EASTSIDER-Every so often I forget that there is City Hall villainy over and beyond the Northeast’s very own trio of Jose Huizar, Gilbert Cedillo, and Mitch O’Farrell. Although led by Jose Huizar, as the Chair of the PLUM Committee, I do believe that this gang has approved enough mega-development to make the land subside by at least ten feet, and maybe even cause a shift in the tectonic plates. Heck, Eric Garcetti was a piker compared to these guys -- at least until he became Mayor and had more land to sell off. 

On the other hand, a CityWatch reader contacted me with yet a different dastardly bend over, kiss the developer and sell out the community mega-development act perpetrated by another one of our model-of-integrity City Council members -- this time, Mike Bonin (CD 11). Take a look at the picture of the Martin Expo Town Center (photo above.) It reminds me of some planetary headquarters of the evil empire in a Star Wars movie.

Located on Bundy and Olympic Blvd., this monster ought to permanently block the ability of anyone to get from downtown LA to the Westside and vice versa. Not to mention that the folks who live there won’t be able to get anywhere at all. Proponents note that it’s being built near the Expo Line extension, I suppose implying, yet again, that mass transit will eliminate the need for cars in Los Angeles. But I seem to remember that the Expo Line is already overburdened with riders, so maybe this project can create a first in LA: Metro gridlock on one of their routes. 

So back to Mr. Bonin, the replacement for Councilmember Bill Rosendahl. Bonin really makes some of us rue the untimely demise of his former boss: he isn’t a Bill Rosendahl. For those of you who remember the Airbnb wars, Mr. Bonin was the author of that fatuous statement that he supported “good short-term rentals” and opposed “bad short-term rentals.” What a guy. 

You might also remember Mr. Bonin for being the second to Herb Wesson’s original Airbnb motion, even while his constituents in Venice were being illegally evicted from their rent-controlled units that were replaced with Airbnb hotels. In fact, Councilmember Bonin is so beloved in Venice that some there are attempting get out of Los Angeles completely and form their own city, a move referred to as Vexit.  

Bonin’s Deal Hits a Bump 

So what’s new with Bonin’s dialing for dollars on the Martin Expo Town Center? 

Here are the details: In order to build the monster Martin Expo Town Center, the Council has to fiddle with the City’s General Plan to change the designation of the area from Light Manufacturing to General Commercial. This is not trivial, especially since the General Plan has not been changed for something like 20 years and going from a Cadillac dealership to a huge mixed-used mega-development is a huge change. We won’t even get into Community Plans. But there is a process that should be followed. 

On the same PLUM Committee agenda that lists the Martin Expo item is another item, 14-1719, regarding possible zone changes for a project in the Valley. In this case, it looks like they got it right by making the Planning Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney, prepare a report regarding possible zone change options. 

So why didn’t they do the same for the Martin Expo project? How about because Mr. Bonin has already partaken of the developer’s kool-aid? 

Tuesday, September 20, was the last day for Council action on the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change for the Martin Expo Town Center. If the Council didn’t act by then, it would be goodbye to whatever goodies Bonin stands to get. But it turns out that there was a big “boo boo” in the PLUM Agenda: Planning filed a new Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the day of the PLUM meeting. This meant that the items were out of compliance with the Brown Act so the PLUM Committee wouldn’t be able to discuss or vote on the items. And the last day to act was coming up, which meant they wouldn’t be able to fix it by having the PLUM Committee re-agendize the item and get Council to act before September 20. 

For those who think I’m imagining things, the project was already set for the City Council meeting of Friday, September 16 -- obviously, assuming that the same PLUM Committee would have approved the project. 

But this is the City of Los Angeles, so there’s always a way to fix the error and still ram through the project. The “powers that be” had the PLUM Committee “waive consideration of item” and quickly put the project directly on the City Council agenda for September 20, the last day for action. And guess what the vote was? 

For a more detailed look at manipulation of the General Plan and planning in general in the City of Angels, take a look at Dick Platkin’s recent CityWatch articles. I particularly enjoyed, “Who’s In Charge at LA’s City Planning, the Queen of Hearts?”  

And why, pray tell, would a City Councilmember resort to such obviously disingenuous behavior, evading the very spirit of open government and the Brown Act? How about pushback from the affected communities that are refusing to roll over for this repurposing of a Cadillac dealership that will cause the wholesale destruction of their deeply affected neighborhoods? Irony intended. 

All you have to do is take a look at the coalition that organized to see why Mr. Bonin is trying to sneak this project by. It’s a pretty potent, activist set of folks -- the West of Westwood Homeowners Assn, West LA/Sawtelle Neighborhood Council, the Brentwood Homeowners Association and the Westwood South of Santa Monica Homeowners Association, to name a few. 

The Takeaway 

Sadly, Bonin is just a symptom of City Hall dysfunction. If you add up all of the recent actions by the City Council, I think the conclusion is inescapable. City Hall has contempt for our neighborhoods and Neighborhood Councils. Oh, they will have a Congress of Neighborhoods, and the elected officials will take pictures and hand out scrolls, but that’s it. Input not welcome. Charter reform? What Charter? 

In addition to our own experiences in Northeast LA, and the current Martin Expo Town Center contretemps of Mr. Bonin, here are a couple of other recent developments which demonstrate my point. 

First, as an exemplar of hubris, Council President Herb Wesson has announced that he will personally run Felipe Fuentes’ Council District (CD7) until next March when an election will take place. For those who missed this news item, Mr. Fuentes recently resigned his position to become a full time lobbyist in Sacramento. And no, I’m not making this up. 

But Herb says “not to worry” because he will not vote on items for Council District 7. In short, many of our best and vocal Neighborhood Councils in the Valley and foothill areas will be disenfranchised until we have results for next year’s election. Talk about taxation without representation. I thought Fuentes’ throwing the Sunland/Tujunga Neighborhood Council out of City offices was reprehensible. But, boy, did I underestimate Herb’s ability to manipulate the system. This one was so raw it even took the LA Times by surprise. 

Second, Mike Bonin’s next door neighbor, Joe Buscaino (CD15,) recently blew off the San Pedro Neighborhood Council to unilaterally do his own “homeless deal.” 

It’s really a shame. Mr. Buscaino, a former LAPD officer, got elected on an honest, open and transparent platform back in the day when he replaced Janice Hahn. 

I am at a loss to explain the behavior of our elected officials. Honest. We pay them close to $200,00 a year (the highest in the U.S.) They really don’t have to do much except collect a paycheck, and yet they all seem compelled to bend over for real estate developers and billboard companies, betraying their fiduciary obligations as public servants.

Anyhow, to end on a more positive note, there are a couple of things we can do. On the development end, sign up and vote for the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. Campaign Director Jill Stewart’s very good article about it is here.  Second, the Neighborhood Councils have to figure out how to get together and organize on their own, knowing that BONC, DONE and the City Attorney are not our friends. LANCC is the logical place, but to make that work we need a charismatic figure who is willing to step up and reinvigorate the NCs into being the check and balance on City Hall that Charter Reform envisioned. 

Any takers?

(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

SPORTS POLITICS--You may have heard that the National Football League’s Rams are back in Los Angeles. The football is no doubt exciting, but the team’s presence has also elevated Southern California conversations about parking, congestion, transit, and traffic. 

Now through 2018, the Rams play home games at the Coliseum in Exposition Park, a stone’s throw from the Metro Expo Line. (see photo above) In the future, the Rams will be playing at a new stadium under construction in Inglewood. The new stadium, expected to be completed by 2019, will be just over a mile from Metro’s under-construction Crenshaw/LAX light rail line. 

At the Rams first regular season home game, the Los Angeles Times reported parking prices surging well over $100. Rather than proclaiming parking doom, the paper interviewed parking expert Don Shoup, explained “congestion pricing,” and declared high prices to be “good news for mass transit backers.” Metro’s The Source reported that 26 percent of Rams attendees, 21,000 of the 80,000, took transit to the game. This is nearly quadruple transit’s seven percent share of LA County commute trips. 

Though SBLA will offer some advice after the jump, first a couple of caveats: 

• First, kudos to Metro for already doing a good job managing football crowds. During pre-season games, Metro anticipated and managed serious crowds. Metro promoted transit to get to games, added signage, increased service on the Silver and Expo lines, and deployed staff to manage queues. According to a staff report, Metro transit carried 10,600 and 12,200 riders to the Rams preseason games, representing 13 and 20 percent of the attendance. 

• Second, crowding expectations (and transit promotion) should be realistic. Fans should expect post-game transit to be packed, as it is around the world when big events let out. The goal is crowded trains and buses full of fans. Too many riders is a nice problem to have – it makes transit operate in a more efficient, more cost-effective way. 

• Third, though these crowds are big, 20,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to 1.4 million weekday boardings systemwide. Football stadiums are important to serve, but they deliver up riders only a half-dozen or so Sunday afternoons a year. This tail should not wag the entire dog. Adding tons of service could mean tons of cost to Metro, given that transit rides are subsidized. It is important not to mortgage the system’s daily ridership to chase a massive infrequent bolus. Nonetheless, like CicLAvia, game day ridership can be a sort of gateway drug. Ride a bus to a Rams game today, then maybe ride a bus to work in the near future. 

The Source asked for suggestions on what Metro can do differently. SBLA has some ideas below. 

These are all relatively low cost programs, not infrastructure-intensive people-mover construction. None of these will carry tens of thousands of riders on day one, but expanding transportation options for game day can give people choices. Diverting a thousand fans here and a hundred fans there can take the edge off of the surge that occurs at the end of the game. In expanding options, it is important to benefit not only sports fans, but also provide ancillary benefits to the rest of Metro’s riders, and to the neighborhoods impacted by car-choked streets around the stadium. 

1. Promote Walking – From the Coliseum, it is a two mile walk to LA Trade Tech Blue Line station, or a three mile walk to downtown LA’s 7th and Metro Red Line station. Those walks will not be for everyone, but if a couple hundred fans walk, then they are healthier, happier and the Expo Line peak crowding is reduced. Perhaps Metro and the Rams (perhaps partnering with public health community groups like LA Walks) could form some sort of Rams Walking Club. The club could operate a sort of walking school bus that would have regularly scheduled walks on pre-arranged routes. Perhaps there could be incentives, such as Rams Walking Club caps or T-shirts, or even some kind of promotional event along the way. It is probably too much to ask that a Rams player might make a guest appearance along the way, but perhaps walks could be led by a costumed mascot giving out Rams pennants, so the walk becomes a sort of moving pep rally for the team. Walk trips could be logged and entered into a drawing for prizes. Even if walkers did not walk the entire way, organized walk trips could open additional much-lower-cost car parking, such as at or near LA Trade Tech College. 

• Extend downtown L.A. Metro Bike Share – Metro’s current bike-share system already extends to LA Trade Tech, two miles from the Coliseum. It may be worthwhile to add a bike-share hub near the stadium. This would serve to connect Rams fans to downtown LA where they could connect with extensive rail and bus networks there. This could relieve eastbound Expo Line crowding, as riders could bike to the Blue, Red or even Gold lines. Perhaps there is a way to set up a staffed temporary bike-share drop-off/pick-up area to test the idea. This has been done in other cities, including in New York City during their open streets events.

• Bike Parking – In San Francisco, the SF Bicycle Coalition runs valet bike parking for Giants baseball home games.  A similar arrangement could be made with an L.A. bicycle non-profit, such as the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition. Bikes would need a convenient parking area, but bike parking takes up a lot less space than car parking (a standard car parking space easily accommodates a dozen bikes)  so the space would not need to be massive. If the rams are able to provide space for free, a nominal parking charge (say $1-2 per bike) could cover staffing. It might make sense to combine private bike parking area and the public bike-share docking mentioned above.

• Shuttle Buses – Similar to Hollywood Bowl shuttles, Metro’s Dodger Stadium Express, and programs in other regions, Metro could operate fixed-route, potentially pre-paid shuttle service to the stadium. This service makes sense only if it does not require major subsidies. Better to improve existing rail and bus lines on game days than to create low ridership boutique new service.

• After-Game Activities at Exposition Park – One way to reduce peak traffic for transit (and for cars) is to get people to stick around after the game, and get home later. Metro and/or the Rams could work with Exposition Park museums to host special open house extended hours that coincide with game-end times. Perhaps there could be a rotating schedule between various museums to focus attendance to make it worthwhile. Alternately, there could be entertainment (a small concert, a mascot) for transit riders while they wait to board.

• Promote Taxi and Ride-Hail ride splitting – From comments, some transit riders looked at large lines for Expo and decided to take Lyft or Uber instead. Ride-hail cars contribute to traffic congestion around the stadium. To the extent that taxis and ride-hail companies can encourage fans to pile in and pool their rides and fill these vehicles, they will serve fans more efficiently and lessen their adverse impact on nearby streets. 

While these recommendations apply to Rams games, they also apply to other sports and other stadiums, and even concerts and other events. Even though the Rams will be moving in 2019, Exposition Park will continue to host large-scale events, including, soon, Major League Soccer.  Programs piloted now could be transposed to Inglewood in 2019. 

What do you think readers? Would these programs work? How do you think Metro should serve game day crowds?

(Joe Linton is the editor of StreetsblogLA ... where this perspective was first posted. He founded the LA River Ride, co-founded the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, worked in key early leadership roles at CicLAvia and C.I.C.L.E., served on the board of directors of Friends of the LA River, Southern California Streets Initiative, and LA Eco-Village.) Photo: Metro.

VOX POP-Last week, Los Angeles music fans were shocked to learn that development firm GPI Companies may demolish the Amoeba Music building and construct a glass-and-steel skyscraper in its place — effectively ending Amoeba’s existence in Hollywood. But that, in fact, wasn’t the whole story.

What reporters didn’t reveal is the exact name of the developer, its big-money ties to City Hall and its involvement in a controversial mega-project in North Hollywood — which may signal what lies ahead for Amoeba Music and how the politically connected developer will be a difficult adversary if Amoeba devotees try to save the cherished cultural treasure from destruction.

GPI Companies is another name for Goldstein Planting Investments, which is based in Los Angeles. According to its website, Goldstein Planting describes itself as “a real estate investment and development firm that pursues a targeted range of properties where value can be enhanced through repositioning, redevelopment, or increased operational efficiency.”

In other words, the developer doesn’t often buy a property and simply let it sit. Goldstein Planting does something with it — like build the kind of 20-story glass-and-steel skyscraper that may go up at 6400 Sunset Boulevard, where Amoeba Music currently stands. The developer bought the Amoeba Music building, located on a stretch of Sunset Boulevard that developers have been actively seeking to construct tall mega-projects, for $34 million in 2015.

Goldstein Planting would be a powerful, politically connected, deep-pocketed opponent for any grassroots movement trying to save the Amoeba Music building.

Since 2009, and especially within the past few years, the developer has spent at least $258,621 in high-priced lobbyists and campaign contributions to L.A. politicians, according to the city’s Ethics Commission. It’s a longtime method used by many development firms to get special favors from LA elected officials and bureaucrats — spread around big cash at City Hall.

The Amoeba Music building stands in the heart of City Council District 13, which is represented by Mitch O’Farrell. Council members have incredible power and influence at City Hall when it comes to planning and land-use policy in their individual districts, and developers know that all too well.

Since 2013, Goldstein Planting Investments and its representatives have given a sizable total of $7,700 to Councilman O’Farrell — a sure-fire way to grab a politician’s attention. O’Farrell received $3,500 in campaign contributions and $4,200 for his “legal defense fund.”

Goldstein Planting Investments and its representatives also contributed $4,700 to Mayor Eric Garcetti’s 2017 re-election campaign.

In total, according to the city’s Ethics Commission, Goldstein Planting Investments forked over an eye-popping $45,700 in campaign contributions to LA politicians since 2009 — 17 percent of which went to O’Farrell.

In addition, the developer has spent a total of $212,921 on high-priced, City Hall lobbyists, who then curry favor with LA politicians and bureaucrats. It’s the kind of insider access that everyday Angelenos can never afford to buy — and they shouldn’t need to.

But that’s how LA’s rigged and broken planning and land-use system works in favor of deep-pocketed developers like Goldstein Planting Investments.

Goldstein Planting Investments is currently teaming up with another wealthy developer, San Francisco-based Merlone Geier Partners, to build a controversial mega-project called NoHo West in a low-slung, middle-class neighborhood in North Hollywood.

The two developers stand to make a whopping $25.2 million in annual revenue from 642 luxury, rental units at the proposed site — and millions more from retail and office space. Community people have complained that the mega-project will overwhelm their neighborhood with traffic. Although Goldstein Planting and Merlone Geier stand to make hundreds of millions off NoHo West over the years, the developers have not offered substantive measures to mitigate the traffic.

LA Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents North Hollywood, completely supports the mega-project — and has not used his power and influence to help the NoHo West-adjacent residents.

NoHo West is one of the largest mega-developments in the San Fernando Valley — and Los Angeles County. It signals the kind of gigantic projects Goldstein Planting may continue to build in the future — like replacing the Amoeba Music building, a vital, culturally important independent music and film store, with a corporate 20-story skyscraper.

The Los Angeles Times tried to play down the possible demolition of the Amoeba Music building, but judging from Goldstein Planting Investments’ track record, the developer has the political clout and business inclination to do exactly that. 

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for Preserve LA. Read more news and find out how you can participate: 2PreserveLA.org.) 

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-A reporter’s question about real estate trends in Los Angeles led me to ask and hopefully answer two questions. 

Q:  What do we mean by “development?”

A:  Development includes the entire built environment. It is not strictly private speculation in real estate projects by individual and institutional investors. 

Q:  Does Los Angeles need more “development?”

A:  LA absolutely needs more development, but it should be the right type of development. When it comes to private investment, density is not an issue, as long as it is it planned development. When it comes to public investment, development should also be linked to the City’s planning and budgeting processes. 

Now, the longer version: 

Development is a misleading term for all investment in the built environment. The term is intended to give private real estate speculation a veneer of respectability. The role of this euphemism is to camouflage the impetus of private development: speculative investment with a high rate or return regardless of adopted laws or neighborhood context. 

In contrast, when public investment creeps into view, whether water mains, fire stations, schools, or hundreds of other municipal facilities, “development” suddenly goes missing. Apparently the primacy of the public sector in planning, implementing, and maintaining this part of the built environment does not generate enough return on investment for the private sector and our public officials to consider these projects to also be “development.” 

Most of what they consider to be “development,” probably around 90 percent of private projects, straightforwardly complies with the City’s legally adopted zones, building codes, and General Plan land use designations. But, some of these projects are not consistent with zones and plans. They require a special review by the Department of City Planning.  Most of these cases are small, such as over-height fences. But a tiny fraction is over-sized mega-projects. They are straightforwardly illegal, and only the City Council can legalize them through special ordinances that change the underlying General Plan designation, zone, and/or height district. These legislative actions are the spot-zoning cases that the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative intends to stop. This Initiative would spell the end to parcel level projects that get approved because of slick lobbyists and lawyers, AstroTurf organizations, political contributions, and unverifiable promises of jobs, transit use, air pollution reductions, and off-site quasi-public improvements.

Los Angeles needs much more development: As for the developments that Los Angeles needs, investment in the city's public areas should be the highest priority. (Photo above: My Figueroa, a new public development, ready to break ground.) These developments make the most difference, especially for mitigating and adapting to climate change. This is where Los Angeles is most vulnerable, especially when compared to the unconvincing need for more luxury high-rise apartments serving occasional ultra-rich visitors. 

This is why Los Angeles needs many billions dollars in public development, and why it needs investment in projects that can dramatically change the character of the entire city. While the following list is hardly definitive, it should help you understand some of the investment that our elected officials should proactively prioritize, instead of unplanned, ad hoc mega-projects hawked by private investors wearing expensive tailored suits. 

In my list I have focused on public investments that are low hanging fruit and that will either slow climate change or help us adapt to climate impacts already underway. 

• Los Angeles urgently needs a drought tolerant urban forest in its public and private areas. Median strips, sidewalk planting areas, and parks are in dreadful shape, as well as most yards. Many of the city’s trees are dying because they are not drought tolerant, and in to many areas there are long, bare stretches without any trees at all. But, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, and Culver City have all demonstrated that a drought tolerant urban forest is possible. Therefore, the only question is how to make trees, not real estate speculation, the priority of our elected officials. 

• In conjunction with a drought tolerant urban forest, Los Angeles urgently needs to reinstate and upgrade the LADWP program to replace lawns, whether in parkways, front yards, or back yards, with drought tolerant gardens.

• Decentralized rooftop solar is begging for a massive roll out because of LA’s sunny climate. It not only makes houses and businesses energy independent, but excess power flows back to the LADWP’s grid, reducing its need to burn highly polluting coal and natural gas in distant power plants. 

• Natural disasters, whether fires or earthquakes, are waiting to happen. Our vast network of overhead utility wires and aging underground water, gas, and sewage lines are highly vulnerable. It might be expensive, but LA needs an integrated public works program to underground above ground utilities, while replacing and upgrading the systems that are already undergrounded. If streetlights and gas lines are already buried, why not electricity and telecommunications? 

• METRO’s plans, now on the ballot through Measure M, will go a long way to accelerate the transition from private cars to many alternative transportation modes, including repairing LA’s beat up sidewalks to promote walking. But, why should these improvements depend on a regressive sales tax, when trillions have already been thrown down the rat holes of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya  – with no end in sight, regardless of who wins the Presidential election?

Of course, none of this public development happens by itself. We cannot depend on a private tycoon to knock on the door of your local Councilmember with an offer to repair miles of broken sidewalks on his dime. Instead, it requires a rigorous planning process, including taking LA’s old infrastructure and public services General Plan elements out of mothballs so they can be updated. It also requires an annual monitoring program, and finally it requires that these plans be integrated into the City’s annual budget. 

It might also require a few fiscal changes, such as fixing Proposition 13, reprioritizing the City’s budget, and reinstating many Federal urban housing and transportation programs that slowly bit the dust during and after the Vietnam War. The money is undoubtedly there, and our elected officials need to tap into it.

(Dick Platkin reports on local city planning issues for CityWatch. He is a veteran city planner and welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RANTZ & RAVEZ--Did the City of Los Angeles ever promise to provide you with efficient and timely service? 

Since preparing the RantZ and RaveZ articles, I have been on the lookout for stories that illustrate the functions of Los Angeles. Good and/or Bad. Unfortunately, I keep finding problems and very few positive items to illustrate to the readers of my column. 

A recent simple phone call to 311 is a prime example of the poor service the city provides taxpayers. 311 is the phone number to call in Los Angeles when you need to connect with a city department or elected official. It is an information service for LA City residents and business owners. 

On September 12, 2016, at 3:40 in the afternoon I phoned 311 attempting to obtain the phone number of an elected official’s valley office. I waited a total of 6 minutes until the operator answered the call. Six minutes waiting for the operator to simply answer the call and provide me with the contact number. I have no idea how many operators work the 311 system, but I do know that the city can do much better in serving the people who pay the taxes and fees in Los Angeles. 

The next time you need to connect with an LA City Dept., try using the 311 System and see how efficient it is for you. It is truly a RantZ this time around.

What the Hell is City Controller Ron Galperin doing to protect the city’s tax dollars? 

The LA Times has rated Mr. Galperin, the elected City Controller, as a “C in Leadership and Effectiveness.”With that type of rating by the most Liberal and bankrupt LA Times, what can we honestly expect from the elected official charged with maintaining Integrity, Honesty and Efficiency in all city operations? 

Shortly after being elected to the Controller’s Office, Mr. Galperin challenged the council approved agreement between the DWP and the Union representing the workers that provides funds for the safety and training of DWP employees. The matter was a major news story at the time and ended up in court. In the end, the union received all the funds they were due and Mr. Galprin ran back into his office and realized that he tackled a powerful union with a legitimate safety and training fund and lost the battle. The Controller spent huge sums of money and personnel on his crusade that fizzled like a balloon without helium. 

While Mr. Galperin counts the pebbles at the asphalt plant and cans of paint at the paint shop, the city is on track to continue losing millions of dollars in all types of lawsuits. Has the Controller done anything to stem the tide of millions of dollars lost in all the lawsuits? The simple answer is NO. The following list is an example of payouts in litigation against the city and the taxpayers of LA. These claims have all been paid while the Controller’s office has been run by Mr. Ron Galperin who truly lacks Leadership and Effectiveness.   

1. $ 23.7 Million paid out in a Dangerous Intersection Death.
2. $ 950,000 in two cases involving homeless people.
3. $ 1.1 Million in a homeless case.
4. $ 725,000 in legal fees to lawyers in a homeless case.
5. $ 450,000 settlement by USC Students.
6. $ 750,000 settlement with former City Official.
7. $ 50,000,000 to DWP Customers.
8. $ Millions to multiple LAPD Officers involved in ticket Quotas.
9. $ 5.9 Million to a group of officers in a ticket quota case.
10. $ 10 Million paid out in ticket quota cases.
11. $13 Million is attorney fees involved in DWP Case. 

While the cases mount and the city continues to pay millions upon millions of dollars in case after case, Mr. Galperin completes audit reports on the amount of overtime city employees are paid for the work they do. 

With a reduced work force in the past, it is often necessary to work overtime to get the job done. Instead of working with the numerous city departments engaged in city projects and programs, he spends his time spinning his wheels trying to justify his position. I hope someone comes around that will turn the Controller’s office into the watchdog it is designed to be. 

For the record, I am viewing various elected offices to possibly run for in the future. Could it be Neighborhood Council, Mayor, Controller, State Senator or Assemblyman? Time will tell. I will keep you informed as the days roll along. 

ZINE ELECTION CARD, Cont.

While most of you will agree that transportation in the Los Angeles region is totally and unquestionably at a gridlock stage most of the time, what is the answer to free up our local roads and freeways so we can drive our vehicles at or near the speed limit.   Freeway congestion is a fact of life on all Los Angeles Freeways. Take for example the 101 in the San Fernando Valley. It is listed as the most congested freeway in America. 

Then we have the 405 Freeway with the Billion plus Dollar improvements. If you ever have the opportunity to commute on the 405, you will find that it is at gridlock stage most days just like many of the freeways in the Los Angeles area. 

The solution coming from the elected officials and Cal Trans involves lots of money. More and money to correct a situation that is not going to change as long as Los Angeles and the cities in this region have growing populations. 

Glendale and every other city in the Los Angeles Area are planning more and more housing developments. Thousands of new residential units are in the planning, development and building stage all over Southern California. 

The answer from elected officials is naturally more money. More of your money to fix a problem that is out control and just getting worse. Transportation officials are attempting to have hundreds of thousands of Southern California motorists give up their cars and opt for public transportation. 

One thing is for sure, in our generation and into the future, we are not going to give up our cars like other cities in America that have had efficient and public transportation for years. The cities on the East Coast have very efficient public transportation that the public uses on a regular basis. It will not happen here in my lifetime or yours. 

A transit tax of ½ cent sales tax added to the already approved ½ sales tax that was added a few years ago will bring our sales tax to 9 ½ cents. This is only the beginning. There are additional taxes being proposed by the City and County of Los Angeles. I say enough with the pie in the sky solutions. 

I urge you to read the ballot measure on the ½ Cent Transportation Sales Tax and VOTE NO. We must send a message to City Hall and say NO NEW Taxes …Vote NO on Measure M.

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

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD--It's that time of year when the new neighborhood council members are trying to learn the ropes. Some do admirably well. Some not so much. The worst actors are the ones who think they already know everything. They figure they can get by on innate smarts without studying either the history of their organization or the nuts and bolts of parliamentary procedure. A committee meeting I attended the other evening demonstrated these points all too well. 

First a little glossary: When we take up a motion for discussion, it is said to be on the floor. When we decide to stop considering the motion, it goes back on the table. The use of such archaic sounding words is a matter of parliamentary history. These words may sound strange in the modern context, but they have the advantage that anywhere you go in the United States, you will be able to understand it when people use them. 

So there we were, sitting around the conference table. The group was discussing amending a motion which had been placed before us. The discussion wasn't very productive. We were all beginning to get the idea that we didn't have the information we needed to make a decision. The way to deal with this kind of problem is simply to remove the motion from consideration -- send it away to be taken up some other day, or possibly even forgotten entirely. 

This is what one of my colleagues did, by making a routine motion to Table the motion under consideration. (Technically speaking, the books refer to this as lay the motion on the table, but everybody understands Table as verbal shorthand.) This motion is not only routine, it is one of the most common of the ten or twelve that we ordinarily use. So what happened next? 

One of the newcomers objected to the motion to table, on the grounds that you couldn't do that while an amendment was being debated. Those of us who actually know something about parliamentary procedure just glanced at each other with raised eyebrows. I mean, you can search through the 700+ pages of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, and you won't find a rule like that. In fact, numerous (much shorter) textbooks on how to use Roberts Rules discuss the use of the motion to Table under all sorts of conditions including the one I have just described. 

So once again, for the zillionth time, a committee had to deal with a time wasting mistake, due solely to the fact that a participant was ignorant of standard parliamentary procedure. As a result, we all had to wait while the rules were explained. 

This, at least, was an innocent mistake. It was dealt with by other members of the committee taking the newby to school, so to speak, on what was legal. 

There is another kind of rule misinterpretation that is more serious, because it goes to the question of whether the rights of all participants are being defended. 

If you read through Roberts Rules of Order carefully, you will begin to understand the basic philosophical principal that is implicit in the entire structure. All participants are equal. There is a presiding officer (whether we call him/her the chair or the president), but that person is simply first among equals. A chair who is properly trained will preside over a meeting with the intention of defending the rights of all participants. This principal is superior to the principal that the chair should also help the meeting to run efficiently. It's nice to do both, but violating peoples' rights to gain efficiency is not acceptable. 

No right is more fundamental than the right to be heard during a discussion. As parents say to children, "Everyone gets a turn, but you have to wait for your turn." That's the way it is supposed to be in a neighborhood council meeting -- everyone should be allowed a turn to speak. A neighborhood council is a government entity in which all participants are, by definition, equal. For some reason, a lot of elected governing board members fail to realize this truth. 

So there we were on another topic which also had engendered considerable discussion. One member of the committee apparently decided that he had heard enough debate and wanted it to stop. He said, "I call the question." What happened next is one of the most widespread errors that happen in meetings run under Roberts Rules. The effect, had it not been stopped by wiser heads, would have been to disenfranchise a number of other people who wanted to speak. 

The chair, new to the position, took the motion to call the question as having legal authority, and immediately called for the committee to vote on the item under discussion. This was ignorant, and wrong in many ways. The most egregious offense was that the call for an immediate vote infringed on the rights of several people who were intending to speak. Not only that, but some of us had not spoken on the issue at all up to that point. 

Let's review the legitimate use of this motion, which won't take long. 

The motion to call the question is referred to in the books as Call for the Previous Question, an archaism which translates as, "I move that we stop debate immediately and vote on the motion right now." It's a way for a supermajority of a board to deal with truly time-wasting conduct. Suppose your group has been debating a motion that clearly has strong majority support, but a couple of individuals are stalling by raising amendments, one after the other. Each amendment in turn has to be considered and then voted down. Eventually, most of the board and all of the audience realize that there is overwhelming support for the motion and what is transpiring is just a waste of time. 

It is at this point that the motion, "Mr Chairman, I call the question" is appropriate. But there is a complication here. The motion, if passed, would infringe on the rights of the two opposition members to continue to offer amendments. Ordinarily, their right to offer amendments is not limited. For this reason, the motion to call the question requires three things: 1) a second 2) an immediate vote on the motion without further debate and 3) a two-thirds vote of all those present and voting. 

Roberts Rules is pretty solid on protecting the rights of the minority. The requirement for a two-thirds vote is fairly widespread in the rules structure, mainly dealing with moments when the rights of some minority will be limited. 

For some reason, my neighborhood council has to reteach the rules for calling the question every year. Apparently there are other organizations which fail to teach its proper implementation. The misuse of the motion to call the question is to give any one person a veto power over other people speaking. 

Some people like to argue that Roberts Rules is inadequate because it allows one person who knows the rules to lord it over everyone else. I think this argument is completely backwards. As our committee meeting showed, it is the ignorance of the rules that wastes time and allows the ignorant to attempt to control matters inappropriately. The remedy is not to abandon Roberts Rules. The rules provide the level playing field we all like to talk about. The remedy is to teach the rules to your board. 

By the way, I put my time where my mouth is when it comes to Roberts Rules. I will come to your governing board and teach you how to make your meetings shorter and more efficient by the proper use of parliamentary procedure. It takes about 90 minutes.

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