that recreational marijuana is "no big deal" then maybe it's not, but the marijuana we see today is too potent, too addicting, and too problematic to just open the doors at this point.  DUI convictions are already a problem, and they will go up big time if this ill-advised proposition passes. 

By and large, most recreational marijuana users keep it on "the down low" and the police tend to ignore those not using while driving--this was established in laws and policies set up during the Schwarzenegger era. 

And medical marijuana, while needing much, MUCH better science to support dosing, indications, side effects, best-practices, etc. that the rest of medicine adheres to, has its benefits and roles within both experimental and clinical medical practice.  However, equating marijuana and alcohol at this time as "the same" is too premature and inaccurate to pass this proposition. 

So … listen to the police, highway patrol, and other law-enforcement agencies!  They can't keep us safe if we undermine their efforts! 

And please take the time to vote November 8, ya hear?

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

-cw

RANTZ & RAVEZ--Recent news reports and conservations with Los Angeles patrol officers illustrate just how far out of touch the leaders of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Los Angeles Anti-Police Commissioners are with LAPD Offices around the city. From the San Fernando Valley to San Pedro and from West Los Angeles to the Eastern portion of Los Angeles the abandoned feeling and desperation of officers is alarming. 

The Anti-Police Commissioners led by President Matthew M. Johnson and followed by rabble rousing Cynthia McClain-Hill and Sandra Figueroa-Villa are to blame for this disconnect. This may be part of the reason recruitment efforts are down at the LAPD. With a budget for 10,000 officers, the LAPD currently has 8,837 officers on the books. That is 163 officers short of the authorized strength. The number of officers does make a difference in crime reduction and police response times. 

The Anti-Police Commissioners are criticizing and faulting dedicated LAPD Officers for engaging in police actions against a growing criminal element that is forcing LA’s crime rates to explode. Showing more concern about restricting the enforcement action of LAPD Officers than addressing the criminal behavior of those that prey on innocent victims is the ill conceived and tragic direction of the majority of the current Anti-Police Commission. 

Commissioner Johnson set his vision and two goals as Commission President. Number one was the reduction of crime. He has totally failed in that category. Crime is up and continues to rise with reduced numbers of arrests. The October 8, 2016, LAPD citywide violent crime and arrest profile clearly illustrates the frightening numbers. Total violent crimes are up a shocking 36.4% over 2014. 

These include Murder, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assaults. Property crimes are also on the increase. They include Burglary, GTA, and Burglary from vehicle and personal/other theft. These are up 21.3% when you compare 2016 to 2014. These alarming crime statistics clearly reflect the lack of effectiveness of Commissioner Johnson and his leadership in reducing crime in Los Angeles. 

The second category is Johnson’s goal of minimizing the use-of-force incidents. That goal is also missing the mark. With his lack of support and encouragement for the officers that carry out the difficult task of keeping Los Angeles safe, use-of-force incidents continue against those individuals that commit crimes and violently resist arrest. 

The number of officer-involved shootings rose 60% in 2015 compared to 2014. 87% of those shot by an officer in 2015 had either a gun or some other type of weapon at the time of the shooting. Many of those shot by officers showed signs of mental illness. 

When an officer encounters an individual with a gun or knife or any other type of weapon, the officer attempts to defuse the situation. When all else fails, there are few options left for that officer.          

When the Anti-Police Commission attempts to meet on their regular scheduled Tuesday, the loud mouths and Anti-police activists in the audience are permitted to disrupt the meeting by screaming and acting like spoiled children to gain attention for their mission of protesting the enforcement of law in Los Angeles. 

Their mission is very simple and has gained the support of the weak and spineless members of the Anti-Police Commission led by Commissioners Johnson and McClain-Hill. During a recent Commission meeting, a women made direct death threats against LAPD Officers. The Commission did nothing to address this Terrorist Threat against LAPD Personnel. The Cowardly acts and a lack of support for LAPD personnel by the Anti-Police Commission are at the root of this matter.    

When uniform officers encountered a crazed women with a knife who failed to follow their commands and directions and charged at them forcing them to either run away and hide or face the attack, the Commission discounted the recommendation of Chief Beck who found that the shooting was in policy and found that the officers use of deadly force was appropriate. 

The message from the Commission is to run and hide and avoid any encounter that may result in the use of force. I asked officers if it is worth their career and livelihood for themselves and their family to take that risk. Even with the lack of support from the majority of the Anti-Police Commission, some offices are continuing to serve the public and face the risk of negative consequences of trying to “Protect and Serve” the people of Los Angeles.       

In recent conversations with LAPD Patrol Officers with 7 months to over 20 years of service, the concern is the same. While the Anti-Police Commission is undermining the actions of the officers and attempting to weaken the enforcement efforts of the LAPD, the officers are receiving support from the people of Los Angeles who appreciate what they are doing to try and make Los Angeles a safe place for everyone. 

It is interesting to note that the Commission is not addressing the criminal element in the city that is forcing the crime numbers to increase. They are only pushing to reduce the effectiveness of the police and use of force incidents. In reality and on the streets of Los Angeles, there are increasing numbers of people being released from prison and turning to the law abiding residents of Los Angeles to fill their pockets with stolen items or assault them causing bodily harm.  

The recent deaths of three-law enforcement officers shot and killed in Southern California clearly illustrates the point. First there was Los Angeles County Sheriff Sergeant Steve Owen a 29-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Department. 

The second and third police officers were shot and killed in Palm Springs. Officer Gil Vega a 35 year member of the Department preparing for retirement in the next two months and Lesley Zerebny who had 1 ½ years of service who just returned to duty after the birth of her child. How tragic for the families of the law enforcement personnel who have died in the line of duty. Black bands will be displayed on the badges of law enforcement personnel and their memory will remain with their family, friends and colleagues. 

To date, there is a 55% increase in gun deaths to Law Enforcement personnel across the country. With these increasing numbers, the Anti-Police Commission should be more concerned about the safety of officers then the loud mouths Anti-police activists that are trying to cripple our police officers. 

It would be a refreshing change for the members of the Anti-Police Commission to address those who carry guns and commit crime to comply with the orders of officers who are professional and dedicated to protecting ALL the people of Los Angeles. A continuing life of crime is where many who are released from prison end up. 

It does not really matter if the person is a hardened murderer, robber, burglar, rapist, and car thief or of crazed mind from drugs, they are all responsible in one way or another for their actions. Holding the police back from protecting the public they are sworn to protect and serve is a constant crime the Anti-Police Commission is committing.  

With the continuing coddling of the Anti police activists by the Anti-Police Commission that are attempting to tear down the LAPD and with encouragement by the Anti-Police Commission for those that are undermining the effectiveness of the LAPD, any injury sustained by an officer from a suspect is at the hands of the Out of Touch, and Cowardly members of the Los Angeles Anti-Police Commission.

(Dennis P. Zine is a 33-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department and former Vice-Chairman of the Elected Los Angeles City Charter Reform Commission, a 12-year member of the Los Angeles City Council and a current LAPD Reserve Officer who serves as a member of the Fugitive Warrant Detail assigned out of Gang and Narcotics Division. Disclosure: Zine was a candidate for City Controller last city election. He writes RantZ & RaveZ for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected]. Mr. Zine’s views are his own and do not reflect the views of CityWatch.)

-cw

TRUTHDIG--Though the 400 to 500 women and men awaiting Bernie Sanders in the parking lot of the American Federation of Musicians in Hollywood represented a fraction of the numbers greeting him during the primary election, the turnout still was impressive—evidence of his continued popularity and support for the cause he was advocating. (Photo above: Sanders campaign headquarters in Los Angeles.)

For me, listening to him and talking to activists in the audience before he spoke was like stepping into a clear, clean lake after wading through the putrid muck of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton. I wondered where all these decent people come from, these folks I never see on television? Was I dreaming?

Sanders was in Hollywood Friday afternoon to speak on behalf of California Proposition 61, which seeks to reduce the exorbitant prices that drug companies are charging for pharmaceuticals. “The pharmacy industry is one of the most powerful forces in Washington,” he said. “They are getting nervous. And you are making them very nervous.” 

His oratorical style was as compelling as it was the last time I heard him. That was in May before a crowd that covered much of the football field at Santa Monica High School.

Those in the audience in the Hollywood parking lot were enthused. Sanders seemed to make them feel as though they were part of an inspiring cause bigger than themselves, just as he did during the campaign. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t have that skill. She is workmanlike, too cautious to dig into her inner self for the words and emotions that would send people away from her appearances ready to crusade.

What Sanders didn’t do was mention Clinton—a notable oversight, whether accidental or deliberate. That doesn’t matter much in California, a solid Clinton state. But hopefully he urges a vote for his former rival when he’s speaking in battleground states, where Trump wants to suppress the Democratic vote. There, Clinton needs a big turnout.

I heard a yearning for Bernie as I walked through the crowd talking to people before his speech. I also found a new willingness to vote for Clinton as a way of voting against Trump.

Mike Wong, a server with day and night jobs at two restaurants, said Sanders’ loss was hard for him to take.

“It’s bittersweet,” said Wong, a Sanders volunteer during the primary. “But it’s heartening to see Bernie endorsing causes and candidates. That’s why I’m here. The primary was painful. You invest so much into something you feel so deeply about.”

Wong, now for Clinton, had not decided what to do until a month after the Democratic National Convention. “I weighed whether to sit it out,” he said. He didn’t think Green candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson was viable, “and I don’t want Trump to be president.” In the end, he said he hopes he and the other Bernie backers “will hold [Clinton] accountable for Bernie’s platform.”

I encountered John Cromshaw, who hosts a program, “Politics or Pedagogy,” on progressive radio station KPFK. “I’ve never been a fan of Hillary,” he said. ”She has corporate sponsors. … I’m concerned about her militarism.” But on the plus side, he said, “she’s a typical politician who can be swayed with people who influence her. Bernie Sanders shows he is someone who can influence the course of politics.”

Not a ringing endorsement, but Cromshaw will be pitching for Clinton and against Trump on his program at the end of October, to be built around the theme “eight days, eight years—eight days to elect Hillary, eight years to keep her responsible.”

Wendi Blankenship and her son Jacob were awaiting Sanders’ arrival. “I was pretty disappointed after the primary,” Jacob said. “A few days after the Democratic convention, after Bernie’s speech [backing Clinton] I decided what he said made sense.”

“I think more people will look into Hillary—I hope,” said his mother. “We’re supporting Hillary now,” said Jacob. “She’s obviously the better candidate.”

Sanders supporter Stanley Chatman, who is African-American, told me, “Trump should not be let near the White House. We cannot have a sexual predator in the White House.”

The main item on the agenda, the drug-price control measure Proposition 61, brought Chatman to the rally. “This is something that will touch everyone you know,” he said.  The drug companies “will make a little less, but they still would be profitable.”

The measure would require the state to pay the same prices for prescription drugs as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, known as the federal government’s hardest bargainer when it comes to buying drugs for its patients.

California state agencies spend an estimated $4.2 billion a year for prescription drugs for the state’s Medi-Cal (Medicaid) patients, retirees and current employees through benefit programs and for prisoners. That’s a small part of the $298 billion spent nationally on prescription drugs, but as Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that “it’s enough to give the state potentially massive influence on drug pricing.” Proposition 61 campaigners say they expect Big Pharma to spend at least $100 million to defeat the measure.

“They can spend all the money they want, but they are a bunch of crooks and we are going to beat them,” Sanders told the crowd. “It is an industry that is extraordinarily greedy and one we must stand up to … enough is enough.” He called 61 the “most significant proposition in the country today. … Brothers and sisters, work hard on this issue. The entire country is looking at California.”

This is part of the revolution he talked about during the campaign, centered on electing progressives around the country and promoting citizen action. Speaking in the musician’s union parking lot, with no national media or presidential campaign-sized crowds, is unglamorous work, spreading a message to a few hundred voters at a time. Hopefully in California, those voters will spend the next three weeks campaigning hard against the drug companies.

It was good to see the old warrior, fiery as ever, spurring them on.

(Bill Boyarsky is a columnist for Truthdig, the Jewish Journal, and LA Observed. This piece was posted first at Truthdig.com.)

-cw

WELLS FARGO SCANDAL--As the Wells Fargo scandal unfolded, in the back of my mind was just how the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in 2002 in response to the Enron and Worldcom debacles, did not protect the investors, general public and the bank’s employees. 

Sarbanes-Oxley is referred to as SOX. It did not create much in the way of new regulations, but it did formalize how publicly traded companies implemented and enforced internal control policies and procedures. It also raised the stakes for key corporate managers – including the Board of Directors, CEO, CFO and in-house attorneys – as far as their individual roles in assuring that the controls governing financial and ethical performance were observed. For example, corporate attorneys must report suspicions of fraudulent acts to their company’s chief legal counsel and CEO. They can go to the audit committee if there appears to be insufficient effort to investigate. 

SOX also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), or Peekaboo, as it is known by industry finance, auditing and accounting professionals. Peekaboo oversees the external auditors’ work, which had been largely self-regulated. Audit firms are now subject to inspections by the Board. 

Violating any SOX regulation could be worthy of criminal charges, yet few executives have faced charges, much less been convicted, under its umbrella. It is seemingly stupefying considering key executives must sign certifications as to the accuracy of the financial statements, but understandable when CEOs are shielded by sub-certifications their companies make lower-level managers sign, creating buffers. It is reminiscent of a scene from Godfather 2, where a lieutenant of the Corleone Family tells a Senate Committee how the Godfather had layers of people between himself and those who took care of the actual dirty work.

There’s an excellent article which emphasizes how the additional layers obfuscates a CEO’s involvement. 

But the impact on Wells Fargo’s financial statements was minimal, only $2.4 million. By itself, that would not create any stir on Wall Street, certainly not enough to push the stock price upwards. 

And probably not enough to subject John Stumph (photo right) to criminal charges, much less be convicted, for deliberate misstatement of the financial statements. Just think – the DOJ did not bother pursuing a criminal action against Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo, so why would it start now? 

However, the phony accounts did create an illusion of long-term customer loyalty. One could argue that shareholders would be inclined to hold the stock longer than they otherwise would. Think of it as contrived price support. 

Regardless, it was fraud. 

It is almost certain that some of the sub-certifiers who knew of the scheme would gladly cooperate with the Feds and help prosecutors construct a trail to Stumph and his key people. Call it buffer-busting. 

The DOJ should also look to what SOX refers to as Entity Level controls. Also known as “the tone at the top,” these cover the corporate culture and how it affects the risk of circumventing the activity controls directly related to financial reporting. So, an overly aggressive marketing program, similar to the one used by Wells Fargo, may create an atmosphere of fear among the sales staff and lead to fraudulent actions. A definite red flag which should have caused the SOX auditors to dig deeper at Wells Fargo. 

In the end, why do we have SOX if it is not used to help bring down unscrupulous executives?

(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].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

WHAT KIND OF CALIFORNIA DO WE WANT?--Politicians, housing advocates, planners and developers often blame the NIMBY — “not in my backyard” — lobby for the state’s housing crisis. And it’s true that some locals overreact with unrealistic growth limits that cut off any new housing supply and have blocked reasonable ways to boost supply.

But the biggest impediment to solving our housing crisis lies not principally with neighbors protecting their local neighborhoods, but rather with central governments determined to limit, and make ever more expensive, single-family housing. Economist Issi Romem notes that, based on the past, “failing to expand cities [to allow sprawl] will come at a cost” to the housing market.

A density-only policy tends to raise prices, turning California into the burial ground for the aspirations of the young and minorities. This reflects an utter disregard for most people’s preferences for a single-family home — including millennials, particularly as they enter their 30s.

In California, these policies are pushed as penance for climate change, although analyses from McKinsey & Company and others suggest that the connection between “sprawl” and global warming is dubious at best, and could be could be mitigated much more cost-effectively through increased work at home, tough fuel standards and the dispersion of employment.

Of course, cities and regions should be able to produce high-density housing which appeals to many younger people, particularly before they get married or have children. The small minority who prefer to live that way later in life should be accommodated on a market basis.

But density is not an effective way to reduce housing costs in a metropolitan area. Multifamily urban housing, notes Portland State University economist Gerard Mildner, costs far more to build than single-family homes. For example, the median cost for a room in major metropolitan areas is more than $100 more expensive near the urban core than it is on the periphery.

The case for NIMBYism

When people move to a neighborhood, they essentially make assumptions about its future shape. This can be achieved by zoning, albeit sometimes too strictly, but also in Houston’s more market-oriented system, which allows for neighborhood covenants and has spawned migration to a plethora of planned communities.

This is not a petty concern. For most people, their house remains their most critical asset. Yet, our clerical government pays little attention to the concerns of the middle class, and is all too happy to undermine long-standing local democratic processes on these issues.

Some density advocates suggest that their assault on zoning reflects market-oriented principles but rarely extend this laissez-faire approach to peripheral development, the most effective path to lower land and house prices. Under current circumstances, such limited libertarianism leaves middle-income people no protection against either Gov. Jerry Brown’s “coercive state” or their speculator allies.

In my old neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, few locals looked upon the creation of ever larger apartments in the area a boon, but rather as a source of increased congestion that strained sewers, water mains, roads and other infrastructure. Yet, in Los Angeles, where “infill” developers tend to also fill the coffers of politicians, our neighborhood did not stand a chance of opposing densification schemes.

NIMBYs are generally stronger in wealthy (and often bluish) places such as Beverly Hills, Palo Alto, Davis, Napa and San Rafael. The anti-forced-density campaign is also getting stronger in already dense places like San Francisco and has engendered an anti-density initiative on the ballot next spring in Los Angeles.

What kind of California do we want?

Ultimately, the question remains over what urban form we wish to bequeath to future generations. Ours is increasingly dominated by renters shoved into smaller spaces and paying ever more for less. California now has the lowest homeownership rate among the top 10 states for people between the ages of 25 and 34. Not surprisingly, the group leaving the state most is those between 35 and 44, a period that coincides with both family formation and home buying.

Forced densification, and the ban on peripheral building, is particularly harmful to the prospects for minorities. Metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco have rates of homeownership among Latinos and African Americans well below the national average, even further below such liberally oriented places as Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Atlanta.

So why only two cheers for NIMBYs? Anti-density activists still need to come up with an alternative housing agenda. You just can’t say no to everything. Communities should embrace some new alternatives, both on the periphery and by building appropriately dense housing in redundant office parks, warehouses and, most particularly, the growing number of semi-abandoned, older malls. These areas can provide housing without overstressing the roads and other infrastructure.

NIMBYs are not the biggest threat to the California dream. That honor goes to planners and speculators seeking to reshape our state and limit the opportunities for single-family and other family-friendly housing. Until the state Legislature recovers some respect for people’s preferences, NIMBYs remain among the last, if imperfect, bulwarks against a system determined to weaken our future middle class, leaving ample housing the province only of those with similarly ample means.

(Joel Kotkin is the R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (www.opportunityurbanism.org. This column was posted most recently at New Geography.) Graphic credit: LA Weekly.

-cw

ELECTION 2016--This election cycle has been filled with thrills, chills, and media spills.  Ugh, double ugh, and triple ugh.  If ever there was a time for cynicism and a focus on logic and "what will my candidate/this proposition DO" it's this year, when both major presidential candidates are justifiably feared for their personal character flaws.  And we MUST also ask what each proposition/measure will DO. 

As mentioned in my last CityWatch article a tough assessment of why so many governmental hands are in our face for more money is critical.   

The economy, despite what propaganda that the Pravda/Tass-like media proclaims, or whichever government outlet states, is NOT doing so great, and part-time jobs are too much "the new normal" while the City, County, and State budgets are (like the rest of us) hanging on by their collective fingernails. 

Public sector spending is NOT acceptable because it is NOT sustainable--hence the need for more taxes when we're already more taxed than virtually all other states, and the middle class is under siege.  So here's the big questions for any financial/tax/bond measure or proposition: 

Will the new money be spent well, is it already being spent well and is it a priority? 

To summarize: 

There are a lot of city, county, and state governmental hands in our faces, asking for money, money, and more money!  Our money. 

1) Vote YES on County Measure M--After being on the fence for the past year, it's becoming obvious to most of us that this measure is the most transparent and needed of all we're being asked to vote on.  The biggest complaint is that it doesn't go far enough.  But it pays for transit and freeway and road operations.  This stands out as the one measure that deserves our vote. 

2) Vote NO on County Measure A--I love parks and recreation, but a parcel tax is coming on the heels of many past, current and future parcel taxes.  Everyone should pay into this, and if we keep over-relying on homeowners, we'll see another Proposition 13-style taxpayer revolution.  I admit to being less concerned if this passes than with other measures. 

3) Vote NO (heavens, NO!) on LA Community College District Measure CC--What on earth is this district doing asking us for more money after burning through and misspending on lousy and scandal-plagued work?  Don't give an addict money and expect proper spending. 

4) Vote NO on LA City Measure HHH--This is painful for me to oppose one my personal heroes (Councilmember Mike Bonin).  He is responsible in large part for the aforementioned Measure M...but Metro has developed a reputation for proper oversight, while the city homeless czars have earned quite the opposite reputation.   

Will this $1.2 billion bond measure money be spent well?  Is this our top priority over our aging infrastructure?  We must listen to our neighbors and constituents and NOT let our City be a "homeless magnet"...but efforts to convert the West LA VA Med Ctr to help our vets should be lauded.  I applaud Mr. Bonin for all of his efforts, but I don't trust those spending this money.  

5) Vote NO on Measure JJJ--There are a lot of "feel-good" features, and minimum wage/residency requirements appear good on first glance, but the "Build Better LA" initiative is a cheap, tawdry distraction from the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (NII) which will be voted on this spring.  The NII will demand we obey our City laws and build within long-overdue updated Community Plans. 

6) Vote YES on Measure RRR--It's only modest reform to the LADWP, but it's a good start. 

7) Vote NO on Measure SSS--If our public sector pension is driving the City into bankruptcy, or threatening our financial stability, why would adding to that instability make any sense?  Yes, our LA Airport Police Officers deserve a good pension, but the whole darned police/fire/public sector pension system is...just...not...sustainable.  Let's really FIX the problem, please?  Pretty please? 

So it's now on to the state, with a gazillion propositions.  I don't have the time here to get into all of them, but I'll address the most co$tly ones.  Let's recap and remember: California is NOT doing well economically because the middle class is under siege and/or has fled the state.   

There are NOT enough millionaires to pay for everyone, and if there's another Wall Street decline (it happens, you know!), then the loss of the middle class will be felt more keenly than ever. A guide:  

1) Vote NO on Proposition 51 (heavens, NO!)--Our K-12 population is stable or even decreasing.  Previous K-12 school building bond funds have been hideously, if not criminally, misspent (overpriced iPads come to mind).  See the diatribe above for more community college districts funds (NO on Measure CC).  Even the Governor isn't on board with this.  

2) Vote NO on Proposition 52--This measure is too opaque and vague, and too fraught with the likelihood of ill-advised spending/benefits for wealthy hospital CEO's, for a yes vote.  Do our hospitals need our support?  Yes--but this proposition is too vague without a more careful measure of how the money will be spent. 

3) Vote YES on Proposition 53--Requiring the voters/taxpayers to be able to vote on bond measures that cost over $2 billion is a no-brainer.  We've the right to deny Sacramento a blank check. And YES, our fellow voters/taxpayers can be entrusted to do the right thing and invest in our future. 

4) Vote YES on Proposition 54--Posting all Legislature bills on the Internet, changes and all, before it could vote on these bills is entirely consistent with the Brown Act and all "sunshine" acts. As with Proposition 53, this is a no-brainer.  It's called "transparent, good government". This is long overdue! 

5) Vote NO on Proposition 55--We were TOLD that the temporary tax hike on those making over $250,000 would be just that...temporary.  Folks making over $250,000 in THIS state are hardly poor, but they sure as heck aren't rich.  Furthermore, all the claims of "the schools need the money" should be answered with: 

a) Will this money be spent well?  Has the previous money been spent well?   

b) Is this a blank check?  Can the Legislature take this same amount of revenue and backfill it into our ever-growing maw of the pension crisis and/or special interests and/or prevent it from truly helping our schools, our poor, etc.?   

c) Will this further drive small business owners and retirees out of this state?   

d) Stop with the class envy!  If we're going to tax higher-income earners, can we at least allow for transparency in how it will be spent? 

6) Vote NO on Proposition 56--I very much USED to favor cigarette taxes, but these have gone up so high that it's amazing there's not more of an illegal cigarette industry than there already is.  There are fewer smokers than ever.  Choose a "better" sin tax, California!  And again...will the money be spent well??? 

7) The "moral" or "law and order" initiatives have to be addressed in a future CityWatch article, but PLEASE consider what the police have to say about them.  Laws and punishment have their roles, and throwing away the laws just to give us all a warm, fuzzy feeling inside ignores the rising crime trends that are occurring in our state.  LISTEN to the cops--they're trying to protect us! 

And please take the time to vote November 8, ya hear?

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

-cw