PLATKIN ON PLANNING-Planning a large city like Los Angeles might be complicated, but it is not rocket science. In fact, the State of California outlines the process in detail through its periodically updated General Plan Guidelines, the latest draft of which is now available on-line. Furthermore, this update contains hundreds of live Internet links to other planning documents and databases. 

Nevertheless, Los Angeles has turned to three alternative principles to guide its multi-layered, opaque city planning process. Yes, City Planning has responded to the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative with its own proposal to update Community Plans, batch General Plan Amendments, vet environmental consultants, and upgrade technology, but this is really old wine in new bottles. 

To better understand this old wine, I have boiled it down to three components: 

Component 1: Private Parcels. Oblivious to California’s General Plan Guidelines, in Los Angeles city planning only refers to the regulation of privately owned parcels, not to the city’s entire landmass, the actual focus of city planning. Since these private parcels range from about 20 to 40 percent of most communities, it means that LA’s day-to-day planning process ignores the 60-80 percent of the city that consists of sidewalks, streets, undergrounded and above ground utilities, parkways, parks, senior centers, libraries, schools, government buildings, power line easements, and open space. Likewise, all of the public services that are necessary to live in a metropolitan area, such as telecommunications, water, electricity, waste disposal, education, public safety, streetlights, stoplights, directional signs, and hundreds of other services, large and small, are slighted by this truncated city planning process. 

In practice, this means that the inflated population forecasts that drive LA’s plans are only applied to the planning and zoning of private parcels. They are not the basis for calls to upgrade local infrastructure, local services, or the City’s annual budget. There is one exception, however. Transit is often mentioned, but strictly because it can be invoked as a rationale for up-zoning and up-planning private parcels that happen to be located near transit corridors and stations. 

Component 2: Real Estate Speculation. Once city planning has been restricted to the regulation of privately owned parcels, the next planning component is to open the floodgates for individual and institutional profit maximization. If an individual or institutional investor believes they can make more profit by a specific real estate project, whether or not is it legal, the City’s planning laws and regulations are conveniently bent to become “business-friendly.” This ad hoc regulation of land explains why most of LA’s city planners, despite masters degrees from well regarded graduate programs at UCLA and USC, devote their working hours to administrative processes that legalize otherwise illegal real estate projects. 

Ingredient 3: Squeaky wheels planning. Since the maximization of profit through investment in private parcels guides the planning process in Los Angeles, it continually leads to two wildly different outcomes, either too little or too much investment. Most poor neighborhoods languish with little private or public investment other than the LAPD, giving rise to a dilapidated built environment, as well as massive civil disturbances in 1965 and 1992. Meanwhile “hot” neighborhoods suffer from uncontrolled real estate speculation. Because so many of their speculative projects are out-of-character, out-of-scale, and exceed the capacity of local public services and public infrastructure, local residents frequently push back. 

In response, occasional projects are killed or withdrawn, some are redesigned, and a few are thrown out by litigation. But, when the projects cannot be pushed through because of sustained local opposition, City Hall’s fall back position is to wall off small geographical areas to placate local residents by adopting protective overlay districts. 

This is what I call squeaky wheel planning, and it has resulted in an elaborate mosaic in Los Angeles of D and Q conditions on individual parcels, Community Plan footnotes, Specific Plans, Community Design Overlay Districts, Historical Preservation Overlay Districts, Transit Neighborhood Plans, Residential Floor Area Districts, Station Neighborhood Area Plans, Pedestrian Oriented Districts, Neighborhood Oriented Districts, Community Plan Implementation Ordinances, Master Planned Development Districts, Interim Control Ordinances, and overlay zones and districts so obscure that few people have ever dealt with them. 

Furthermore, squeaky wheel planning is about to become even more complicated once the new re:codeLA zones are implemented on their own, or through a lengthy cycle of Community Plan Updates and their appended zone and plan designation amendments. As I previously explained, the division of the current R-1 single-family zone into 12 alternatives R-1 zones means that many more areas will be walled off through small overlay zones. A program that was supposed to simplify the mind-boggling complexity of zoning in Los Angeles will actually make it much harder to comprehend and impossible to enforce. 

Paying the Price 

Do Angelinos pay a price for a planning system that focuses on private parcels, bends over backwards to promote real estate speculation, and placates local opposition to excessive projects by oiling squeaky wheels with a vast array of overlay zones and districts? Yes. 

Price 1 is understanding. With so many layers of laws and regulations, only the most highly trained specialists can make sense of what is called planning. 

Price 2 is enforcement. While the City Council and the Planning Department might conjure up the rules and regulations, it is up to another City department, Building and Safety, to enforce these laws. Considering that this department is chronically short-staffed, has lost many experienced plan checkers, and pliantly bends to political pressure by routinely approving speculative projects, it is not up to the task. 

Price 3 is quality of life. Squeaky wheel planning can and does protect small areas, but its real purpose is to allow untrammeled real estate speculation to proceed in the rest of Los Angeles. Those neighborhoods continue to suffer even more from projects that are too large, too tall, that tax local infrastructure and infrastructure, and that impose short and long-term environmental costs. 

Price 4 is climate change. Climate change is the ultimate environmental cost of poorly regulated real estate speculation. These unplanned projects use vast amounts of resources and energy to build and then to operate. As a result, they cumulatively load the atmosphere with destructive Green House Gases, the engine of the climate crisis. Furthermore, despite hoopla that some real estate projects are transit-oriented, they have large parking facilities, cater to the well-off who do not use transit, and rarely monitor the transportation patterns of their residents and customers. 

Clearly, this old wine is not fit to drink, even if it is packaged in new bottles.

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on planning issues for City Watch. He also consults, teaches planning courses, and welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RICHARD’S LA ALMANAC-In writing for the CityWatch Corruption Watch, a lot of focus has been on the harm which the crimogenic nature of the Los Angeles City Hall does to the City. The City Council’s crucial element is its voting trading pact which guarantees that no councilmember will stand in the way of any construction deal no matter how illegal or how harmful to the City. Thus, Los Angeles has become an “open city” where the whims of corrupt politician govern – and destroy – the city. 

We seldom address what has made Los Angeles a great city. Two ingredients have been crucial in our rapid rise the nation’s second city. The first is weather. For the most part, weather is beyond our control. If we include air quality as part of weather, then we have exercised some control over air pollution.   The other factor which favored Los Angeles above over metropolitan areas has been de-centralization. 

Los Angeles began de-centralized. In the beginning, there was nothing but scrub brush and some native inhabitants spread hither and yon. We are unaware of their existence except when as new comers we try to pronounce Cahuenga. [Originally, “cabueg-na” which was changed to Cahuenga by the Spanish who could not pronounce the native word for the pass through the hills. (The Story of Hollywood, by Gregory Paul Williams © 2005 pp4-5)] 

It was a few hundred years before the concept of centralization aka densification became relevant for Los Angeles. 

The Landmark 1915 Study of Traffic Conditions in Los Angeles 

By 1915, Los Angeles had developed a serious problem due to centralization of business within a small area, about 1200 wide between Hill Street and Main Street and from First Street down to Seventh Street. The original densification was partially topographical due to Bunker Hill and the LA River, but it was primarily psychological as people were accustomed to retail being within that area confined area. 

With the advent of motorized vehicles, the concentration of business made for horrible traffic due to the street cars (trolleys) which left only room for one lane of traffic in each direction. In other words, the terrible traffic congestion due to the centralization of business was man-made. Other urban areas in the early 1900's were also topographical, Manhattan was a 2.5 mi vs. 11 mi island.

Decentralization was the Solution 

The 1915 study saw the obvious solution. In a gigantic circular area like Los Angeles, business had to expand outwards from the core downtown area. There was no significant geographic barrier. The City had learned to adequately bridge the river and the unobstructed expansion to the south and residential expansion to the west was clear once one was beyond Bunker Hill. 

As the civic leaders recognized, the topography of Los Angeles’s 5,000 plus square miles made decentralization as important in attracting newcomers as the weather. People came to LA in order to own detached homes on single family lots with yards and fruit trees. 

Relationship of Transportation and De-densification of LA’s Core 

In the brief pre-automobile days of Los Angeles’s growth (late 1800's), the horse drawn and then motorized trolleys allowed people to live farther from LA’s commercial center than in the crowded eastern cities which had been constructed in the 1700's and early 1800's, when fastest means of locomotion was a carriage. Thus, eastern urban homes were narrow, close together, and without yards, e.g., the Brownstones and tenements of NYC and Philadelphia row houses. 

Because Los Angeles grew after motorized transit, there was no demand for crammed residential housing, but rather people could spread out miles away from the core downtown area. Decentralization was as a significant attraction as the weather.     

Soon automobiles became the dominant mode of transportation which facilitated the expansion to more distant single family residential neighborhoods. The individual car was much faster than the trolleys as cars did not make unnecessary stops and the autos had maximum versatility.   

The 1915 Traffic Study Recognized the Great Harm of Densification 

The 1915 Study laid down the main principle that business, retails store, etc. had to expand outwards towards the periphery as there was a mathematical relationship between population density and traffic congestion. In fact, expansion would occur as a matter of course, unless retail, business, and population were artificially restricted to a core area.   Business, retail and industry had to follow the population as the residential areas expanded. The concentration of offices etc. in the Basin would benefit a few wealthy landowners while harming everyone else. (1915 Study p 38) 

The 1922 Los Angeles Traffic Commission Report 

By 1922, however, the city was slow to heed the mathematics and the advice in the 1915 Study. Thus, the Los Angeles Traffic Commission was established, and its heart was the most profound recognition of what was essential to set Los Angeles on the correct path: City officials were ethically forbidden to participate. 

“Public officials are, by the very nature of their office, prohibited from being participants. They must act in a judicial capacity and it is not appropriate for them to take sides for or against public improvements where there are conflicting interests and divided public opinion. City officials by reason of the position they occupy, are ethically prohibited from initiating such measures.” 1922 The Los Angeles Plan, p 3 

As a result of this ethical insight, the City began to follow sensible traffic plans. Trolleys were removed from the surface streets as they were not only a major source impeding traffic but also they were maiming and killing Angelenos. Trolleys run on fixed-rails down the center of the street, forcing riders to embark and disembark in the middle of the street where many riders were struck by autos. 

Los Angeles’s De-densification made it America’s Most Desirable City 

For several decades Los Angeles was allowed to expand outward and we became the nation’s #1 destination city. After WW II, however, the forces of corruptionism, about which civil engineers warned us in 1915 and 1922, took control of the newly formed Community Redevelopment Agency and used tax money to make the most devastating mistake Los Angeles had ever seen, namely Bunker Hill with its concentration of office towers next to downtown. 

Elementary mathematics, which had been done in 1915, showed that the result of Bunker Hill would clog LA traffic congestion. Bunker Hill was designed to make a few men vastly wealthy by retarding the movement of offices etc. towards the periphery.   Instead, a combination of corrupt officials, real developers and construction companies conspired to make the Valleys into bedroom communities while retaining as much office, retail and industry in the Basin. After that disaster, Century City was constructed giving rise the endless nightmares on the 405.

The Death of Decentralization is Killing Los Angeles as a World Class City 

The forces of corruptionism control City Hall today, and they are killing Los Angeles just as surely as if we had entered an Ice Age. 

The new middle class, i.e., Family Millennials, have placed Los Angeles as #60 on the list of places where they wish to live. As predicted in 1915 and 1922, these corrupt policies of concentrating development in the Basin are artificially increasing the cost of housing and making transportation a non-functional. CalTrans has opinion that just the Hollywood Millennium earthquake Towers will make the Hollywood Freeway.

In rejecting the Millennium Towers, Judge Chalfant based his decision on the City’s refusal to acknowledge the unmitigable traffic impacts that Hollywood densification would have traffic congestion. City did not address Caltrans’ "concern(s) that the project impacts may result in unsafe conditions due to additional traffic congestion, unsafe queuing, and difficult maneuvering" for the 101 Freeway, where the Level of Service (sometimes "LOS") is "F". 

F = Failure. The density is so terrible that it has already has an F and the City wants to greatly increase the traffic load. This type of corruptionism and disregard for facts are the major causes for Family Millennials deserting Los Angeles. 

Decentralizing to Cucamonga, Texas, and Beyond 

Angelenos are still decentralizing, except now their destinations are hundreds and thousands of miles to our East. People who want a better life are decentralizing to Cucamonga and Riverside, and then they escape to Texas, The Carolinas, Tennessee, Colorado. Rather than recognize that their corruption has doomed Los Angeles as a viable city in second half of the 21^st Century, corruptionism is cannibalizing what is left. They are borrowing billions of dollars in order to maximize density with knowledge that the City will never have the financial base to repay the billions of dollars which it is borrowing and giving the real estate speculators. 

Assuming that a decentralization plan could be devised, the corruptionism which has seized control of City Hall would never tolerate Los Angeles to deviate from its present densification course until they have drained every last cent from the tax payers. Would that LA could return to the yesteryears of 1915 and 1922 when mathematics and ethics played a role in Los Angeles’ planning.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.)

-cw

PROPS FOR THE PROP-If Proposition 64 on the November 8 ballot passes, California joins the ranks of states where the prohibition against marijuana use is lifted for anyone 21 and older. Polling shows support at somewhere between 50 and 60 percent in favor, so it looks as though “Happy Days Are Here Again” could be the theme song for a lot of Californians. 

Medical marijuana is available in 25 states. Four more have legitimized its recreational use. Mostly, legal pot is a blue state phenomenon, but there are some red states with libertarian tendencies that have joined the crowd. 

The first place to offer medical marijuana? California-- following the passage of Prop. 215 in 1996. Cannabis was outlawed in the Golden State in 1913. The first ballot measure to legalize pot came in 1972. It failed by a 2-1 margin. The next attempt at complete availability occurred in 2010. The initiative failed by seven points (53.5 percent No.) 

The current iteration of full-blown legalization would allow those 21 and older to use marijuana in various forms. (Brownies, anyone?) It also provides for regulation and taxation on retail sales and cultivation. Estimates of tax revenue range up to $1 billion annually. In addition, local governments could impose their own rules and taxes. The measure essentially treats marijuana much the same as tobacco and alcohol. 

It makes you feel good and the state makes money. And don’t forget the potential impact on the sales of snack foods. What’s not to like? 

According to opponents, unleashing the demon weed would loosen an army of intoxicated drivers who could not be prosecuted because there are no legal standards for determining how much under the influence a pot consumer is. They also claim a torrent of advertising and sales to minors would ensue (things prohibited by Prop. 64.) 

I asked my morning coffee crew what they thought. Responses ranged from absolutely not (“we have enough stuff to make people stupid already”) to an enthusiastic yes (“hell, yeah!”). The answer that I think probably comes closest to most voters’ thinking is, “I 95-percent don’t care.” The other five percent? “It’s O.K. with me as long as they tax it.” 

This is how a society changes its rules; not because the body politic feels a great enthusiasm for, or dislike of, a proposition. When an initiative like Prop. 64 garners the level of support it has, it’s not groundbreaking. It’s a ratification of the status quo. 

And now, here we are on the verge of allowing marijuana to become the newest legal vice for adults. For aging baby boomers like me this has been a long time coming. To many, the march from “reefer madness” to a 21st century version of the before-dinner drink is simply the latest manifestation of a culture that is moving to a greater level of tolerance and acceptance of new societal norms. 

Assuming Prop. 64 passes, it won’t be long before you can walk into the local market and pick up a pack of doobies -- and don’t forget the chips.

(Doug Epperhart is publisher, a longtime neighborhood council activist and former Board of Neighborhood Commissioners commissioner. He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch and can be reached at: [email protected]) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RIDING WITH RICHARD--Last night I sat through a four and a half hour meeting of the Mid-City West Community Council. Sitting for an hour, let alone four, is not my preference, but a few months ago, friends and neighbors urged me to run for the Council’s board, and I finally acceded to their wishes. I indulged in exactly two (2) hours of campaigning, but, much to my dismay, I won anyhow. So there I was, along with thirty-four other board members, and a roomful of contentious neighbors.

Contentious because of, among other things, a proposal to implement a road diet along that deadly part of Sixth Street that runs through the Miracle Mile. Crashes, caused by speeding, swerving cars, are a weekly occurrence there; injuries are frequent, and there have been deaths. Neighbors just trying to get home or to the store or the park. A woman was killed standing on the corner waiting for the light to change, her body broken by cars spinning away from yet another collision….

Everyone agrees that cars must be tamed along Sixth, but not everyone agrees on the means. Many people’s immediate reaction to a road diet is to assert that reducing the number of through lanes will “of course” increase congestion. This is not, in fact, true, as dozens, perhaps hundreds, of real-world observations have revealed. But in this sad time of “truthiness,” flat-earth theories are given respect that other hypotheses have had to work for. The evening was long.

But many people, on and off the board, spoke at length about both the mechanics and the benefits of road diets, and in the end…the motion passed!

The board will now send its recommendation to the LADOT and the local council member, David Ryu. Whether he will continue his predecessor LaBonge’s suppression of the road diet remains to be seen.

Yes, continue it: because this is not a new road diet. It was first proposed years ago. LADOT’s analysis and most of its design work have been done. In fact, just about everything has been done except actually doing it. Meanwhile, cars crash, neighbors die, and people at a recent town hall said they’re afraid even to walk along Sixth on the sidewalks!

Maybe, just maybe, Ryu can show some spine and support what will, despite overwhelming local support, be a contentious project. If he caves to the naysayers, in the time-honored way of LA council members, well…the gutters will continue to run with blood in the Miracle Mile.

As one of the other board members put it, “This is a moral issue. People are dying while we argue.”

(Richard Risemberg is a writer. His current professional activities are focused on sustainable development and lifestyle. This column was posted first at Flying Pigeon.)  

-cw

AT LENGTH--At the Sept. 13 Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council stakeholder meeting, we were reminded once again of Councilman Joe Buscaino’s commitment to transparency—or lack thereof. 

It was revealed that the Los Angeles City Council’s Homeless Strategy Committee was acting to authorize $615,000 for the leasing and construction of storage facilities for the homeless in San Pedro, without any prior notice given to the Harbor Area neighborhood council’s. Buscaino’s record on  transparency is par for the course, while failing to reach any sort of consensus on thornier issues.

One year ago, the homeless issue exploded in San Pedro at the CeSPNC meeting after that council voted unanimously to support the tiny homes initiative of Elvis Summers. Buscaino stepped in after that to announce his appointment of the Homeless Taskforce. That singular vote was the result of mounting frustration with the lack of action by Buscaino on this critical issue. I should know. I had a front row seat as president of Central during that time.

Not only did the councilman intentionally appoint a group of political shills who were neophytes to the homeless issue—with the exception of Shari Weaver, the one professional from Harbor Interfaith Service — he also excluded anyone from the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, some of whom had been working on the issue for more than two years.  This political insult was exacerbated by appointing Ray Regalado, president of Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, as his co-chair and George Palaziol the leader of the anti-homeless uprising and founder of the questionable nonprofit organization  “Saving San Pedro” to the task force.

Also appointed were Elise Swanson, the political armchair of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce, Mona Sutton, the owner of the Omelette and Waffle Shop and others, who, as I’ve said before, have little experience in dealing with homeless issues. Since that time they have held multiple closed-to-the-public meetings, with no published agendas and reports on their activities. The councilman promises that one will be release soon, but in fact this move is classic JB—no transparency; zero community engagement.

If not for the continued scouring of LA City Council notices by Danielle Sandoval, the Budget Advocate from the Harbor Area and CeSPNC treasurer, the August 2016 Transmittal from the Homeless Strategy Committee, chaired by City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, would have been buried and Buscaino’s deceit would have been missed until it was presented as a done deal.  His office has sought neither advice nor consent. There has been no waiting for City Controller Ron Galprin’s office to release the list of thousands of publicly owned properties and the only discussions that have taken place have been closed door ones with San Pedro Chamber of Commerce CEO, Elise Swanson.

Instead of Buscaino appearing before the CeSPNC himself, as he was scheduled to do this week, Swanson appeared in standard form as his apologist, making excuses and assuring that the “task force” was going to do its work and present a proposal with illustrations from the “consultants” for public comment (read rubber- stamp approval). Who knew that they already had consultants hired to work on the project that nobody knew about?

Further, with Sutton now president of Central, Regalado and  Palaziol, all being on different neighborhood councils, they all have conflicts of interests that prevents them from voting or even participating in the discussion on the proposed homeless storage facilities, since they are also on the councilman’s Homeless Task Force.

John Stammreich, the itinerant parlia-mentarian of CeSPNC, needs to brush up on his understanding of the legal terms “recusal” and conflicts of interest.

Sutton has a double conflict since she was recently appointed by Buscaino to the Harbor Area Planning Commission just before the June neighborhood council election. It’s a position that might allow her to review a change of use issue of any proposed storage facility under that commission’s purview.  Could the avoidance of controversy get any more complicated?

It certainly can as the CeSPNC homeless committee chairwoman Tunette Powell, resigned from the council after only two months on the job citing personal issues. Yet, it is well known that she was pounced upon by the bullies of the Saving San Pedro’s closed Facebook page for differing from their polemics and constant negativity.  Her frustration was evident at the recent meeting.

All of this and more comes into play as Buscaino has his sights set on a second term while having very little to show for his first five years in office, except for the constant barrage of photo opps and social media propaganda.

Yes, there are lots of promises such as the San Pedro Waterfront, the plan for redeveloping the public housing at Rancho San Pedro and three market rate housing projects (with no low-income units included) in central San Pedro. Through it all, there has been next to nothing in terms of  transparency in the pre-development stages, and with what little information that has been made public, is information that was vetted behind closed doors between the council office and the Harbor Department.

Don’t expect the actual waterfront plan to come out very soon.  It is rumored that Los Angeles Waterfront Alliance hasn’t yet secured an anchor tenant, therefore, there’s no actual capital funding as they continue to negotiate the biggest attraction at Ports O’ Call, the San Pedro Fish Market, down to 25 percent of its current footprint.

Buscaino just wants to be re-elected at any cost and he’ll smile his way past any one who thinks he doesn’t deserve it. But watch out, his deceit is as treacherous as Saving San Pedro’s comments on my hat are libelous.  And his continued lack of transparency and his use of neighborhood councils as rubber stamps will trip him up in the end.

(James Preston Allen is the Publisher of Random Lengths News, the Los Angeles Harbor Area's only independent newspaper. He is also a guest columnist for the California Courts Monitor and is the author of "Silence Is Not Democracy - Don't listen to that man with the white cap - he might say something that you agree with!" He has been engaged in the civic affairs of CD 15 for more than 35 years. More of Allen…and other views and news at: randomlengthsnews.com.) 

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD--Once a year, City Hall opens its doors to the public for the annual Neighborhood Council Congress. This year, the gathering occurs Saturday, September 24. It's a chance for people who participate in neighborhood councils to network, hear presentations, and meet city officials. I think the congress has done pretty well, but it is ready for some rethinking. What's been missing of late is the old spirit of rebellion that motivated the founding generation. It's that same spirit you see in the pages of City Watch. The public should have their own shot at engaging in such discussions. 

Let's start with what's good about attending the Congress: It's a chance to meet folks from all over the city, so you can learn about the issues that other neighborhood councils are facing and how they are dealing with them. It is also a chance to become involved in the regional and citywide organizations that have grown up in response to citywide issues. 

Unfortunately, the Congress has tended to shy away from the more political discussions. I suspect that the organizers see these as divisive. Instead, we are being served up an extended civics lesson. Some of it is interesting, and some of it is even useful, but we should consider some bigger ideas (see below). 

What you can expect: There will be workshops, training sessions, and a breakout session on a subject I have been writing about here, the need for disaster preparedness. 

There will be a lot of sessions that are reminiscent of high school citizenship classes. There is a session on Board Basics, which is, I assume, training in how to participate in a board meeting. There are sessions on land use and code enforcement, outreach, working with city departments, and so on. We can get tips on leadership skills (I wonder how you teach that?), a session on how to manage a committee, and something about clean streets. These are defensible topics, but not door crashers. 

Let's quickly explain why the congress is set up this way. 

Back around 2001- 2005, neighborhood councils were a new invention in LA, and we all had to figure out how to navigate through the details of forming a brand new council and getting it up and running. Out of this came a few meetings where these subjects were explored in front of hundreds of interested people. For the past few years, the congress has been run by volunteer participants and a few hardy city agency staffers. 

So far, so good. The congress provides breakfast, lunch, and a nearly acceptable volume of hot coffee. City Hall has plenty of conference rooms and a regal City Council chamber, all of which get used. 

The one thing remaining for us to accomplish is to make the congress into a real congress. Instead of just those goody-goody sessions, I'd like to see a few things added on: 

Let's bring back the discussion of cutting City Council pay by half. 

Let's have a serious discussion about recreating Los Angeles government as a borough system. 

Let's take a strong position against high priced parking meter costs and parking ticket fines. 

Let's have serious discussions about all the reform suggestions coming from other writers here on City Watch, including Charter changes regarding the city budget. 

Let's have a serious discussion about public financing of City Council and mayoral elections. 

Let's talk about the limited public comment periods in City Council committee meetings. How many of you are tired of watching that green light - yellow light - red light gizmo run down? 

Let's even talk about the way that neighborhood councils were created with an almost total lack of authority, and whether this ought to be changed. 

Let's have a serious discussion about putting neighborhood council elections on the regular ballot, probably during the June primary election in even numbered years. 

You may have your own ideas for robust discussions. The point is to visit the serious underlying questions rather than just nibbling around the edges of the most superficial problems. 

We might also revisit an idea that has been circulating in neighborhood council circles since the beginning. Why not schedule quarterly Town Hall meetings, each dedicated to a particular subject? I'd like to see the Valley Alliance and the LA Neighborhood Council Alliance alternate in sponsoring such Town Halls. They wouldn't replace the annual congress, but they would allow serious people to engage in important discussions.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw