NEW GEOGRAPHY--When comparing the health of state economies, we usually look at employment and incomes. Another critical indicator worth closer attention is where Americans choose to move, and the places they are leaving.

American history has been shaped by migration, from England to the Eastern seaboard, and later from the Atlantic Coast toward the Midwest, and later to the Pacific.

Our analysis of Internal Revenue Service data from 2014, the most recent available, give us an important snapshot of where Americans are moving now, and, equally important, a breakdown by income levels and age.

The Big Winners: The Sunbelt and Texas

To measure the states that are most attractive to Americans on the move, we developed an “attraction” ratio that measures the number of domestic in-migrants per 100 out-migrants. A state that has a rating of 100 would be perfectly balanced between those leaving and coming.

Overall, the biggest winner — both in absolute numbers and in our ranking —  is Texas. In 2014 the Lone Star State posted a remarkable 156 attraction ratio, gaining 229,000 more migrants than it lost, roughly twice as many as went to No. 3 Florida, which clocked an impressive 126.7 attraction ratio.

Most of the top gainers of domestic migrants are low-tax, low-regulation states, including No. 2 South Carolina, with an attraction ratio of 127.3, as well as No. 5 North Dakota, and No. 7 Nevada. These states generally have lower housing costs than the states losing the most migrants.

But it’s not simply a matter of taxes and regulations. There are three states in our top 10 with mixed reputations for red tape and taxes: Oregon (fourth), Colorado (sixth), and Washington (eighth). These are states that have thriving information  and professional business services sectors, which offer higher wages. And though these states have high housing costs, they are well below California’s. For Californians, the employment opportunities available in Seattle, Denver and Portland, combined with the prospect of huge profits from selling the house, makes moving particularly attractive.

The Biggest Losers

High costs go a long way to explain which states are losing the most migrants. At the top, or rather, the bottom of the list is New York State, which had an abysmal 65.4 attraction ratio in 2014 and lost by far the most net migrants, an astounding 126,000 people. Close behind was Illinois, a high tax, high regulation, and low growth disaster area. In 2014 the Land of Lincoln had an abysmal 67.2 attraction ratio, losing a net 82,000 domestic migrants.

Most of the other top people-exporting states are in the Northeast and Midwest. But the West, traditionally the magnet for newcomers, now also has some major losers, including Alaska (80.1), New Mexico (84.6) and Wyoming (88.6). The outflow for some of these western states may get worse, unless prices for natural resources like coal, oil, gas and minerals do not recover in the near future.

And then there is the big enchilada, California. For generations, the Golden State developed a reputation as the ultimate destination of choice for millions of Americans. No longer. Since 2000 the state has lost 1.75 million net domestic migrants, according to Census Bureau estimates. And even amid an economic recovery, the pattern of outmigration continued in 2014, with a loss of 57,900 people and an attraction ratio of 88.5, placing the Golden State 13th from the bottom, well behind longtime people exporters Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Louisiana. California was a net loser of domestic migrants in all age categories.

Where’s The Money Going?

Some analysts have claimed that the people leaving California are mostly poor while the more affluent are still coming. The 2014 IRS data shows something quite different. To be sure the Golden State, with its deindustrializing economy and high costs, is losing many people making under $50,000 a year, but it is also losing people earning over $75,000, with the lowest attractiveness ratios among those making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, slightly less than those with incomes of $10,000 to $25,000.

Overall, many of the most affluent states are the ones hemorrhaging high-income earners the most rapidly. As in overall migration, New York sets the standard, with the highest outmigration of high income earners (defined as annual income over $200,000) relative to in-migrants (attraction ratio: 53). New York is followed closely by Illinois, the District of Columbia and New Jersey, which are all losing the over-$200,000-a-year crowd at a faster pace than California.

The big winners in terms of affluent migration tend to be historically poorer states, mainly in the Sun Belt and the Intermountain West. Florida has an attraction ratio for people earning over $200,000 a year of 223, the highest in the nation, followed by South Carolina, Montana, Idaho and North Carolina. Four of the states with the highest attraction rate among the highest income earners were in the top five in net in–migration of seniors, many of whom are taking nice nest eggs with them. South Carolina scored the highest, followed by Delaware, Idaho, North Carolina and Florida.

Where Young Adults And Families Are Headed

Much of the discussion about millennial migration tends to focus on high-cost, dense urban regions such as those that dominate New York, Massachusetts and, of course, California. Yet the IRS data tells us a very different story about migrants aged 26 to 34. Here it’s Texas in the lead, and by a wide margin, followed by Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. Once again New York and Illinois stand out as the biggest losers in this age category.

Perhaps more important for the immediate future may be the migration of people at the peak of their careers, those aged 35 to 54. These are also the age cohorts most likely to be raising children. The top four are the same in both cohorts. Among the 35 to 44 age group, it’s Texas, followed by Florida,  South Carolina and North Dakota. Among the 45 to 54 cohort, Texas, followed by South Carolina, Florida and North Dakota.

Far more than the often anecdote-laden accounts seen in the media, the IRS data provides us with a glimpse of a demographic future dominated by those states that are either retirement havens or lower cost places that can compete with the traditional high-income economies such as Massachusetts, California, New York and New Jersey. As millennials age, along with their boomer parents, the data gives us a vision of a changing America which is likely to see a greater dispersal of population, income and demographic groups to many places that, like Texas, Florida or South Carolina, have been considered backwaters but now seem destined to emerge as shapers of our national future.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com where this piece was first posted. Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international pubilc policy and demographics firm.)

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-This past Friday, Brock Turner walked out of jail after serving just three months of a controversial six-month sentence, released under a law that credits inmates for time served. The now 21-year old former Stanford swimmer and Judge Aaron Persky who sentenced him were at the center of a swarming controversy after Persky’s light sentencing. 

Turner was found guilty in March of three felony counts: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person and penetration of an unconscious person. Deputy District Attorney Alaleh Kianerci argued that Turner should receive a six-year sentence in state prison as he lacked remorse and because the victim was particularly vulnerable in her unconscious state. 

Perksy, however, chose to follow the probation department’s recommendation of probation and county jail time, citing the assailant’s lack of criminal history, his display of “sincere remorse” and that alcohol had impaired his judgement. “I think you have to take the whole picture in terms of what impact imprisonment has on a specific individual’s life. And the impact statements that have been [submitted] … [and the] character letters that have been submitted, do show a huge collateral consequence for Mr. Turner based on the conviction,” Persky wrote. 

Updates: 

Judge Persky 

Almost a million people signed a recall petition for the judge, while those supporting him argued that censoring judges for sentencing goes down a dangerous slope. Per Persky’s request, the judge has been transferred to the civil division by the end of September and will no longer hear criminal cases. 

Brock Turner 

Turner has returned to his family’s Dayton, Ohio home where his parents have been asking local police to monitor protests in their neighborhood. He will have five days from his release to register as a sex offender and must re-register every 90 days. His image, conviction information and address will be publicly available on Ohio’s sex offender registry. All those living within 1,250 feet of his address will be notified by mail of his presence and he will not be able to live within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds. 

Turner will also need to complete three years of probation and enter a sex offender management program for a minimum of one year but as long as three years. This is typically centered on group counseling led by psychologists based on cognitive behavior treatment to address anti-social behavior leading to distorted thinking about sex, relationships and empathy. 

As a registered sex offender, he must notify law enforcement of changes in address, employment, education schedule, vehicles, phone numbers, volunteer work and Internet access such as user names and passwords for emails, websites and social networking sites. Turner was expelled from Stanford and banned by USA Swimming for life.

Stanford University 

While Stanford University has issued an official statement just weeks following the rape that the university has participated in the investigation, encouraged bystanders to act and that the university had a zero tolerance for sexual assault and rape, the university has joined in on the focus of the case on intoxication as a “cause” of sexual assault. 

As of late August, the University has placed a ban on liquors 20 percent alcohol by volume (40 proof) at undergraduate gatherings. The ban extends to containers of hard-alcohol that are 750 ml or larger in student residences. Stanford director of the Office of Alcohol Policy and Education Ralph Castro called the new policy a “harm reduction strategy,” a tactic that many see as capitulating to Turner’s assessment that alcohol and the party culture are to blame for his assault, denying his personal responsibility. 

State Legislature Passes Mandatory Sentencing Bill in Response to Turner Case 

The State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2888 last Monday, in direct response to the Turner sentencing. If signed by Governor Brown, the bill would expand the types of sexual assault convictions subject to mandatory sentencing. 

By amending the penal code, the bill would bar judges from granting probation for crimes that include two for which Turner had been convicted: sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object (his finger) and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. Under the new law, both would require mandatory three year prison sentences. 

The third crime of which Turner was convicted, intent to commit (penile) rape would be at the discretion of judges but would generally place a two-year prison sentence on the assailant. 

While mandatory sentencing may seem to be a solution to cases like Turner’s, the end result might not necessarily be the answer. Our justice system tends to skew in favor of those who can afford legal representation. Many criminal defendants are forced to plead out their cases due to inadequate funding for public defenders. Turner was able to mount a rigorous defense unavailable to many on trial. Mica Doctoroff of the ACLU Northern California regards AB 2888 as “hasty-policymaking” in response to a high profile case that would disproportionately impact communities of color. 

Another side to the sexual assault problem on college campuses and elsewhere is the low rate of conviction for sexual assaults. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), only about one in three sexual assault cases are reported to the police. Only 63 reports per 1,000 assaults lead to an arrest; 13 of those are referred to prosecutors and only seven lead to a felony conviction with only six rapists sentenced with incarceration. Thousands of rape kits go untested every year. 

The current fiscal environment means prosecutors are reluctant to take on cases that might not be a win. Even with mandatory minimum sentencing, rape and assault cases are still subject to prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion before the case ever makes it before a jury. While requiring mandatory minimum sentencing may seem to be an effective deterrent, the tactic may be less than ideal. 

We must continue the discussion about consent and improve training on sexual assault at police academies and law schools. We must continue work to change the culture that blames women for sexual assault. Teaching or encouraging women to follow safe practices and the culpability for rape and assault need to be seen as two separate issues. 

If a woman, for example, is intoxicated, that should not be seen as a green light to assault or mitigate the severity of the charge. We need to provide adequate funding to process rape kits and to conduct investigations, as well as support for the assaulted. Mandatory sentencing may not be the panacea it appears to be.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LABOR POLITICS-“The labor question, is, and for a long time must be, the paramount economic question in this country.” — Justice Louis Brandeis, 1904 

The labor question is back. After World War II, it seemed to many that widespread unionization and collective bargaining had made sure that the people who did the work in this country were getting a fair share of the wealth they created, and that through their unions working people had a substantial voice in the way our country was governed. 

But we live in a different world today. Only 11 percent of all American workers belong to a union, and less than 7 percent of private-sector workers are organized. Workers’ incomes have been stagnant for decades, and whatever gains have occurred in family income have gone entirely to the top of the wage structure, driving runaway inequality. At the same time, working people feel increasingly alienated from and betrayed by our political system. 

It wasn’t so long ago that very serious people denied that the economy was failing working people in America. But overwhelming data on inequality and wage stagnation marshalled by such economists as Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty and the team at the Economic Policy Institute have changed the narrative. Now defenders of the status quo of runaway inequality have shifted from saying there isn’t a problem to saying that, while there is a problem, NOTHING CAN BE DONE. The new line from the very serious people is that runaway inequality and stagnant wages are somehow the result of the unstoppable natural forces of technological change and globalization. 

There are two reasons to be suspicious of those who move so easily from denial to despair. First, basic economic theory tells us that when productivity rises, wages should rise as well. Technological progress should make the average person better off, not worse off. Second, globalization and technological change are not confined to English-speaking countries — yet since 1980 the United States and the United Kingdom have been total outliers in terms of wage stagnation and inequality among advanced societies. 

The data strongly supports what the American people say that they believe in poll after poll — that elites rigged the economic rules in our society to benefit themselves. That the United States adopted public policies — labor laws, trade rules, fiscal and monetary policies, immigration policies and tax policies — that ensured technological progress and globalization would benefit only a small number of Americans. 

The most dangerous moment for a democracy is if the people who do the work conclude they live in a democracy in name only. 

And so the labor question is back, and that question is: How can the people who do the work in America receive a fair share of the wealth we create, and how can our voices be heard in our politics, our society and our culture? 

The reason this question was so important to Justice Brandeis and at least as important to America today is that when working people are economically exploited and socially and politically marginalized, our economy and our society do not work. Our economy stagnates, our competitive position deteriorates and our politics become prey to purveyors of extremism and hate. And the most dangerous moment for a democracy is if the people who do the work conclude they live in a democracy in name only, where the ballot box is just window dressing for a process controlled by the rich. 

The labor question pervades our public policy debates — but if you don’t listen carefully, you might miss it. When you hear economists bemoan “secular stagnation” and “demand shortfalls,” they are talking about the labor question. They are talking about stagnant wages and loss of worker bargaining power. 

When you hear business leaders and engineers talk about the crisis in infrastructure and education — about how no one can find the political will to raise the taxes to fund the investments we must make to be competitive — they may not know it but they are talking about the labor question. Throughout modern history, in every successful society, organized workers provide the political power to drive public investment. 

When you hear business leaders complain they can’t find skilled workers, and can’t afford to train their workforces, they, too, are talking about the labor question. Individual employers never train their workers adequately — it’s not economically rational to do it. Where workers are organized, together with their employers they can solve the collective action problem of training. 

That’s how it still works today in highly unionized parts of our economy, and that’s how it works in countries that compete with us like Germany. But increasingly, as private-sector union density falls, adequate training is the exception rather than the rule. 

When you hear concern from all quarters about rising extremism and hate, you are hearing a conversation about the labor question. 

In America, the labor question has always been intertwined with issues of race and gender. Sometimes people talk as if the working class is made up of white men. The reality is that the majority of people in jobs paying less than the median wage are women and people of color, and the economic devastation in deindustrialized predominantly African-American communities like St. Louis and Baltimore is part of the labor question, as is the denial of rights to undocumented workers.

And so when you hear concern from all quarters about rising extremism and hate, you are hearing a conversation about the labor question. 

When working people organize around their economic interests, and when public policy supports working people having an independent voice in our politics and our society — then working people themselves can ensure we are not left behind, that our issues are heard and addressed.

When we are marginalized, ignored and silenced, some of us become desperate, like anyone else would. Some of us give up on our democratic system, and some of us are tempted to turn on each other. The labor question is not just economics. Solving it is fundamental to the health of our democracy. 

The 20^th century was called the “American Century” fundamentally because we addressed the labor question democratically and we did it first — propelling the US out of the Great Depression and enabling us to be the Arsenal of Democracy.  Our 20^th-century economic competitors were torn apart by the social conflicts associated with the labor question, and they became the battlefields of World War II. 

In the 21^st-century global economy, those countries that can solve the labor question will be able to sustain broad-based prosperity. Those that do not will face social instability and national decline.

The labor question has an answer. When the people who do the work in our society have collective voice through unions — democratically run workplace organizations — then working people have a way of being heard when the big decisions get made in the workplace and in public life. 

But the labor question has many false answers as well. In this presidential election year of 2016, all the false answers are on display — racism, faith in the benevolence of the super rich, and appeals to return to the social order of the past. And so are the real answers — standing up to those who would divide us, bringing working people together, strengthening worker bargaining power and worker voice, and using that voice and that power to drive investment in our nation’s future. The choice could not be clearer or more urgent.

(Damon A. Silvers is the Director of Policy and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO. Published first at BillMoyers.com. This was also published by CommonDreams.org.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CORRUPTION WATCH-Eric Michael Garcetti is the City of Los Angeles’ current mayor. Garcetti was first inflicted upon us in 2001, as councilmember for Hollywood’s Council District 13. Starting in 2006, Garcetti was President of the City Council until 2012, when he stepped down to run for Mayor. Thus, Eric Garcetti is LA’s longest serving elected official. 

When Garcetti arrived, Los Angeles was progressive and full of hope. It was the #1 destination city in the entire nation. Now, Los Angeles is more than half way through its second decade of decline. We have gone from the most desirable urban place to live to the least desirable. 

For some reason, Angelenos fail to understand the connection between massive corruption and LA's shrinking influence in American life. They are oblivious to the fact that corruption drives away business. When businesses leave, we lose workers; and with the departure of professional and middle class business workers, our tax base suffers. 

Employers know what is happening, even though Angelenos are sleep walking through life. One reason for the different perceptions is that most employers look at mathematics when making decisions. Angelenos, on the other hand, look at traffic. If traffic is bearable, then things must be OK. 

Angelenos who realize that LA has the worse traffic -- not only in America but also Europe -- lull themselves into complacency thinking that more subways will solve traffic congestion. 

What Angelenos do not realize is that traffic improves when people move away and the type of people we lose is very important. Los Angeles no longer attracts the smartest and brightest in the leading sectors of the economy. We have fallen to #60. Our low ranking is not due just to our density and high cost of living. San Francisco places #2 and it, too, is dense with a high cost of living. New York ranks #14 and Chicago is #43. Yes, with its cold, wind, snow, and incessant murders, Chicago still beats out LA. Check out this recent article on NewGeography.com by Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires. 

When employers look at an urban area, they assess a multitude of factors but they always project decades ahead. They do not want to relocate again in 10 to 20 years. They seek stability and permanence. They want a place to "bet on" and Los Angeles is a bad bet! 

We have a mayor and city council that wage war on the vital facets of the good life which all significant businesses need in order to attract and retain highly qualified employers: (1) decent single family homes and (3) decent schools. 

After fifteen years of Garcetti, we need a new mayor. The next mayoral election is March 2017, which in political life is just around the corner. At that time, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will also be on the ballot so that we can all focus on Garcetti’s manic obsession to Manhattanize Los Angeles. 

But who could run? Yikes! There is no one. Here are three who have bellied up to the bar. 

First, we have Michael Schwartz. Ho hum, there is really nothing bad to say about Michael. 

Second, we have YJ Draiman, who is a curious person. His son, David’s, father was born in Israel, but apparently YJ was not. How does that work? Enough with all the closets already. Oh yes, here’s what YJ says about himself: “YJ Draiman is a former Real Estate developer with over 20 years’ experience; he has worked extensively in gentrifying neighborhoods.” Wow, with the NII and YI on the same ballot, this should make the election interesting. (NII = Neighborhood Integrity Initiative to slow down development corruptionism in LA.) 

Third running is Steve Barr, who has apparently confused the City Council with the School Board. Why? 

The one thing these three candidates have in common is that none of them will be LA’s next mayor. That leaves us searching the LA City Council for someone. 

Bonin? A nice guy who also believes that LA should become Manhattan and that an annual subway deficit of $8 billion would be a good idea. He wants more bike lanes in major thoroughfares to maximize the air pollution that cyclists inhale and to further aggravate traffic congestion. 

Koretz? He’s been around and has too much baggage. 

Krekorian? He tore down Marilyn Monroe’s home rather than let it be moved to a safe place. He’s dead meat. 

What could a new mayor do? 

Facing the LA City Council which operates as a criminal enterprise in violation of Penal Code § 86, the mayor has very little power. He can veto projects but with “unanimous voting,” anything can be passed. He can appoint certain department heads, but developers will still purchase bogus EIRs which the City Council will approve. 

The only real power a new mayor would have is what Teddy Roosevelt used so well -- the bully pulpit. A new mayor would have the platform to advocate for reform. The City Council structure needs to be re-done so that vote trading is structurally impossible. The mayor could place “Quality of Life” as Los Angeles’ top priority rather than its current goal: the City’s Manhattanization and developers’ profits. 

No mayoral candidate is thinking of making Quality of Life even a factor in the City’s decisions and virtually no Angeleno is bold enough to set forth the radical idea that people matter. Instead, there is near universal agreement that we need to destroy the homes of poor people and give billions of dollars to real estate developers. Welcome to favela LA.

(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.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams. -cw

THE BROWN ACT IS WRONG -- According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. House of Representatives has met behind closed doors four times during the past 186 years—in 1979, 1980, 1983, and 2008.  That’s about one closed session per half-century. By contrast, the LA City Council and the LA County Board of Supervisors average about one closed session per week. 

Since August 1st, the City Council has placed nineteen items on its closed-session agenda. This coming week the Board of Supervisors will meet behind closed doors three times in a 24 hour period. Why all the secrecy?  

Congress managed to keep its debate open during both World Wars. All it takes to send our local leaders into the bunker is an update from their real estate agent. Why? Because the Brown Act permits them to do so? 

The truth is that the Brown Act is wrong to allow for any exceptions to California’s open meeting requirements. The sky will not fall if ‘pending litigation’ or ‘real estate acquisitions’ or any of the other issues deemed top-secret by the Brown Act are discussed during open sessions of the City Council or County Board of Supervisors. On the contrary, doing away with closed-session meetings will strike a blow to those who would abuse the public’s trust. 

Into closed-session is the first place the LA City Council scurried in 2012 upon learning from HUD that scores of developers under the City’s purview were defrauding taxpayers, by taking federal money designated for the inclusion in affordable housing projects of apartments for people with disabilities, and then willfully neglecting to build those apartments.  

Disabled residents reported going to apartment buildings that were advertised as accessible, according to the LA Times, only to find they weren’t. HUD warned the Council that it had ten days to agree to voluntary corrective compliance or face possible federal enforcement action. 

Rather than comply with HUD’s directive, the City Council embarked on a four year legal misadventure which entailed four major lawsuits, including the one recently settled by the city for $200 million ($20 million of which is going to the plaintiff’s attorneys). All this in addition to at least $6 million in legal bills paid to the white-shoe law firm of Byrne and Nixon, not to mention the in-house costs to the City Attorney’s office.   

This entire horror story played-out in a series of closed-session meetings which denied the public its right to weigh in on the matter.  

Would most Angelenos have wanted the City Council to comply with the original directive from HUD instead of fighting it in court? Would they have considered that the prudent and ethical thing to do? It’s not for us to say, but it wasn’t for the City Council to say either back in 2012. By going into closed-session and deciding what they thought was best for the public, the City Council cheated Angelenos. 

What’s more, it wasn’t just one set of closed-session meetings by which the Council waged its legal war. As we will discuss in a future article, the Council used a series of underhanded tricks to conceal the huge amounts of money it was pouring into its legal battle. Instead of keeping all actions of the Council in the matter in one Council file, they dispersed it into at least five separate files—all under different names, making it virtually impossible for the public to know what was going on.   

It’s time to put an end to closed-session meetings.

(Eric Preven is a CityWatch contributor and a Studio City based writer-producer and public advocate for better transparency in local government. He was a candidate in the 2015 election for Los Angeles City Council, 2nd District. Joshua Preven is a CityWatch contributor and a teacher who lives in Los Angeles.)-cw

THE GUSS REPORT--Is Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti willing to play dirty pool in order to get significant union money and votes for his re-election as well as for his anticipated future campaigns for either Governor or Senator? (Photo above left: Mayor Garcetti) 

Does anyone doubt that the Los Angeles Times – formerly known as the newspaper of record for Southern California – is willing to aid and abet him in that mission? 

It certainly seems so in reading the Times’ August 24^th article by Paul Pringle and Ben Welsh entitled “LAFD Fire Marshal Steps Down after Criticism that He Cut Corners on Safety.”   

Taken at face value the Times made it seem that that man, John Vidovich, a 35-year Los Angeles City Fire Department Deputy Chief assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau is an incompetent who put firefighters at-risk until the vast majority of them banded together to demand his ouster. 

But you know that the story could never be that simple. Life dictates that it isn’t. 

The Pringle and Welsh story cries out with questions: 

1. What did you find out when you investigated whether the Firefighters’ Union was upset because the waste, fraud and abuse exposed by Vidovich embarrassed some of its members, and efficiencies he recommended cut down on overtime that, while saving taxpayers’ money, cost the firefighters overtime that in some cases could be as much as $100,000 per year each? 

You did investigate that, didn’t you? 

2. You wrote that the Times’ investigation found about 6,800 buildings were months or even years overdue for an inspection.   Where in your article did you state that, when Vidovich first took over the position, that figure was much higher…10,000 buildings with overdue inspections, and that his efforts in just two years cut that original figure down by 32%? 

It’s kind of relevant, yes? 

3. You wrote “the union that represents inspectors and other firefighters earlier this year voted to approve a resolution of ‘no confidence’ in Vidovich.”   Exactly how many people (of the 3,100 firefighters in the department) took part in that vote, and exactly how many of them voted “no confidence?” 

Let’s just say that the room in which the vote allegedly took place is rather small. 

4. How did the union’s donation of $350,000 to Mayor Garcetti’s re-election campaign, and to those of Councilmembers up-for-re-election, impact the decision to move Vidovich? The donation announcement was posted verrrry shortly after the decision to move him was announced. 

5. Did you investigate whether any Councilmembers came to Vidovich’s defense only to be threatened by the union with the loss of their share of those campaign donations funds if he or she did not shut their mouth? 

Call me if you want to discuss specifics on this. 

6. You wrote “through a department spokesman, Vidovich and (Fire Chief) Terrazas declined interview requests.”What effort did you make to contact them directly to determine if that is true? 

7. If City Hall was willing to paint Vidovich as an incompetent, did you determine whether he received any awards for his work – like innovation awards – to determine whether or not he was being railroaded? 

8. Did you receive a copy of the letter written to Chief Terrazas supporting Vidovich, signed by six of his fellow LAFD Captains? Isn’t this relevant to your story, or does balance, fairness and accuracy in journalism not come into play anymore? 

9. What exactly transpired when the LAFD recently sat down with the major studios because they felt they were being over-assigned uniformed inspectors on sets that do not have any pyrotechnics when a walk-thru inspection would be sufficient? 

10. And how exactly did the union rank and file respond when it was no longer allowed to work on its Paid Days Off, a Vidovich recommendation approved by Terrazas, so that they could bank those days and get time-and-a-half from the taxpayers? 

And then there are the documents which expose the sheer fraud … like the one in which an inspector allegedly billed for hours for inspecting a building that was torn down years prior? Wouldn’t it be a good time to look closer at this story and see whether what you were fed by Garcetti and his minions is truthful? 

It would appear the full Fire Marshall Vidovich story has yet to be told. Consider this an invitation to stay tuned.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer and a CityWatch, Huffington Post and KFI-AM640 contributor. He blogs on humane issues at ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/ and can be reached at @TheGussReport. Opinions he expresses are not necessarily those of CityWatch.)

-cw