PERSPECTIVE-The outcome of the presidential election was a surprise to me as much as it was to anyone. What is not a surprise is the reaction to it. 

There have been some extreme events and outbursts, including rioting by some Clinton supporters and some nasty displays of neo-Nazism by the loosely organized Alt-right group. Fortunately, these reactions are not acceptable to the population as a whole. Most of us are moving forward and dealing with change in a rational manner. The checks and balances embedded in the Constitution will prevent significant, or even sudden, permanent changes to our government. 

However, one proposed remedy to Trump’s victory resurrects an issue this nation has faced before…secession from the United States. 

As a practical matter, according to an opinion piece in the Washington Post, it is virtually impossible, short of an apocalyptic disaster which throws our nation into dysfunctional chaos. Although there are many who believe we have been dysfunctional for a long time, I have news for you – the national government has not only survived, it has expanded its influence.

The Post article states: “Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies how a state can gain admission to the United States. There is no stipulation, though, for the reverse. Even if Obama wanted to let Texas go — a thought that probably appealed to him for at least a second — there’s no mechanism for him to do so. There’s no mechanism for Congress to simply say, ‘Sure, off you go.’ Once you’re in, you’re in. The United States was born an expansionist enterprise, and the idea of contraction, it seems, never really came up.” 

To those proposing a Cal-exit, don’t waste your time, or those of the state’s voters, with a referendum to seek secession.  

Having said that, the topic is worthy of an interesting hypothetical discussion. 

Did the Civil War really resolve whether secession is constitutional? I touched on this subject in an article I wrote for Citywatch in connection with the Civil War Sesquicentennial. 

As I pointed out, the seven states that seceded prior to Lincoln’s inauguration could have gotten away with it had Fort Sumter had not been fired upon by Confederate batteries. Absent the catalyst the attack provided, the nation had no stomach for war, much less a civil war. Had Lincoln raised troops to forcibly end secession, it is likely the entire Upper South would have joined the Lower South, including the critical border states of Kentucky and Maryland. Washington would have been isolated; Lincoln’s administration would have been dead on arrival. 

A southern-leaning Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a slaveholder himself, may have ruled in favor of the break. 

What the Civil War did make certain was the illegality of forceful secession. 

Does that mean peaceful or passive secession is permissible? 

As mentioned earlier, there is no process for separation via legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution to guide Congress; nothing even stipulating a voting margin for such an action. Any request by a state to secede would simply die. 

But let’s just say it did occur. 

Just like divorce, there would be a property settlement...and would that be costly to California! Do you think the rest of the states would transfer control of Yosemite and other national parks for a song? How about military installations and other federal government real estate? 

The financial obligations California would incur for buying out its share of the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare of its citizens would be worse. 

California claims to receive less monies from the federal government than it sends. That is so much BS. The benefits to the state from physical protection and security provided by the federal government is incalculable. In terms of economic trade, California’s primary trading partners are part of the Pacific Rim. Without the leverage of the federal government behind us, we would be at a disadvantage in negotiations with China and Japan, whose economies dwarf those of the Golden State.

Then there are details of establishing a monetary unit and a central bank. 

How about supporting embassies throughout the world? 

The nation of California would be bankrupt from the get-go. 

One other thing. There are regions within California which will not go along with the plan. Much of California’s agriculture and water is attributable to the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada, respectively. Those regions would balk at the plan. They would form their own state, or possibly request to join Nevada. Sacramento would find itself isolated from the rest of its subjects. California would be totally dependent on a foreign government for food, water and energy. 

The secession movement is laughable until you realize its proponents really believe it is plausible. For their sake, I sure hope they do not receive Nigerian e-mail solicitations. 

But just the talk of secession further alienates California from the rest of the nation. 

One of our top attractions is Wine Country. We do not want to be labeled Whine Country.

(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].) Graphic: Jeff Durham/Bay Area News Group. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LATINO PERSPECTIVE-Most Latinos in California were shocked earlier this month with the election of Donald Trump as President. But here in Southern California there is cause for celebration because diversity in the political arena is alive and kicking with the election to the United States Congress of three Latinos. 

These three Democrats, Lou Correa, Nanette Barragán, and Salud Carbajal were elected to represent parts of Orange County, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara. This is very important coming from the most diverse state in the country. We now have the largest Congressional Hispanic Caucus in history with 31 members. 

Correa will replace Latina Rep. Loretta Sanchez who is a Democrat from Orange County in the 46th Congressional District after defeating another Democrat, the mayor of Garden Grove, Bao Nguyen. Sanchez lost her bid to be the next U.S. Senator from California. But what I think is important to notice is that Carbajal and Barragán are replacing white members of Congress.  

Lou Correa has been serving Orange Country since 1998. Over his 16 year career, Lou has represented the 69th Assembly District in the California State Assembly, served as Supervisor in Orange County’s 1st Supervisor District, and represented the 34th Senate District in the California State Senate. 

Lou Correa introduced himself to voters as the only homegrown candidate. As the son of working class parents, Lou saw first hand what it took to escape poverty and have a shot at the middle class. He ran for office in 1998 to fight for the same working families he grew up with, and ensure their children would have the same opportunity to succeed that he had. Lou has a track record of getting the job done and has developed a reputation with countless public officials as a dedicated civil servant interested in solving real problems, not playing partisan games. 

Nanette Barragán, the youngest of eleven children raised by immigrants from Mexico, Nanette Diaz Barragán beat the odds and put herself through UCLA undergrad and USC Law School. She knows what families need and the power of a good education. In Congress, she will fight to get more funds for our schools and better paying jobs for our communities. As a councilwoman, Barragán balanced fiscal common sense with the right priorities. She balanced budgets, fixed streets, helped expand afterschool programs and hired new police officers without raising taxes. 

Salud Carbaja, a Santa Barbara County Supervisor, won an expensive race against Republican Justin Fareed to replace longtime Democratic Rep. Lois Capps in the Central Coast’s 24th Congressional District, which also includes San Luis Obispo County. Salud earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of California at Santa Barbara and his master’s degree in Organizational Management from the Fielding University. He served eight years in the United States Marine Corps Reserve, including active duty service during the 1991 Gulf War. 

In 2004, Salud was elected to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. During his tenure, he has demonstrated a commitment to protecting our environment, promoting sustainability, strengthening our schools, and enhancing the health and safety of our community. 

Drawing upon his own childhood experiences growing up in an economically disadvantaged neighborhood, Salud shares a passion for improving the lives of at-risk youth. He found innovative ways to strengthen our schools by creating a job skills and mentorship program for at-risk youth and providing summer programming for our kids. Salud is married to his wife, Gina, and has two children, Natasha and Michael. 

Salud Carbajal and Lou Correa also have links in Spanish on their websites. 

After the election, CHC Chairwoman Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, Democrat from Whittier, said that the caucus would request a meeting with Trump in the coming weeks to “make sure he better understands the challenges our community faces and does not act on his extreme rhetoric.” 

The Latino caucus will work hard to protect our Latino communities, you can be sure of that.

(Fred Mariscal came to Los Angeles from Mexico City in 1992 to study at the University of Southern California and has been in LA ever since. He is a community leader and was a candidate for Los Angeles City Council in District 4. Fred writes Latino Perspective for CityWatch and can be reached at: [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PARK LABREA NEWS REPORT--As the Miracle Mile Residential Association (MMRA) approached the finish line in a years-long effort to establish stricter protections from the invasion of McMansions, a different group of residents mobilized to try to hit the brakes.

Box-shaped homes like the one on the left dwarf existing structures in the Miracle Mile. Residents in the neighborhood agree that McMansion development needs to stop, but they don’t agree on the right tool to get it done.

The Los Angeles Planning Commission on Dec. 8 will consider the proposed historic preservation overlay zone (HPOZ) that will protect the Miracle Mile from developers who want to replace existing residences that were built between 1921-1953 with larger, box-shaped homes. “Mansionization” – the influx of the larger homes – started years ago, and the MMRA said it will destroy the character of their neighborhood if it continues. In September, the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) concluded that the Miracle Mile neighborhood maintains its cultural significance to the city of Los Angeles. But other property owners have joined together to oppose the restrictions that come with an HPOZ.

“I first heard about the ‘No on HPOZ’ people literally five minutes before it was going to be decided on,” said Councilman David Ryu, 4th District, at an MMRA meeting earlier this month where dozens of residents waved red “No on HPOZ” signs.

“Even though you came in the last minute, I wanted to make sure [you were] heard.”

Opponents to the HPOZ argued that the preservation plan – which includes guidelines and review procedures for 1,350 properties – is too strict, and will stall the neighborhood’s growth and ability to attract new families. At the meeting, attendees waving red signs said they were worried that the proposed HPOZ will require residents to get approval from the HPOZ board or the city’s planning department to change any exterior component of their homes, and that it can be costly and time-consuming to obtain the permits.

The “No on HPOZ” group said they are in favor of stopping “McMansions,” but suggested the Miracle Mile instead rely on the city’s baseline mansionization ordinance (BMO), which they hope will be adopted in January. Jay Schoenfeldt, one of the leaders of “No on HPOZ” group, said they are against the preservation plan in its current form and asked Ryu to consider other options “aside from taking away property owner rights that can prevent mansionization.”

Ryu explained that the HPOZ measure was not created or intended to be “used as a tool to prevent mansionization,” and it has become an unintended cure for the phenomenon. But the process for the BMO is often delayed, and preservationists worry it could be too “watered down” to prevent mansionization by the time it is adopted. Further, the existing interim control ordinance that protects the Miracle Mile now expires in March.

Jim O’Sullivan, president of the MMRA, said the conflict arose from misinformation and misconceptions about the proposed HPOZ. Ryu blamed misconceptions on the language in the proposed preservation plan, and said the city’s planning department “really created a mess.”

“I have to admit, the planning department really screwed up with the report,” Ryu said. “They should have done a much better job because a lot of the things they told us, they didn’t really turn out that way. So we’re fixing it.”

Ryu’s office met with MMRA leaders and the “No on HPOZ” group after the annual meeting to clarify language that the MMRA agreed was “somewhat obtuse.” The MMRA explained that the intent of the HPOZ was to devise a plan that was unrestrictive and flexible.

“Both sides agreed that the language in the preservation plan, as written, was too ambiguous and could be interpreted to be more restrictive than desired,” the MMRA reported in its newsletter. “This resulted in a collegial and successful discussion of how to simplify and revise language in the plan to accurately reflect the will of the community.”

In addition, the groups clarified specific details. For example, the preservation plan will not regulate paint color. The exteriors of all properties in their present condition will be “grandfathered” once the HPOZ is adopted, and there will be no regulations on any property’s interior, or any planned additions that cannot be seen from the street. There also will not be landscaping regulations “as long as at least 60 percent of the front yard is planted with some sort of greenery.” Second story additions will also be allowed with certain setbacks.

On Wednesday, O’Sullivan said they were waiting for final clarification from the planning department. He said he is hopeful but cautious after the meetings with Ryu’s staff and the “No on HPOZ” group. The MMRA’s newsletter last week declared that the group does not expect any further obstacles in adopting the revised HPOZ Preservation Plan.

But Schoenfeldt said “that’s not exactly accurate.” On Wednesday, he said they did clarify a lot of the issues during their meeting, but that other issues were disregarded, such as boundaries of the HPOZ that fall outside of the MMRA’s jurisdiction. He said that’s a major concern because those homeowners might not have been informed or consulted. At the MMRA meeting, residents from Council District 10 asked that their homes be taken out of the Miracle Mile HPOZ. Schoenfeldt described the preservation plan as “overwhelmingly restrictive” with 255 design guidelines, of which they said 40 percent need further review.

“We felt this really needed a second meeting,” Schoenfeld said, adding that agreements made to revise the HPOZ language were not approved by planning staff, and the scale of the rewrite will be “daunting.”

The Miracle Mile HPOZ covers approximately 1,347 properties bordered by Wilshire Boulevard to the north, San Vicente Boulevard to the south, La Brea Avenue to the east and Fairfax Avenue to the west. The CHC found that most properties reflect styles associated with the designated period of architecture.

The Planning Commission will consider the HPOZ on Dec. 8 at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring Street, in Room 340. The meeting time has not yet been determined.

(Gregory Cornfield is managing editor at the La Brea News where this report was first posted.)

-cw

VOX POP--Developer Michael Hakim shelled out more than $1.2 million in campaign contributions, lobbyist fees and payments to City Hall trust funds until finally his controversial Koreatown skyscraper was approved by the LA City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti. It didn’t matter that nearby residents and even LA’s City Planning Commission opposed the mega-project.

As a life-long Beverly Hills resident, Hakim detested overdevelopment in his posh, leafy city — in 2009, as a Beverly Hills City Council candidate, he made it one of his top campaign issues. Then he wanted to build a 27-story luxury housing skyscraper in a low-slung, working-class section of Koreatown on South Catalina Street.

Hakim apparently forgot his campaign platform from 2009, when he ran unsuccessfully for Beverly Hills City Council. “For years,” he wrote in an election guide, “people of our city have endured traffic gridlock and parking nightmares. This must change!” He strongly urged for better public transit and “controlling overdevelopment.” 

In Los Angeles, Hakim’s Koreatown skyscraper went against all zoning protections, and residents realized it would destroy the character of the community — and possibly force them out of their neighborhood due to gentrification.

Since nobody is allowed to build skyscrapers on South Catalina Street just south of Eighth Street, a few doors away from a school, the City Planning Commission rejected Hakim’s plan. The LA Times quoted planning commissioner Maria Cadildo as calling it “wildly inappropriate.”

But Hakim paid $41,400 for a lobbyist to woo LA Planning Department officials so he could demolish what exists there now: three apartments providing housing to 14 families. He also needed special spot-zoning favors from the City Council: a “General Plan amendment” and “height district” change.

If the developer got those things, with the swipe of a pen from City Hall, his land would skyrocket in value and he would become millions of dollars richer.

Hakim spread other money around. He gave a $1,000 campaign contribution to L.A. Mayor James Hahn in 2005; $2,200 to LA City Council Member Herb Wesson between 2006 and 2014; and $700 to  Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who was running for and won the Council District 8 race in 2014. That’s $3,900, according L.A. City Ethics Commission filings.

But the really huge money poured in recently, aimed at Mayor Eric Garcetti and Herb Wesson. 

In April 2015, Hakim agreed to contribute $1 million to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and place $250,000 into Herb Wesson’s Council District 10 “Community Benefits Trust Fund.” Sounds like a lot, right? Not really. It’s only enough to build two or three affordable housing units, which each cost $450,000 and up. And don’t forget, Hakim will destroy 14 inexpensive housing units.

Garrcetti liked the looks of that $1 million. He overrode his own Planning Commission and pushed through approval of Hakim’s “General Plan amendment” and zoning changes. Garrett is eager to bring a skyscraper to a congested residential neighborhood that is among the most dense in the Western United States.

Garcetti, the L.A. Times noted, “rejected a decision by a panel of his own appointees.” 

Neighborhoods activists are still fighting against the Koreatown skyscraper.

The wildly inappropriate mega-project is just one glaring example of why we need the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which has been placed on the March 2017 ballot.

LA’s rigged, unfair and broken development approval process is controlled by developers, who then get special favors from City Hall politicians — and ordinary people suffer the consequences of gridlock traffic, ruined neighborhoods and the displacement of longtime residents.

We must return power back to the communities.

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

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--The feverish pace of development in LA has reared its head in the rash of high-density apartment buildings that will be sprouting west of the 405, along Santa Monica Boulevard and Ohio Avenue in West LA, with multiple sites cleared from Barry to Westgate. The city planning department appears to be tapping into Assembly Bill 744 in the hush-hush granting of building permits in the neighborhood. Signed by Governor Brown in October 2015, AB 744, which goes into effect in January, allows developers seeking a density bonus to reduce the minimum parking requirements by half when building affordable housing near qualifying transit. 

Anyone who has attempted to find a parking spot on the Westside knows parking is at a premium, even with permit-only parking for residents. Now, multiply the number of residents (and probably cars.) Nevertheless, residents and property owners near the development sites are only notified when they live or own property within a hundred-foot radius. Yes, one-hundred feet. 

Robert W. Logue of West LA says, “Sometimes, no notice is required so there are no hearings and nobody in the neighborhood even knows this feverish building activity is going on.” Logue suspects the push to approve projects seems to be “done in coordination with elements pushing for new transit lines” and may be “afforded special treatment because of the hopeful development of nearby rapid transit.” The absence of half the number of parking spaces in the new buildings might encourage residents to forgo owning a car in favor of public transportation but that’s a pretty strong “might.” 

“At a hearing I attended in connection with a building proposed for construction at 12444 Venice Blvd (Rendering above), part of the objective of the density combined with few parking spots would force an outcry in support of immediate implementation of rail transit,” says Logue. “At this hearing I was only afforded 120 seconds to state my views about the project.  There were no audio or video recordings made at the meeting nor any reports about it that will be made available to the public.” Logue adds that for most of these projects, the financing sources seem “cloaked in mystery.” 

Pushing through a large scale addition of high-density apartment projects without adequate public transit to increase the need (and acceptance) of public transit on LA’s Westside is a chicken/egg proposition or perhaps, there will be substantial growth in Uber and Lyft. 

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.)

-cw

GUEST WORDS-(Editor’s Note: This column was posted in CityWatch 10 years ago … in 2006. We post this Flashback to remind you how little LA politics have changed. It is yet another ‘book cooking’ column about the misuse of your money. Question to you: what will it take and how long will you hide before you’re upset enough to do something?) 

Hard as it may be to believe, it was just six months ago that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa celebrated his managerial triumph by getting the long troubled L.A. Housing Authority (HACLA) back in the good graces of the federal government.
The mayor boasted that HACLA "has reached an important milestone in its efforts to reform ... and successfully met federally mandated reforms covering the City's Section 8 voucher program, putting the department back in good- standing and ending federal oversight of the program." 

"For the first time in years, this agency is solvent, functional and in a strong position to deliver much-needed help to low-income families in LA." 

Oops, maybe Antonio spoke a little too soon.

A new report from federal housing authorities -- that has gotten no visibility in the press -- says he spoke way too soon ... to the tune of a $27 million problem, nearly $28 million actually.

"The Authority's accounting records showed that it improperly advanced and expended more than $27 million in restricted funds to cover its operating losses for its other programs," reported Regional Inspector General Joan Hobbs in the Housing and Urban Development Report dated Aug. 21.

"The authority contended there was no misappropriation of funds, but rather the way the accounting system presented its financial transactions; however, we were unable to validate its contention."

The focus of the audit was to see if the city was still screwing recipients of Section 8 vouchers that let them live in decent units at a price they could afford but it expanded when suspicions arose that the highly-paid HACLA head Rudy Montiel  (more than $300,000) was juggling the money without regard to federal  rules or regulations.

No surprise there, the city of L.A. doesn't believe in obeying the law.

It's not entirely clear from the audit what exactly Montiel was hiding or why he was moving the money from account to account other than to conceal losses in specific areas, but HACLA's history suggests it has a lot to do with mismanagement of Section 8 housing vouchers.

From what I can see I'm willing to bet Montiel -- who's gotten a lot of favorable media treatment -- was cooking the books to make it look like the Section 8 funding problem was fixed when he, like just about everybody else at City Hall, was doing the mayor's bidding.

And in the housing area that means carrying out the mayor's insane policy of densifying the city to "address the affordable housing crisis in Los Angeles" -- a crisis manufactured by the philosophical commitment to providing new housing to any poor person who wants to live here.

Well, at least some of the people who want to live here. Because the long-standing accusation is HACLA is that it's selective about who it helps and who it doesn't.

Even as HACLA was being brought under control by federal authorities for its abuses, a coalition of public interest law firms and civil rights groups last year filed a class-action lawsuit charging it broke the law when it effectively raised the rent for more than 20,000 poor residents.

So much for the myth Antonio and his pals really are helping the poor.

HACLA disputed the finding that it lacked "prudent oversight" of its federal funds, violated any rules or misappropriated any money. The agency blamed "accounting problems," but it's telling that after getting its protestations of innocence in the record, the agency obeyed HUD's directives and reimbursed the money -- $27,801,379 of it.

Now ask yourself, what would you do if you were one of those 15 City Council members, especially those who claim they care so deeply about the poor?

Wouldn't you be mad as hell? Wouldn't you be calling Montiel on the carpet and holding public hearings and making sure this was the last time HACLA cheated the poor?

Of course, you would. But you can't because the City Hall game is fixed and the public doesn't stand a chance.

It's not like the council has shown much interest in all the troubles HACLA has had over many years.

Have they looked into why the agency is spending $7 million a year or so on outside lawyers, something that has caused so much concern when it involves bumbling City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo?

Was anybody worried when Montiel last year fired his own whistleblowing chief investigator, Abel Ruiz, after he alleged that people inside the agency interfered with his efforts to get to the bottom of an $800,000 bid-rigging scheme.

The firing followed disclosure in the Times that a housing authority manager, Victor Taracena, had awarded construction and design contracts to family members and to three firms with ties to present and former City Council members in the 14th District, the seat now held by Jose Huizar.

You don't need to ask whatever came of all that -- I told you the game is fixed.

(Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Daily News and the activist behind the Save LA Project. Read more Ron Kaye at www.ronkayela.com ) 

CityWatch

Vol 6 Issue 74

Pub: Sept 12, 2008