CORRUPTION WATCH--On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times published a damning, in-depth report about developer Samuel Leung and his associates who greased LA’s rigged development approval system with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that benefited City Council members and Mayor Eric Garcetti, seeking favors for a 352-unit residential mega-project known as “Sea Breeze” that the City Planning Commission had rejected.

The LA Times pulled out all the stops — six reporters worked on the story, flashy graphics are featured on the website and a data base was created that provides more information about the contributions. It’s the kind of hard-hitting, fact-driven, eye-opening news feature that should prompt an investigation by the LA County District Attorney’s Office corruption unit. 

Now, the Coalition to Preserve LA and its supporters aren’t surprised by the LA Times’ Sunday bombshell. In fact, we believe the paper should have been covering soft corruption among developers and City Hall politicians much sooner.

Because for months, week after week, our citizens’ movement has rolled out the hard facts about the millions of dollars deep-pocketed developers spend on campaign contributions, slush funds, officeholder accounts and politically connected lobbyists as they seek profitable spot-zoning favors for mega-projects that end up destroying neighborhood character, creating gridlock traffic and causing wide displacement of lower-income and middle-class Angelenos. 

By the way, our opposing campaign that’s funded by billionaire developers never, ever mentions the obvious influence peddling that’s going on at City Hall. Neither do the developers’ apologists. It’s as if developers never seek to change city zoning rules and manipulate a broken planning and land-use system that favors the fat cats over ordinary people.

But the Times report shows that’s obviously case, and we’ve published numerous stories that offer proof as well. This is not just one bad-apple developer doing something shady while everyone else plays by the rules. To wit:

1. NoHo West in North Hollywood, where developers spent hundreds of thousands in campaign and lobbyist cash to get City Hall favors for a luxury housing mega-project; 
2. The same goes for the Westside luxury housing mega-project known as Martin Expo Town Center; 
3. And there’s the luxury skyscraper in Koreatown that Mayor Eric Garcetti pushed through against the wishes of the City Planning Commission;
4. There’s also the Cumulus luxury housing mega-project in South LA — the developers again spent hundreds of thousands in campaign and lobbyists money to get profitable spot-zoning favors from City Hall;       
5. And there’s billionaire developer Rick Caruso and his luxury housing skyscraper known as “333 La Cienega.” 

As one can see, developer’s seeking spot-zoning favors from the City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti is happening across Los Angeles — and developers are raking in millions upon millions in the process while longtime residents get displaced, streets get more clogged with traffic and neighborhoods get ruined.

It’s why a citywide solution that’s the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is desperately needed — developers and LA politicians need to be reined in and the playing field needs to be leveled.

Read the LA Times and check out its database. It’s all there, and you’ll see — LA’s broken and rigged planning and land-use system must be reformed.

(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

PERSPECTIVE--Increased TV and film location shooting in Los Angeles is a good thing, but can it cross a line?

Some residents in a very quiet neighborhood Valley Village think so … and they have good reason. They support local filming, but a certain production has turned their block into a studio backlot extension for too many days.

Five times in two years, to be exact, for multiple days per event – all at the same residence. The permits cover 3-5 days each, although there is usually an added day at the front or back end for prep and breakdown. The hours run from 6AM to 10PM. However, the crews start arriving at 5AM. Overall, this quiet residential street has been a commercial zone for approximately 25 days within the last two years (with more to come), with 10-ton trucks, trailers, canteen vehicles and porta-johns lining both sides of the street. There are no ex-LAPD officers on hand.

Aside from noise, difficulties backing out of driveways, lack of parking or inadequate access for emergency vehicles – concerns which can be mostly overlooked if they occurred a couple of times per year – the conversion of a residential street for commercial use on a semi-regular frequency is contrary to the right to enjoy one’s property.

There are no restrictions as to how often a specific block or residence can be used as a shooting location.

There are restrictions on yard sales, however.

The owners of the residence who allowed their home to be used are gone during the filming and do not have to put up with the inconvenience. There must certainly be some form of compensation involved. If so, I hope they report it on their tax returns. According to the residents I spoke with, they have not been responsive to appeals from the neighbors.

It would seem there should be a reasonable restriction on location filming in residential neighborhoods, including limits on the number and size of vehicles, the frontage occupied, the hours and days per shoot and minimum requirements for a permit approvals from the affected residents in accordance with the nature and scope of the shoot.

The zoning laws of our city are increasingly being ignored at the expense of the residents.

In this instance, the production company may be enjoying a tax credit for filming locally, but the residents receive little or nothing, only congestion, the aroma of the honey wagons, and noise late into the night.

Not a good deal.

(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

EDUCATION POLITICS-What kind of a credible and independent audit of the costs related to LAUSD's removal of allegedly bad teachers can the State of California Auditor objectively perform, when it goes into the audit without questioning anything LAUSD tells them? 

There is no question that it is an expensive proposition to keep charged teachers sitting around, often for years on end, while having to pay their salaries and those of their substitutes. The California State Auditor, in its recently released audit of this practice, never once mentions or takes into consideration the fact that LAUSD saves a fortune when it is able to rid itself -- by hook or by crook or by fabricated charges -- of teachers at the top of the salary scale. These are the teachers with expensive benefits packages and lifetime health benefits -- the ones LAUSD needs to get rid of, one way or another, before they vest. 

The State Auditor presumes from the beginning of its audit that there is an actual net cost and not a net savings achieved when LAUSD targets, removes, and ultimately fires high seniority teachers. It doesn't even consider there just might be an actual savings to LAUSD of $60,000 a year in combined salary and benefits in just the first year these teachers are gone. Simply stated, a major component of what this audit should have looked into has been completely ignored and omitted. And with this blatant omission goes any chance of this audit having any validity, let alone holding accountable for their criminal behavior all those at LAUSD who continue to perpetrate this fraud. 

For one small illustration in this flawed audit -- and what can only be considered a purposeful oversight – we need to examine what is not considered here and elsewhere in the attached State audit. For example, while this audit says: "For a selection of 18 re-assignments (teachers being charged,) costs per case ranged from about $7,000 to nearly $315,000 during the period we reviewed." No information or statistics are given as to how many of these teachers – 93% of whom in unaudited reality were at the top of the salary scale -- were forced out and replaced by fresh out of college "teachers" working on emergency credentials for $35,000, instead of $80,000 a year. And, of course, these young teachers also have significantly less expensive benefits packages. 

If just 16 of these forced-out teachers were at the top of the salary scale, the average cost of removing them was $19,687.50; again, the savings to the District was approximately $60,000 per teacher, leaving a net savings to LAUSD of $40,312.50. And that's in just the first year of this gift to the District that keeps on giving, as long as teachers continue to be dissuaded from sticking around too long. 

It is worth mentioning that both my attorney and I contacted the California State Auditor during this audit with sworn evidence to prove that LAUSD's is actually saving money in the long run on teachers' jail, their substitutes, and all the out of pocket costs it immediately recoups when it forces these high seniority teachers out. I was assured by several people in the California Auditor's office that they would look into this. 

And of course, how or why should the public be concerned, if they are constantly told by all the media marching in lock step with LAUSD that this is about the costs of dealing with "teacher misconduct" and not a felonious scam (see Penal Code 132-134) to get rid of high seniority teachers so the District can save money to squander elsewhere (which is why they needed to target senior teachers in the first place.) 

There's no way LAUSD or the California Auditor could get away with this without the complete cooperation of the mainstream and public media that refuses to report what is actually going on and why. 

If you have any doubts, just read reporter Howard Blume's Los Angeles Times LAUSD party line article about this recent state audit that unquestioningly parrots LAUSD's position that this is only about teacher misconduct: 

Do you think it’s a coincidence that every time the issue of teacher misconduct is mentioned that a picture of convicted teacher Mark Berndt is hauled out to paint all teachers with the same “pervert brush?” Could that be why one element of the Rafe Esquith vs. LAUSD class action suit is defamation...and another is age discrimination? 

(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com. Leonard can be reached at [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES-When touting the merits of The Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (also known as Proposition 57,) the 2016 California voters guide addresses the question surrounding juvenile arrests for violent or serious criminal offenses to be charged as adults. Those convicted could spend years incarcerated in California State prisons. Prop 57 strips away the power of prosecutors to try juveniles as adults, overturning Proposition 21 which was approved by 62% of the voters in 2000. Prop 21 gave prosecutors, instead of judges, the right to decide whether juveniles should be charged as adults. 

A prosecutor could file directly against a juvenile in adult court under W&I 707(d), but could also file a “fitness hearing” in Juvenile Hall. Under W&I 707(c), a juvenile is presumed to be unfit for juvenile court. 

Prop. 57 will also strip judges of the power to set sentencing guidelines, transferring that power to Governor Brown's appointed members of the Board of Parole Hearings instead. 

Prop. 57 overturns key provisions not only in Marsy's Law, a Constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008, but also the “Three Strikes Law” (Prop. 35), The Human Trafficking law (Prop. 35), The Street Terrorism and Prevention Act (Penal Code Section 186.22) and The Victim’s Bill of Rights (Prop. 8.)

If the court order does not have the enhancement under PC 667.5 of the California Penal code, then a current incarcerated criminal can be released early from state prison. Prop 57 allows the worst “career criminals” to be treated equal to first‐time offenders, prohibiting strong sentences that judges could impose. 

The Voter Guide also hides the fact that Proposition 57 seeks to set new guidelines to allow both appointed Board members and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff to enhance “good time” credit for current incarcerated adult inmates convicted of very violent and serious criminal offenses and also grants early release from state prison. Presumably, these credits will apply if they attend educational or work/vocational programs -- even if there is no availability for those programs in a particular prison. 

Prop. 57 is a Constitutional Amendment that affords new rights and privileges for even the most dangerous criminals. If passed, it cannot be overturned by the Legislature. 

The devastating effects of AB 109 and Prop. 47 have threatened the safety of all communities and claimed the lives of many innocent victims. Adding the negative impacts of Prop. 57 into the mix would ultimately weaken all of California’s anti-crime laws.

Did you know that violent crimes across the State have escalated over 10% last year? In Los Angeles, crime statistics point to a 20% rise in violent crime last year. Those charged with enforcing the laws of the State know this only too well.

Each side claims the other side is lying. Supporters insist Prop. 57 will help fix the broken system that would rehabilitate prisoners and reduce the recidivism rate. They want inmates to have the “tools” to “stop the revolving door to prison.” 

Gov Brown and his band of followers insist that, “To be granted parole, all inmates, current and future, must demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and do not pose a danger to the public.” But ask yourself, how can anyone “prove” they’ve been rehabilitated during a hearing? Does a simple promise to not harm another guarantee public safety at that inmate’s hands? What happens to all that “rehabilitation” when an inmate is released from prison and cannot assimilate back into society or cannot find a job to support him or herself? 

The California District Attorney’s Association (CDAA) wrote an analysis of the Governor’s Initiative (Prop. 57) in February 2016. 

They note, “The term ‘non-violent felony offense’ is not defined in the initiative, or elsewhere in California law. However, Penal Code section 667.5(c), which has been the law in California since 1977, defines ‘violent felony’ with a list of some 23 offenses. That list currently includes crimes such as murder and attempted murder, mayhem, forcible rape (but not all rapes,) forcible sexual assault crimes (but not all of them), felonies involving great bodily injury being inflicted on a victim, felonies involving firearm use, robbery, some arsons, kidnapping, carjacking, some felonies involving explosives, and any felony punishable by death or in the state prison for life. Logic dictates that any felony not included in the definition of ‘violent felony’ would be a ‘non-violent felony’ for purposes of the initiative.” 

The CDAA also notes that, “not all ‘non-violent felonies’ are limited to low-level crimes like drug possession or auto burglary. Proposition 8 provided California with a ‘serious felony’ list passed by voters in 1982. The ‘serious felonies’ list far outweighs the “violent felonies” list that is found in Penal Code section 1192.7(c). 

“The ‘violent felony’ list is a subset of the ‘serious felony’ list, meaning that violent felonies are also serious felonies. There are numerous serious felonies that are referred to as ‘not violent’ under California law, but which are, in fact, violent in nature. Here is a just a small sampling of those ‘non-violent’ felonies:

• Penal Code section 136.1 Threats to a crime victim or witness. 

• Penal Code section 186.22(a) Active participation in a criminal street gang. 

• Penal Code section 186.22(b) Various felonies committed for gang purposes. 

• Penal Code sections 191.5 & 192(c) Vehicular manslaughter. 

• Penal Code section 192(b) Involuntary manslaughter. 

• Penal Code section 243(d) Battery with personal infliction of serious bodily injury. 

• Penal Code section 244 Throwing acid or flammable substances. 

• Penal Code section 245(a)(1) Assault with a deadly weapon. 

• Penal Code section 245(c) Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer or firefighter. 

• Penal Code section 246 Discharging firearm at an occupied dwelling, building, vehicle, or aircraft. 

• Penal Code section 261(a)(1) Rape where victim legally incapable of giving consent. 

• Penal Code sections 261(a)(3) & 262(a)(2) Rape by intoxicating substance. 

• Penal Code sections 261(a)(4) & 262(a)(3) Rape where victim unconscious of the act. 

• Penal Code section 261(a)(7) & Penal Code section 262(a)(5) Rape by threat of public official.

• Penal Code section 422 Criminal threats. 

• Penal Code section 451(c) Arson of a structure or forest land.

• Penal Code section 451(d) Arson of property.

• Penal Code section 455 Attempted arson.

• Penal Code section 459-460(a) Residential burglary.

• Penal Code section 487(c)(2) Grand theft firearm.

• Penal Code section 4501 Assault with a deadly weapon by state prison inmate.

• Penal Code section 4503 Holding a hostage by state prison inmate. 

• Penal Code section 12022(b) Any felony involving the personal use of a deadly weapon. 

• Penal Code section 18740 Exploding a destructive device or explosive with intent to injure.” 

In fact, 56 out of 58 major cities across the State, including Chief’s of Police, District Attorneys and members of the Law Enforcement community stand in staunch opposition to Prop. 57. 

Governor Brown, through his ballot committee has contributed over 40% of the $10.5 M raised in support of Prop 57. 

Prop. 57 makes for great “political speak” just like AB 109 and Prop. 47 that have proven to be epic fails. So, too, will Prop. 57. Politicians know far more about the salesmanship in peddling bills but far less than law enforcement officials who actually patrol the streets -- your streets. 

The choice belongs to voters in November. In today’s current political climate it is difficult to know who is actually telling the truth. But is it really worth gambling away safety in our homes, neighborhoods and schools -- putting our families at risk? 

Get the facts on Prop. 57 before you vote because it can’t be undone down the road.

(Caroline Aguirre is a retired 24-year State of California law enforcement officer, LAPD family member, community activist and Neighborhood Watch captain. Aguirre is a CityWatch contributor.)

(Katharine Russ is an investigative reporter and a regular contributor to CityWatch. She can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

SPECIAL PROP 64 REPORT--At the Oct. 18 Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council stakeholder meeting, President Mona Sutton read aloud a statement released by Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson, just two weeks earlier. The statement called on the city’s neighborhood councils and citywide committees to discuss the legalization of cannabis. He expressed the hope that this could be a space where community impact statements, white paper suggestions and recommendations could be provided to the Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee -- a committee he chairs. 

For Sutton, this call-out was a welcome change from her experience a couple of months prior when she chatted with Mayor Eric Garcetti during a regional gathering of neighborhood council presidents.

“With a pending vote on cannabis in California, are you going to get out in front of it anytime soon?” Sutton recalled asking. 

She said the mayor looked a little dumbfounded by the question before she followed up with a suggestion. 

“How about [making it so that potential operators pay] $100,000 to open or get permit fees for this and renew it yearly?” 

“We can call it the Sutton tax,” Sutton recalled the mayor facetiously responding. “You can call it whatever you want, but how about we start a fund and use for something really important?” she asked. 

Matt Garland, a local stakeholder at the meeting, agreed with Sutton, except for the part about the $100,000 entry fee. 

Garland, a medical marijuana patient for the past 15 years, said he was excited that there are groups and cities looking at how communities can benefit from the legalization of recreational cannabis.

“There are some potential benefits with legalization, but it depends on how the city regulates it,” he said. “I’m really hoping we can do something in Los Angeles.” 

Garland argues that cities should move towards obtainable small business licenses, seeing legalization as a potential jobs growth engine in low-income communities, if done right. 

“This could be just one more job that people are doing,” Garland said in a later interview with Random Lengths. 

Garland sees this moment as an opportunity to bring above ground the existing black market economy of marijuana. Garland said he spent eight years in Humboldt County in the 1990s. He recalled communities with few job opportunities but they had their own growing project going, providing a lot of people with a little bit of income. 

“We’re talking $20,000 to $30,000 a year for a part-time job,” Garland said. “The result of that was that small businesses prospered because people had money to spend. I know that was 20 years ago. But I do see the potential benefits.” 

But Garland’s views are a little different when it comes to how Los Angeles has been dealing with the illegal cannabis dispensaries opening up everywhere, then shuttering like pop-up restaurants. He agrees with City Attorney Mike Feuer’s aggressive crackdown since he came into office. 

“My concerns for San Pedro are in regards to patient access, family safety and the lack of regulation around medical cannabis,” Garland said. “It has created an unsafe environment for the community.”

He went on to say that Wilmington and parts of San Pedro have been made a dumping ground for illegal pot dispensaries. To a certain extent, Garland’s attitude was similar to that of neighbors of Barton Hill Elementary School who turned out for the Sept. 25 rally opposing a proposed navigation center on Pacific Avenue. 

At the time, rally attendees mocked bureaucratic attempts to sanitize the public perception of homeless storage facilities and weed shops by renaming them “navigations centers” and “medical marijuana dispensaries.” 

The enduring popularity of 2013’s Prop. D, the ballot initiative limiting the number of medical dispensaries to the 135 that opened prior to 2007, is probably the reason why Los Angeles has been so slow to prepare for the possible passage of Prop. 64, along with Feuer’s reelection bid to office in 2017. 

Feuer’s visit to San Pedro on Oct. 13 illustrates this point. It was intended to be a town hall meeting in which he would give a brief introduction, then open the floor for questions from attendees. There were 75 to 100 people present. 

Included in his opening remarks was the fact his office, with the help of the Los Angeles Police Department, has closed more than 800 dispensaries in Los Angeles -- 48 in the Harbor Division alone. Many more are still being investigated in the Los Angeles Harbor. This announcement was received positively, even if most of the attendees were more interested in hearing about Feuer’s enforcement efforts regarding problems related to homelessness. 

When he gave the same intro in Wilmington, the applause was sustained for 30 seconds or more.

“All marijuana-dispensaries in the city are illegal under that ordinance,” Feuer said. “Some can get limited immunity to enforcement by my office if they hit a whole bunch of cylinders. They can’t be too close to each other; they can’t be too close to parks; playgrounds and schools. They can’t have their signs lit up at night…a whole bunch of things they have to do.” 

At this meeting, he reminded attendees that he had no staff and no list of addresses to work from when Prop. D was passed. 

The city attorney also said there may be five or six shops that may be able to satisfy criteria to be immune to prosecution. The number of investigations are declining, he noted, because they are closing the dispensaries as investigations proceed. 

Feuer noted that it was unclear what would happen if Prop. 64 passes. He said it is possible for the city to say, “No, we don’t want medicinal marijuana.” Or, it is possible the city could say recreational marijuana is okay, but medicinal marijuana will be more restricted. 

It was at this meeting that residents learned that there’s another initiative headed towards the March ballot that would create some licenses for marijuana facilities in the city. 

“Another thing has happened,” Feuer answered to a question about the possibility of legalization. “Gov. [Jerry] Brown signed a law about a year ago that created some regulation for medical marijuana in the state and only allows those that are permitted by local jurisdictions to exist.” 

As Feuer noted, none of those that are permitted are legal in the city. 

“If I’m going to guess, there are going to be some significant changes in several areas of this law but in the meantime we are doing what you asked, and that [is] aggressively enforcing the law.” 

But there is a subset of activists, civic leaders and community members who believe the passage of Prop. 64 can economically benefit historically disadvantaged communities in very tangible ways.

Carson is dealing with similar concerns. The community hopes legalization will be an opportunity to expunge the criminal records of youth who where arrested for marijuana possession. In turn, they can then find better jobs. 

On Sept. 24, former Los Angeles City Councilman Robert Farrell, in conjunction with the Carson-Torrance chapter of the NAACP, hosted a town hall meeting on Prop. 64 at the Carson Recreation Center — one of many in recent months focused on the potential impact on communities of color in Los Angeles County. 

The panel included Greg Akili from the nonprofit organization Corporate Accountability International, which is known for its high profile campaigns to protect public health, the environment and democracy from abuse by transnational corporations; Virgil Grant III, co-founder and co-chairman of California Minority Alliance, a nonprofit that aims to prepare disadvantaged communities to economically benefit if marijuana is legalized; and Cat Packer, a campaign coordinator for Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform. 

Farrell framed the conversation by noting the negative impacts that the war on drugs has had on communities of color. 

“If this passes, we will see a cultural shift,” he said. “The moment is here, but where do we go after?”

He went on to say that passing this proposition has broad ranging impacts on life as we know it and might lead to better business opportunities for blacks and Latinos. 

“Before 1964, only whites owned the liquor stores in Watts,” he said. “After the Watts riots, blacks and Latinos went into businesses, they got liquor licenses and liquor stores.” 

Carson resident Robert Leslie, a retired police officer who worked on a drug task force, said he was very concerned about rising crime rates as a result marijuana legalization for recreational use. 

“As a police officer I saw recreational marijuana use … connected with burglary and assault,” Leslie said. “Many people I arrested were repeat offenders. Then they had to go into reversion programs…. Smoking marijuana also causes cancer. And according to some studies smoking it is worse than tobacco.” 

It wasn’t just retired police officers who still had misgivings regarding marijuana’s legalization. Others also expressed concern, like Tony Wafford. 

“To be honest, I could care less if people out there are smoking weed,” Wafford said. “That’s what I call it, not cannabis or marijuana. It’s weed. But I am still battling with what weed does to people.”

Wafford recounted his son’s experience with a medical marijuana card. 

“He went to a job interview and then he tells me he can’t pee in a cup. I said, ‘Where’s your weed card?’ He said that wouldn’t help. I smoke cigars and drink brandy on Sunday, but I can pee in a cup on Monday. If this proposition passed tomorrow, can people go and do whatever test they have to and get a job?” 

The third expert speaker was Packer. She said when she was in law school she did not think she would get involved with marijuana legalization -- she wanted to stick to civil rights issues. 

“But, I’ve seen bad legalization,” said Packer. “I worked on a legalization campaign in Ohio. Ten investors were spending $2 million each to control all of the state’s cultivation. To try to get more voter support these investors put forward a companion bill that would expunge records, but only after the other initiative passed and the investors got their monopoly. I moved across the country and got involved with Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform because this is a civil rights issue. Mass incarceration is real. And. it is due to drug arrests, which are primarily related to marijuana. 

“Because money is involved in this, legalization is inevitable, but you have a choice of what type of legalization you want. Proposition 64 is not perfect, but it’s the best initiative so far because it acknowledges the war on drugs and the harm that it has had on the black community.” 

Packer went on to give some key features of the proposition: 

• Having 1 ounce (8 grams) and 6 plants is legal for anyone 21 and up. 

• $10 million of taxes from marijuana sales goes to community reinvestment for communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. This can increase every year up to $50 million. 

• 20 percent of tax revenue goes to environmental remediation of harm due to illegal past cultivation. 

• Retroactive penalty reduction for people incarcerated and petitions for expungement for past criminal offenses due to marijuana. 

• Five-year ban on cultivation operations of 22,000 square feet and above to discourage monopolies from developing. 

When Packer began to talk about how the revenue would be used she took a moment to get personal. 

“If it were up to me, some of this money would be going into training cops not to be racist,” Packer said. 

There were grins and scoffs and someone exclaimed, “That’s not going to happen!” 

Nevertheless she encouraged citizens to be aware and provide input to their cities if the proposition passes. 

During the question and answer portion of the forum, attendee concern ran the gamut of where will the taxes go to where they are needed to the potential of increases in crime. 

Associate professor of business law Charles Thomas asked, “Can local governments level their own taxes?” 

“Yes, they can also choose to just allow cultivation,” Packer replied. 

Packer said that her group plans to organize watch parties on election night with people who have marijuana convictions. That way at 12:01 (a.m. Nov. 9) after Proposition 64 passes, the state will have a list of people whose records can be expunged. This bit of information received a rousing round of applause. 

Packer noted a tough road ahead in changing perceptions of marijuana. She looked professional and was well dressed. She told us that she is a recreational user of marijuana. 

Virgil Grant asked the crowd to lobby to change the drug testing issue and to lobby assembly members like Mike Gibson on the issue. 

Akili said that the fight against white supremacy is not over, that some will find ways to keep minorities unemployed (credit tests and appearance like hijabs or tattoos.) 

Prop. 64 does not give a one-size-fits-all solution to cities. It offers flexibility. 

Residents and business owners from Carson to San Pedro have been invited to join the conversation and affect local marijuana policy.

(Terelle Jerricks is Managing Editor of Random Lengths … where this column originated. Christian L. Guzman is Community Reporter for Random Lengths.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--Freedom isn't for sissies.  Life is complicated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't confront it--particularly in a free society, where our decisions aren't supposed to be made for us.  If America is "the home of the Free and the Brave", then the obligations of freedom are NOT above and beyond us. 

Our California ballot is so very complicated, and with so many taxation and policy questions, it's easy to run away screaming from your ballot box and/or absentee ballot envelope.  But with the understanding that you need not vote for every measure and/or proposition or election race, here are a few considerations: 

1) Taxing a few of us for something we're all supposed to benefit from is neither democratic, courageous, nor moral.  If it's good enough to tax some of us, then tax all of us. 

The argument that the more wealthy should pay more than those less wealthy makes sense, but how to do it in a fair manner will be argued long after we're gone.  If we don't all have some skin in the game, and if the money's not supervised with respect to transparency and quality spending, then why do we need to nail other financially and hurt our economy? 

Joel Fox, former president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, states it well when he decries how California--home of Proposition 13--appears willing to tax itself into oblivion, particularly when it's "someone else" who'll pay the taxes for YOUR pet priorities. 

Of course, many of those who tried to keep California on an even keel have retired and left the state, or have passed away, leaving poorly-educated new generations who think that the warnings of Big Government are all crazy and for paranoid seniors (I guess the worshiping of youth has replaced the respect of elders and the knowledge/wisdom they've collected over their lives). 

And for those of you willing to vote for OTHERS to pay more for what YOU want...well...how brave of you.  How BRAVE of you!!! 

2) VOTE NO on Proposition 55:   Ooooooh, those awful rich people!  Get 'em!  Make 'em pay their fair share!  So I guess that the "big lie" that this tax on those making $263,000 per year would be temporarily taxed is being shown as just that...a lie.  And does that figure carry the same weight and wealth as it does in states with a lower cost of living? 

And if more small business owners, who work 80-100 hours a week for that money, leave the state (along with your job), that'll make you happy?  And is paying over 50% of your income in federal and state income taxes enough to make lower-income Californians satisfied?  And will the money, supposed to go to education, BE ... SPENT ... WELL? 

Is our tax dollars, particularly our education tax dollars, being spent well in California?  Do you really favor the public sector education unions over your own job/employer? 

3) VOTE NO on Proposition 56:   Oooooooh, those awful cigarette smokers!  Get 'em!  Make 'em pay their fair share!  Because there are so MANY smokers left and because that extra money will be spent so ... damn ... well!  Best that we enact laws that require higher healthcare premiums and life insurance premiums for smokers (the latter already exists). 

4) VOTE YES on Propositions 53 and 54:  Transparency is good.  Bonds have to be paid back, and if it's over $2 billion then the taxpayers should vote on it.  Ditto with us all being able to see legislation online for at least 72 hours before Sacramento can vote on it. 

... and in other races where we have to S.O.S. (Save Our State) ... 

5) VOTE NO on Proposition 57:  What...the jump in crime after we passed Proposition 47 wasn't enough for you?  You think that there are just gobs and gobs of innocent sweeties those nefarious prosecutors and judges threw away in jail for funzies, and that their ridiculously-long rap sheet means nothing?  You really want to put yourself and your family at risk...AGAIN? 

6) VOTE NO on Proposition 58:  Latino children have been among the chief beneficiaries by requiring families to specifically request for bilingual/immersion education programs.  Passing this would be a step backwards--if someone is bilingual, then that is an unqualified plus in our world. But if a child doesn't speak and learn English first, then it's a guaranteed restriction on their future. 

7) VOTE NO on Proposition 64:  We already look the other way for those with small amounts of recreational marijuana, and already are OK with medicinal marijuana.  You want more DUI's for those high on pot (which is by far more available in high concentrations today than in the past, and are virtually hallucinogenic at certain doses) like in other states?  There's a difference between tolerating pot, versus telling your kids it's "just fine" or to even watch advertisements go up that virtually encourage teenagers and kids to "go for it" when it's legal (or even earlier).  VOTE NO! 

8) VOTE NO on Proposition 62, and YES on Proposition 66--Mend it, don't end it!  The death penalty exists for a reason, and reasonable reforms and commutations have already been made (and should continue to be made) for the protection of the innocent.  Do NOT reward those who ultimately seek to let those truly guilty of monstrous crimes out of prison, and/or who do NOT truly understand the unforgiveable act of first-degree murder.  Please speak for the rights of the slain--because they cannot speak for themselves!  Victims' lives matter ... right?   

9) Vote YES on Measure M--I am no hypocrite, and no purist. I've already opined that we shouldn't need Measure M, but we damn well do!!! 

With respect to transportation, the public education lobbies have financially crippled the state with respect to proper budgeting.  LA County MUST Save Itself!  And demand matching grants from Sacramento and Washington whenever possible! 

Measure M taxes all of us, and is filled with BOTH freeway and rail projects, as well as operational and sidewalk/road repairs that we all can benefit from.  Chambers of commerce, newspapers throughout the County of LA and among those benefiting the most from transit projects. 

Former County Supervisor Yaroslavsky, who helped kill the subway construction bonanza when the spending was out of control in the 1990's, favors Measure M, and he earned his reputation as a fiscal conservative. 

And I am also a fiscal conservative, recommending a "no" vote on every tax/bond initiative in the city, county, and state...but Measure M is the big exception, and we can fight for more transportation, and better inclusion for the county, the very day after we pass it. 

But we MUST pass Measure M. 

Again, freedom isn't for sissies. We should NOT, even in the la-la land of California, forget that we are part of the Home of the Free and the Brave.  No taxes or stupid Big Government when it's unhelpful.   

But when we tax ourselves, or make policies that affect all of us, let's all do it together--including that taxpayer/voter you see in the mirror every day.

(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